4.7 Article

Neurobehavioral approach for evaluation of office workers' productivity: The effects of room temperature

期刊

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 44, 期 8, 页码 1578-1588

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.10.004

关键词

Neurobehavioral approach; Evaluation; Office workers; Productivity; Signal detection theory

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50878125]
  2. 11th Five Plan National Science and Technology Support Project of China [2006BAJ02A06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Indoor environment quality has great influence on worker's productivity, and how to assess the effect of indoor environment on productivity remains to be the major challenge. A neurobehavioral approach was proposed for evaluation of office workers' productivity in this paper. The distinguishing characteristic of neurobehavioral approach is its emphasis on the identification and measurement of behavioral changes, for the influence of environment on brain functions manifests behaviorally. Therefore worker's productivity can be comprehensively evaluated by testing the neurobehavioral functions. Four neurobehavioral functions, including perception, learning and memory, thinking, and executive functions were measured with nine representative psychometric tests. The effect of room temperature on performance of neurobehavioral tests was investigated in the laboratory. Four temperatures (19 degrees C, 24 degrees C, 27 degrees C, and 32 degrees C) were investigated based on the thermal sensation from cold to hot. Signal detection theory was utilized to analyze response bias. It was found that motivated people could maintain high performance for a short time under adverse (hot or cold) environmental conditions. Room temperature affected task performance differentially, depending on the type of tasks. The proposed neurobehavioral approach could be worked to quantitatively and systematically evaluate office workers' productivity. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据