Sensations evoked by thermal stimulation (temperature-related sensations) can be divided into two categories, "temperature sensation" and "thermal comfort." Although several studies have investigated regional differences in temperature sensation, less is known about the sensitivity differences in thermal comfort for the various body regions. In the present study, we examined regional differences in temperature-related sensations with special attention to thermal comfort. Healthy male subjects sitting in an environment of mild heat or cold were locally cooled or warmed with water-perfused stimulators. Areas stimulated were the face, chest, abdomen, and thigh. Temperature sensation and thermal comfort of the stimulated areas were reported by the subjects, as was whole body thermal comfort. During mild heat exposure, facial cooling was most comfortable and facial warming was most uncomfortable. On the other hand, during mild cold exposure, neither warming nor cooling of the face had a major effect. The chest and abdomen had characteristics opposite to those of the face. Local warming of the chest and abdomen did produce a strong comfort sensation during whole body cold exposure. The thermal comfort seen in this study suggests that if given the chance, humans would preferentially cool the head in the heat, and they would maintain the warmth of the trunk areas in the cold. The qualitative differences seen in thermal comfort for the various areas cannot be explained solely by the density or properties of the peripheral thermal receptors and thus must reflect processing mechanisms in the central nervous system.

We examined body core and skin temperatures and thermal comfort in young Japanese women suffering from unusual coldness (C, n = 6). They were selected by interview asking whether they often felt severe coldness even in an air-conditioned environment (20-26 degrees C) and compared with women not suffering from coldness (N, n = 6). Experiments were conducted twice for each subject: 120-min exposure at 23.5 degrees C or 29.5 degrees C after a 40-min baseline at 29.5 degrees C. Mean skin temperature decreased (P < 0.05) from 33.6 +/- 0.1 degrees C (mean +/- SE) to 31.1 +/- 0.1 degrees C and from 33.5 +/- 0.1 degrees C to 31.1 +/- 0.1 degrees C in C and N during the 23.5 degrees C exposure. Fingertip temperature in C decreased more than in N (P < 0.05; from 35.2 +/- 0.1 degrees C to 23.6 +/- 0.2 degrees C and from 35.5 +/- 0.1 degrees C to 25.6 +/- 0.6 degrees C). Those temperatures during the 29.5 degrees C exposure remained at the baseline levels. Rectal temperature during the 23.5 degrees C exposure was maintained at the baseline level in both groups (from 36.9 +/- 0.2 degrees C to 36.8 +/- 0.1 degrees C and 37.1 +/- 0.1 degrees C to 37.0 +/- 0.1 degrees C in C and N). The rating scores of cold discomfort for both the body and extremities were greater (P < 0.05) in C than in N. Thus the augmented thermal sensitivity of the body to cold and activated vasoconstriction of the extremities during cold exposure could be the mechanism for the severe coldness felt in C.

To investigate the characteristics of efferent projections from the preoptic area for the control of non‐shivering thermogenesis, we tested the effects of thermal or chemical stimulation, and transections of the preoptic area on the activity of interscapular brown adipose tissue in cold‐acclimated and non‐acclimated anaesthetized rats. Electrical stimulation of the ventromedial hypothalamic nucleus (VMH) elicited non‐shivering thermogenesis in the brown adipose tissue (BAT); warming the preoptic area to 41.5 °C completely suppressed the thermogenic response. Injections of d,l‐homocysteic acid (DLH; 0.5 mm, 0.3 μl) into the preoptic area also significantly attenuated BAT thermogenesis, whereas injections of control vehicle had no effect. Transections of the whole hypothalamus in the coronal plane at the level of the paraventricular nucleus induced rapid and large rises in BAT and rectal temperatures. This response was not blocked by pretreatment with indomethacin. The high rectal and BAT temperatures were sustained more than 1 h, till the end of the experiment. Bilateral knife cuts that included the medial forebrain bundle but not the paraventricular nuclei elicited similar rises in BAT and rectal temperatures. Medial knife cuts had no effect. These results suggest that warm‐sensitive neurones in the preoptic area contribute a larger efferent signal for non‐shivering thermogenesis than do cold‐sensitive neurones, and that the preoptic area contributes a tonic inhibitory input to loci involved with non‐shivering thermogenesis. This efferent inhibitory signal passes via lateral, but not medial, hypothalamic pathways.

