A comparison between conductive and infrared devices for measuring mean skin temperature at rest, during exercise in the heat, and recovery.

PURPOSE:Skin temperature assessment has historically been undertaken with conductive devices affixed to the skin. With the development of technology, infrared devices are increasingly utilised in the measurement of skin temperature. Therefore, our purpose was to evaluate the agreement between four s...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Aaron J E Bach, Ian B Stewart, Alice E Disher, Joseph T Costello
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2015-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4319934?pdf=render
id doaj-ecab1435e28d4b22a901d6a6fd6c6172
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ecab1435e28d4b22a901d6a6fd6c61722020-11-25T02:33:49ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032015-01-01102e011790710.1371/journal.pone.0117907A comparison between conductive and infrared devices for measuring mean skin temperature at rest, during exercise in the heat, and recovery.Aaron J E BachAaron J E BachIan B StewartAlice E DisherJoseph T CostelloPURPOSE:Skin temperature assessment has historically been undertaken with conductive devices affixed to the skin. With the development of technology, infrared devices are increasingly utilised in the measurement of skin temperature. Therefore, our purpose was to evaluate the agreement between four skin temperature devices at rest, during exercise in the heat, and recovery. METHODS:Mean skin temperature ([Formula: see text]) was assessed in thirty healthy males during 30 min rest (24.0 ± 1.2°C, 56 ± 8%), 30 min cycle in the heat (38.0 ± 0.5°C, 41 ± 2%), and 45 min recovery (24.0 ± 1.3°C, 56 ± 9%). [Formula: see text] was assessed at four sites using two conductive devices (thermistors, iButtons) and two infrared devices (infrared thermometer, infrared camera). RESULTS:Bland-Altman plots demonstrated mean bias ± limits of agreement between the thermistors and iButtons as follows (rest, exercise, recovery): -0.01 ± 0.04, 0.26 ± 0.85, -0.37 ± 0.98°C; thermistors and infrared thermometer: 0.34 ± 0.44, -0.44 ± 1.23, -1.04 ± 1.75°C; thermistors and infrared camera (rest, recovery): 0.83 ± 0.77, 1.88 ± 1.87°C. Pairwise comparisons of [Formula: see text] found significant differences (p < 0.05) between thermistors and both infrared devices during resting conditions, and significant differences between the thermistors and all other devices tested during exercise in the heat and recovery. CONCLUSIONS:These results indicate poor agreement between conductive and infrared devices at rest, during exercise in the heat, and subsequent recovery. Infrared devices may not be suitable for monitoring [Formula: see text] in the presence of, or following, metabolic and environmental induced heat stress.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4319934?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Aaron J E Bach
Aaron J E Bach
Ian B Stewart
Alice E Disher
Joseph T Costello
spellingShingle Aaron J E Bach
Aaron J E Bach
Ian B Stewart
Alice E Disher
Joseph T Costello
A comparison between conductive and infrared devices for measuring mean skin temperature at rest, during exercise in the heat, and recovery.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Aaron J E Bach
Aaron J E Bach
Ian B Stewart
Alice E Disher
Joseph T Costello
author_sort Aaron J E Bach
title A comparison between conductive and infrared devices for measuring mean skin temperature at rest, during exercise in the heat, and recovery.
title_short A comparison between conductive and infrared devices for measuring mean skin temperature at rest, during exercise in the heat, and recovery.
title_full A comparison between conductive and infrared devices for measuring mean skin temperature at rest, during exercise in the heat, and recovery.
title_fullStr A comparison between conductive and infrared devices for measuring mean skin temperature at rest, during exercise in the heat, and recovery.
title_full_unstemmed A comparison between conductive and infrared devices for measuring mean skin temperature at rest, during exercise in the heat, and recovery.
title_sort comparison between conductive and infrared devices for measuring mean skin temperature at rest, during exercise in the heat, and recovery.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2015-01-01
description PURPOSE:Skin temperature assessment has historically been undertaken with conductive devices affixed to the skin. With the development of technology, infrared devices are increasingly utilised in the measurement of skin temperature. Therefore, our purpose was to evaluate the agreement between four skin temperature devices at rest, during exercise in the heat, and recovery. METHODS:Mean skin temperature ([Formula: see text]) was assessed in thirty healthy males during 30 min rest (24.0 ± 1.2°C, 56 ± 8%), 30 min cycle in the heat (38.0 ± 0.5°C, 41 ± 2%), and 45 min recovery (24.0 ± 1.3°C, 56 ± 9%). [Formula: see text] was assessed at four sites using two conductive devices (thermistors, iButtons) and two infrared devices (infrared thermometer, infrared camera). RESULTS:Bland-Altman plots demonstrated mean bias ± limits of agreement between the thermistors and iButtons as follows (rest, exercise, recovery): -0.01 ± 0.04, 0.26 ± 0.85, -0.37 ± 0.98°C; thermistors and infrared thermometer: 0.34 ± 0.44, -0.44 ± 1.23, -1.04 ± 1.75°C; thermistors and infrared camera (rest, recovery): 0.83 ± 0.77, 1.88 ± 1.87°C. Pairwise comparisons of [Formula: see text] found significant differences (p < 0.05) between thermistors and both infrared devices during resting conditions, and significant differences between the thermistors and all other devices tested during exercise in the heat and recovery. CONCLUSIONS:These results indicate poor agreement between conductive and infrared devices at rest, during exercise in the heat, and subsequent recovery. Infrared devices may not be suitable for monitoring [Formula: see text] in the presence of, or following, metabolic and environmental induced heat stress.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4319934?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT aaronjebach acomparisonbetweenconductiveandinfrareddevicesformeasuringmeanskintemperatureatrestduringexerciseintheheatandrecovery
AT aaronjebach acomparisonbetweenconductiveandinfrareddevicesformeasuringmeanskintemperatureatrestduringexerciseintheheatandrecovery
AT ianbstewart acomparisonbetweenconductiveandinfrareddevicesformeasuringmeanskintemperatureatrestduringexerciseintheheatandrecovery
AT aliceedisher acomparisonbetweenconductiveandinfrareddevicesformeasuringmeanskintemperatureatrestduringexerciseintheheatandrecovery
AT josephtcostello acomparisonbetweenconductiveandinfrareddevicesformeasuringmeanskintemperatureatrestduringexerciseintheheatandrecovery
AT aaronjebach comparisonbetweenconductiveandinfrareddevicesformeasuringmeanskintemperatureatrestduringexerciseintheheatandrecovery
AT aaronjebach comparisonbetweenconductiveandinfrareddevicesformeasuringmeanskintemperatureatrestduringexerciseintheheatandrecovery
AT ianbstewart comparisonbetweenconductiveandinfrareddevicesformeasuringmeanskintemperatureatrestduringexerciseintheheatandrecovery
AT aliceedisher comparisonbetweenconductiveandinfrareddevicesformeasuringmeanskintemperatureatrestduringexerciseintheheatandrecovery
AT josephtcostello comparisonbetweenconductiveandinfrareddevicesformeasuringmeanskintemperatureatrestduringexerciseintheheatandrecovery
_version_ 1724812203595399168