Skin comfort of base layer wool garments. Part 3: The effect of ethnicity on perceptions of comfort using Chinese and Australian wearers

Abstract

There is commercial interest in designing wool next-to-skin garments specifically for the domestic Chinese market. However, the current understanding of comfort has largely been obtained from studies with Caucasian wearers and its applicability to Chinese wearers is unknown. A study was undertaken that examined the tactile, thermal and moisture-based sensations of two groups of untrained female wearers drawn from an urban population in Australia: 25 Chinese wearers who had been born in China to Chinese parents and 23 control wearers. Sensations were recorded during a series of activities in a range of controlled climatic environments while wearing next-to-skin garments made from different fiber types (wool and cashmere) and different fiber diameters (15.5–20.3 µm). There is no evidence from this experiment to conclude that Chinese wearers are more sensitive in their discomfort, prickle and scratch response than the control wearers. They recorded lower scores and smaller increases in scores in response to activity, environment and garment type than the control wearers. For sensations that relate to the feel of garments against the skin, the Chinese group experienced increased sensation in comparison to the control group during a range of motion activities, for the 20.3 µm wool garment only. For sensations that relate to the thermophysiological state of the body, the control group experienced increased sensation as temperature and activity rose in comparison to the Chinese group. These differences in the sensational responses to activity and environment were associated with similar responses in discomfort scores.

Keywords

next-to-skin discomfort comfort prickle Chinese ethnicity test protocol garment wool cashmere wearer sensation environment activity fiber type fiber diameter

The feeling of comfort generated by a garment is a fundamental and universal need for consumers and a significant role of garments is to provide an adequate level of comfort.¹ Comfort is both sensory and complex and is very difficult to define accurately.^1,2 Kilinc-Balci³ notes that the perception of clothing involves a very complex interaction of the wearer with clothing in the environment in which numerous physical stimuli and sensory perceptions are integrated and evaluated against past experiences. Thus, a comfort value cannot be assigned to a garment independent of the individual or the environment. Wong et al.⁴ have contended that comfort differs from person to person. It may also vary quite distinctly between groups of people depending on demographic factors, such as age, sex, race, culture and location, as these characteristics may change their physical traits and their previous experience.

As reported by Li,¹ work by Fuzek⁵ and Hatch⁶ identified that important aspects of garment comfort can be grouped into four major areas, namely (a) thermophysiological components (‘attainment of a comfortable thermal and wetness state’), (b) sensorial comfort (sensations arising when a garment touches the skin), (c) ease of body movement and (d) aesthetic appeal (‘perception of clothing by the eye, hand, ear and nose, which contributes to the overall well-being of the wearer’). Skin comfort, sometimes referred to as fabric-evoked prickle, is a component of sensory comfort. Garnsworthy et al.⁷ showed that fabric-evoked prickle, one of the most commonly encountered and disliked sensorial sensations, is the result of low-grade activity in the nociceptors (pain receptors). Since that early work a large number of publications have reported on the prickle and discomfort of fabrics and garments (summarized in the introduction of Part 2 of this series⁸). Most of these studies have been undertaken with Caucasian wearers. The authors are not aware of any research relating ethnic differences to the perception of skin comfort.

In the past two decades China has risen to be the world’s largest wool processor, accounting for 34.5% of the world’s wool at the garment manufacture stage in 2009.⁹ China’s huge wool processing industry services both its domestic market and the major export markets of Japan, the US and Europe. There is commercial interest in designing wool next-to-skin garments specifically for the domestic Chinese market. However, the current understanding and knowledge of prickle has largely been obtained from studies with Caucasian wearers and its applicability to Chinese wearers is unknown. In this context, the Cooperative Research Centre for Sheep Industry Innovation was interested in establishing if Chinese-born consumers are more sensitive to garment tactile properties and discomfort than non-Chinese-born consumers.

