| Title |
Thermal face protection delays finger cooling and improves thermal comfort during cold air exposure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, April 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-011-1931-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Catherine O’Brien, John W. Castellani, Michael N. Sawka |
| Abstract |
When people dress for cold weather, the face often remains exposed. Facial cooling can decrease finger blood flow, reducing finger temperature (T (f)). This study examined whether thermal face protection limits finger cooling and thereby improves thermal comfort and manual dexterity during prolonged cold exposure. T (f) was measured in ten volunteers dressed in cold-weather clothing as they stood for 60 min facing the wind (-15°C, 3 m s(-1)), once while wearing a balaclava and goggles (BAL), and once with the balaclava pulled down and without goggles (CON). Subjects removed mitts, wearing only thin gloves to perform Purdue Pegboard (PP) tests at 15 and 50 min, and Minnesota Rate of Manipulation (MRM) tests at 30 and 55 min. Subjects rated their thermal sensation and comfort just before the dexterity tests. T (f) decreased (p < 0.05 for time × trial interaction) by 15 min of cold exposure during CON (33.6 ± 1.4-28.7 ± 2.0°C), but not during BAL (33.2 ± 1.4-30.6 ± 3.2°C); and after 30 min T (f) remained warmer during BAL (23.3 ± 5.9°C) than CON (19.2 ± 3.5); however, by 50 min, T (f) was no different between trials (14.1 ± 2.7°C). Performance on PP fell (p < 0.05) by 25% after 50 min in both trials; MRM performance was not altered by cold on either trial. Subjects felt colder (p < 0.05) and more uncomfortable (p < 0.05) during CON, compared to BAL. Thermal face protection was effective for maintaining warmer T (f) and thermal comfort during cold exposure; however, local cooling of the hands during manual dexterity tests reduced this physiological advantage, and performance was not improved. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 10 | 20% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,343,315
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1,009
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,106
of 120,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#12
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 120,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.