Thermoregulatory, Perceptual, Cognitive, And Motor Responses During A Winter Firefighting Intervention In A Cold Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Firefighters are exposed to cold during winter interventions in Québec where the average temperature from December to March is approximately -13 to -5 °C with average minimum temperature of nearly -15 °C in the main urban areas. These environmental conditions can be detrimental to health and safety at work especially when firefighters are in defensive mode, which is common, to carry out different tasks outside the building that are generally less physically demanding. PURPOSE: To characterize the variation in 1) thermoregulatory, 2) perceptual, 3) cognitive and 4) motor responses resulting from cold exposure during a firefighting simulation. METHODS: Three counterbalanced visits exposed participants to three different ambient temperatures (A: 17 °C, B: 0 °C and C: -17 °C) at rest for 60 minutes following a firefighting simulation in a thermoneutral environment (22.6 ± 0.5 °C). The firefighting simulation consisted of a 25-minute effort period on a treadmill representative of the effort-rest cycles where specific firefighting tasks were performed. The variation in rectal and skin temperature, comfort perception, cognitive performance, manual dexterity, and grip strength between pre-firefighting and the end of the 60-minute cold exposure was measured. RESULTS: Eighteen (18) healthy adults (one female) (age: 25 ± 3 years) completed all visits. No significant difference was observed in rectal temperature variation (A: 0.26 ± 0.23; B: 0.21 ± 0.23; C: 0.09 ± 0.33 °C; interaction P = 0.11). Mean skin (A: -0.48 ± 1.39; B: -2.87 ± 0.98; C: -5.64 ± 1.53 °C) and finger temperature decrease (A: 0.28 ± 2.75; B: -13.53 ± 4.62; C: -24.14 ± 4.24 °C) was significantly greater in cold environments (interaction P < 0.01). Discomfort perception was also greater in cold environments (interaction P < 0.01). Time variation to complete cognitive tasks was not significantly different (all tasks P > 0.20). Variation in manual dexterity test completion time (A: -6.66 ± 15.78; B: -6.44 ± 17.05; C: 3.77 ± 16.22 s; interaction P = 0.30) and in grip strength (A: -4 ± 9; B: -2 ± 6; C: -3 ± 10 kg; interaction P = 0.68) was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Although the effects of cold exposure on thermoregulatory and perceptual responses are considerable, they do no seem to have been sufficient to induce a decline in cognitive and motor performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".