Perceptual versus physiological heat strain during exercise-heat stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The physiological strain index (PSI) has been proposed as a universally applicable measure of exercise-heat strain. Unknown is whether this index, based on normalized increases in core temperature and heart rate, is matched by its perceptual analog. METHODS: By using a similar mathematical construct to the PSI, the perceptions of thermal sensation and perceived exertion were combined, and the resultant index, PeSI, was compared with its physiological counterpart, denoted as PhSI, for the exercise-heat stress specific to this study. Twenty-six young and healthy subjects wore semi-impermeable clothing and walked (3.5 km.h(-1)) under hot conditions (40 degrees C and 30% RH) until exhaustion or when their core temperature reached 39.5 degrees C. Subjects were divided into two fitness groups [endurance trained (T) and untrained (U)] comprised of 10 men and 3 women each. U subjects had a higher level of body fatness (mean +/- SD 18.1 +/- 5.3 vs 12.6 +/- 4.5%; P=0.010) and a lower level of aerobic fitness ((.)VO(2max)= 43.6 +/- 3.8 +/- vs 59.0 +/- 6.2 mL.min(-1).kg(-1); P<0.001). RESULTS: During the first hour of exposure, there was no group difference in PhSI, yet T perceived their physiological strain (PeSI) lower than U (P=0.002). Further, the indices were not different for U whereas PhSI was higher than PeSI for T (P=0.008). At the end of the exposure, T had a higher value of PhSI than U (8.23 +/- 0.72 vs 6.74 +/- 1.47; = 0.002), but there was no group difference in PeSI. Although the indices were again not different for U, PhSI at the end was higher than PeSI for T (6.14 +/- 1.68; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: T underestimated and U consistently perceived their physiological strain, as defined by PhSI, in accordance with the measured increases in core temperature and heart rate throughout an exposure to uncompensable exercise-heat stress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".