ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
EEG response and productivity outcome under changing indoor environment.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) is a key determinant of health economics and specifically of productivity. In this research, we investigated the effect of three indoor environmental factors (temperature, acoustics, and luminescence) under four different scenarios to generate real-world evidence on how changes in the indoor environment affect productivity-related outcomes. Methods: Two levels of temperature (15-17 °C and 23-25 °C), two levels of acoustics (45 dB and 85 dB), and two levels of luminescence (300 lx and 700 lx) were tested. We recruited 30 undergraduate students and measured their brain activity using electroencephalogram (EEG) to obtain the Concentration Power Index (CPI) and cognitive response with the Grooved Pegboard Test (GPT). Individual's productivity was measured objectively by the CPI and subjectively by the GPT. Mixed-effects regression analysis indicated that all three indoor environmental factors have statistically significant effects on productivity. Results: Relatively higher temperature is associated with increased productivity, as indicated by higher CPI under the experimental conditions. Lower acoustics are associated with productivity as indicated by lower GPT under the conditions investigated. Luminescence is inversely associated with productivity, as higher luminescence has a statistically significant correlation with lower GPT within the tested luminescence range. However, males and females responded differently under the same indoor environment. Specifically, relatively lower temperature is associated with higher productivity for females and lower GPT for males. Higher acoustics and lower luminescence are associated with productivity for males. Discussion: Overall, the study results suggest that indoor temperature at 23-25 °C, acoustics at 45 dB, and luminescence at 700 lx provide a more favorable and productive environment for young adults. Louder environment and excessive lighting correspond to lower human capital approach (HCA) values and higher temperature corresponds to HCA again. With first-hand experimental results, this study provides real-world indoor environmental data and could provide scientific support for optimizing indoor environments and contributing to the future interior environment design to enhance human productivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.