A number of studies have looked at differences in fabric handle between judges from different countries. Mahar et al.¹⁰ compared fabric handle assessments of 370 worsted-type men’s suiting materials from judges in Japan, Australia, New Zealand and India and found there was good agreement between judges with a background in the textile and related industries of their own country. However, Japanese judges preferred crisp and stiff summer fabric handle, while the other judges saw these as undesirable characteristics for summer-weight fabric handle. In another study,¹¹ male and female consumers from Korea and the USA rated seven white shirting fabrics using 18 adjectives that described aspects of fabric handle collected from focus groups. The authors concluded that there were possible cultural differences in the interpretation of 17 of the 18 adjectives as they applied to specific fabrics, but these differences could also be interpreted as differences in the perception of the sensations associated with each adjective between the ethnic groups. These studies indicated that there could be differences between ethnic groups with respect to perceptions of garment comfort, but, since there is little relationship between the comfort of fabrics determined by wearers and the handle of fabrics,¹² the effects of ethnicity on wearer comfort must be determined by wearer trials using different ethnic groups.

Given that, mechanistically, prickle has been linked to low-level stimulation of the pain receptors as noted above, research relating the race, ethnicity or culture of people to their perceptions of pain can shed some light on how these factors might affect perceptions of skin comfort. In recent decades there has been an increasing number of publications about the relationship of race, ethnicity and culture to pain. In a review paper of this research from 1970 to 2000, Keefe et al.¹³ found that some differences between ethnic and cultural groups in pain behaviors were usually found, but these differences were often smaller than the effects attributable to other factors, such as age and sex, and that the results were confounded by confusion among researchers in the use of the terms race, ethnicity and culture. In a study of the oro-facialsomatosensory profiles of 29 Danish and 29 Chinese participants using the standardized quantitative sensory testing battery developed by the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain, Yang et al.¹⁴ found that the Chinese had a lower thermal detection threshold and were more sensitive to thermal stimulation (thermal pain in Yang’s paper) and mechanical pain than the Danes, while the Danes had a lower mechanical detection threshold. Chinese participants were also less sensitive to repeated mechanical stimulus than Danes. In this study, Danish and Chinese participants were male and female university students who were still living in their countries of birth. In summary, the scientific knowledge and understanding of the role of ethnicity on pain perception is still evolving and it is too early to give any definitive guidance on the likely impact of ethnicity on skin comfort (fabric-evoked prickle).

Stanton et al.¹⁵ described an experimental protocol in which healthy female wearers aged 25–35 years assessed the comfort of garments while carrying out specified activities in a controlled set of environments. The authors showed that the protocol was able to detect differences in the comfort of a range of garments made from different fibers (cotton, wool and cashmere) and fiber diameters (12.8–20.3 µm). Using a discomfort score from 1 (discomfort not detected) to 9 (extreme awareness of discomfort), they found that average discomfort scores ranged from 1.71 ± 0.14 for a 100% cashmere garment to 2.62 ± 0.16 for a garment made from 20.3µm diameter wool. In Part 2 of this series⁸ the protocol was applied to examine fiber diameter effects on both fabric and garment prickle. This confirmed that prickle responses from the garment studies remained consistent with the existing mechanistic understanding of prickle developed largely from fabric studies. Further, the analysis identified that 79% wearers were willing to accept a low level of prickle (Score 3: Slightly present sensation) without affecting their overall like/dislike decision.

The aim of this paper is to see whether there is any difference in the sensory perception of next-to-skin garments worn during a range of environments and activities between two groups of wearers drawn from an urban community in Australia: ethnic Chinese wearers who were born to Chinese parents in China and a control group of wearers. The hypothesis to be tested is that there will be different perceptions between the groups and that these differences will vary depending on the sensory score being measured and the environment, activity, fiber diameter and fiber-type characteristics of the fabrics from which the garments are made.

Materials and methods

Using a wearer trial protocol described by Stanton et al.,¹⁵ 25 Chinese wearers and 23 control wearers tested five garment types of which three were made from pure wool fabrics covering a range of mean fiber diameters, one was made from cashmere and another was made from a cashmere/wool blend. Some results from the control group from this trial and an earlier trial that used some of the same garments have been reported previously.¹⁵

Garments

All garments were base layer long-sleeved T-shirts made from single jersey fabric into a standard design with a round crew neck in three sizes, small, medium and large. Five different fiber qualities were used, which comprised three wools with mean fiber diameters of 16.3, 18.1 and 20.3 µm, one cashmere with a mean fiber diameter of 15.5 µm and one cashmere/wool blend (30% cashmere/70% wool) with a mean fiber diameter of 15.8 µm (Table 1). Mean fiber diameter was determined using fibers extracted from yarns and then measured using the OFDA100 instrument.¹⁶ The wool garments had been used in a previous trial. All garments were washed three times on a gentle wool cycle in a domestic washing machine and flat dried prior to use in any experiments. Stanton et al.¹⁵ showed that further washing had no effect on the sensory performance of the garments. Between sessions garments were also washed and flat dried.

