论文部分内容阅读
研究中国南北人群在中性环境下,生理适应的自主神经调节和主观评价差异。采用实验设计,遴选16名南方大学生和16名北方大学生,测试生理参数,包括皮肤温度、心率、心率变异性(HRV)、血容量(BVP)、肌电(EMG),填写主观问卷。实验结果发现:1)中性环境,北方人群感觉是舒适的,各项评价指标接近中性和适中,数据较集中;南方人群感觉稍热,评价数据较离散,但热舒适(TCV)(p=0.106>0.05)、可接受程度(p=0.838>0.05)等几个主观评价与北方人群相比没有显著差异,说明南方人群有较宽的热中性温度区和较好的环境忍耐力;2)南北人群在中性环境下,平均皮肤温度有显著差异(p=0.006<0.05),且身体躯干部位的皮肤温度显著高于四肢皮肤温度(p=0.009<0.05;p=0.043<0.05;p=0<0.05;p=0<0.05;p=0.002<0.05),四肢皮肤温度差异不显著,肌电无显著差异(p=0.961>0.05)。心率和心率变异性的LF/HF比值,均值有差异,但不显著((p=0.265>0.05;p=0.618>0.05),但BVP有显著差异(p=0<0.05)。
To study the difference of autonomic nervous regulation and subjective evaluation of physiological adaptation in north and south of China in neutral environment. Using experimental design, 16 Southern college students and 16 Northern college students were selected to test physiological parameters including skin temperature, heart rate, heart rate variability (HRV), blood volume (BVP), EMG and fill in the subjective questionnaire. The results of the experiment showed that: 1) In the neutral environment, the northern people felt comfortable, the evaluation indexes were close to neutral and moderate, and the data were more concentrated; in the southern people, the feeling was slightly hotter, the evaluation data were more discrete, but the thermal comfort (TCV) = 0.106> 0.05), and there was no significant difference in acceptability (p = 0.838> 0.05) between the subjective evaluation and the northern population, indicating that the southern population has a wide range of thermal neutral temperature and good environmental endurance; (2) There was a significant difference in average skin temperature (P = 0.006 <0.05) between the north and south population in neutral environment, and the skin temperature in body trunk was significantly higher than that in limbs (p = 0.009 <0.05; p = 0.043 <0.05; p = 0 <0.05; p = 0 <0.05; p = 0.002 <0.05). There was no significant difference in skin temperature between limbs and no significant difference was found in EMG (p = 0.961> 0.05). The LF / HF ratios of heart rate and heart rate variability were significantly different but not significant (p = 0.265> 0.05; p = 0.618> 0.05), but BVP was significantly different (p = 0 <0.05).