We investigated the mechanism of starvation‐induced hypothermia in rats. Threshold core temperatures (Tcor) for tail skin vasodilatation and cold‐induced thermogenesis were determined after a 3 day starvation using a chronically implanted intravenous thermode. Food deprivation significantly lowered the threshold Tcor for heat production, but did not affect the heat loss threshold. Thermogenic response to a fall in Tcor below its threshold was enhanced by starvation. Preferred ambient temperatures (Tpref) and Tcor were measured before and during a 3 day starvation in a thermal gradient. The 3 day starvation significantly lowered Tcor only in the light phase of the day. The level of hypothermia was the same throughout the fasting period, while Tpref gradually increased during the 3 days of starvation. When rats were starved at a constant ambient temperature of 25°C (no thermal gradient), their Tcor levels were comparable with those of the rats kept in the thermal gradient. The results suggest that, in rats, hypothermia caused by starvation was not due to a decrement in thermogenic capability, but was due to a decrease in the threshold for the activation of thermogenesis.

No abstract

No abstract

We would like to emphasize about the system involved with homeostatic maintenance of body temperature. First, the primary mission of the thermoregulatory system is to defend core temperature (T (core)) against changes in ambient temperature (T (a)), the most frequently encountered disturbance for the system. T (a) should be treated as a feedforward input to the system, which has not been adequately recognized by thermal physiologists. Second, homeostatic demands from outside the thermoregulatory system may require or produce an altered T (core), such as fever (demand from the immune system). There are also conditions where some thermoregulatory effectors might be better not recruited due to demands from other homeostatic systems, such as during dehydration or fasting. Third, many experiments have supported the original assertion of Satinoff that multiple thermoregulatory effectors are controlled by different and relatively independent neuronal circuits. However, it would also be of value to be able to characterize strictly regulatory properties of the entire system by providing a clear definition for the level of regulation. Based on the assumption that T (core) is the regulated variable of the thermoregulatory system, regulated T (core) is defined as the T (core) that pertains within the range of normothermic T (a) (Gordon in temperature and toxicology: an integrative, comparative, and environmental approach, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2005), i.e., the T (a) range in which an animal maintains a stable T (core). The proposed approach would facilitate the categorization and evaluation of how normal biological alterations, physiological stressors, and pathological conditions modify temperature regulation. In any case, of overriding importance is to recognize the means by which an alteration in T (core) (and modification of associated effector activities) increases the overall viability of the organism.

In a previous study, we investigated the contribution of the surface of the face, chest, abdomen, and thigh to thermal comfort by applying local temperature stimulation during whole-body exposure to mild heat or cold. In hot conditions, humans prefer a cool face, and in cold they prefer a warm abdomen. In this study, we extended investigation of regional differences in thermal comfort to the neck, hand, soles, abdomen (Experiment 1), the upper and lower back, upper arm, and abdomen (Experiment 2). The methodology was similar to that used in the previous study. To compare the results of each experiment, we utilized the abdomen as the reference area in these experiments. Thermal comfort feelings were not particularly strong for the limbs and extremities, in spite of the fact that changes in skin temperature induced by local temperature stimulation of the limbs and extremities were always larger than changes that were induced in the more proximal body parts. For the trunk areas, a significant difference in thermal comfort was not observed among the abdomen, and upper and lower back. An exception involved local cooling during whole-body mild cold exposure, wherein the most dominant preference was for a warmer temperature of the abdomen. As for the neck and abdomen, clear differences were observed during local cooling, while no significant difference was observed during local warming. We combined the results for the current and the previous study, and characterized regional differences in thermal comfort and thermal preference for the whole-body surface.