Table 1.

Characteristics of single jersey fabrics

Fiber type	Wool	Wool	Wool	Wool & cashmere	Cashmere
Mean fiber diameter, µm	16.3	18.1	20.3	15.8	15.5
Yarn count, tex	R25/1	R25/1	R25/1	R33/2	R33/2
Fabric thickness, mm	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7
Fabric mass per unit area, g/m²	184	173	176	169	166
Garment weight (medium),g	137	136	135	144	141

Wearers

All wearers were drawn from the local urban community in Perth, Western Australia. They were untrained, unskilled wearers selected by an independent market research company using a carefully constructed screening process. In order to target an important market segment that was similar with regard to factors that might influence their garment perceptions, the wearer group was restricted to females in the 25–35 age group with a family income greater than AUD$35,000 (before tax) who had no aversion to wearing wool garments. In accordance with the relevant sections of the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007, a basic medical questionnaire¹⁵ was used to select wearers having a body mass index (BMI) of 16–30 kg/m² who were assessed as fit enough to undertake the trial and were not pregnant. In addition, English was the first language for wearers selected in the control group. Seventeen of these wearers had participated in an earlier wearer trial.

Wearers in the Chinese group were born in China to Chinese parents (self-reported) and most were educated in China. They all spoke competent English. None of the wearers in this group had participated in an earlier wearer trial. While the term ‘ethnicity’ broadly describes the difference between the two groups, in line with guidelines published by the British Medical Journal,¹⁷ the logic behind the groupings has been defined rather than any reliance on the term itself. Prior to the commencement of the trial new wearers from both groups completed a full test session that was considered a familiarization test and was intended to ensure that lack of experience would not bias the results of new wearers. Over a number of experiments, which included the same wearers, it has been shown that there was no change in perceptions of prickle after the initial test session (p = 0.357). The meaning of the individual sensations and the use of the sensory scales were carefully explained to wearers in the Chinese and control groups before the familiarization test.

Choice of garment size for each wearer was undertaken by a technician to achieve a consistent sizing protocol for all wearers in the trial. The technician focused on the balance between adequate contact between the garment and the body without constricting the movement of the wearer. Given the known high extensibility of single jersey fabrics, a standard garment shape was able to accommodate a range of body shapes. Only height, weight, BMI and ethnicity were recorded for each wearer.

Design

All wearers tested each garment type. A test session consisted of a wearer wearing one garment during a fixed regimen of 15 environments and activities, referred to as periods (Table 2). A full description of environmental conditions and activities is given by Stanton et al.¹⁵ In each period of 5 minutes the wearer assessed the garment on 11 sensory scales (Table 3) on a scale from 1 to 9 (Table 4). The wearer had definitions of the sensory scores in front of her during the assessment periods. At the end of the test session the wearer was asked whether she liked the garment (Like/Dislike). No instruction was given to wearers regarding this response. The order of garment testing was randomized to ensure there was no bias of order.

Table 2.

Summary of the different stages in the protocol and the factors used to define and analyze the recorded sensory data

Period	Environment	Activity 1	Activity 2
1	Cool^a	Immediate	Not walking
2	Cool	Standing	Not walking
3	Cool	ROM^b	Not walking
4	Cool	Sitting after ROM	Not walking
5	Hot^c	Immediate	Not walking
6	Hot	Standing	Not walking
7	Hot	ROM	Not walking
8	Hot	Sitting after ROM	Not walking
9	Hot with walking	Walking (5kph)	Level
10	Hot with walking	Walking (5kph)	Elevated (5%)
11	Hot with walking	Walking (5kph)	Level after elevated
12	Cool after hot	Immediate	Not walking
13	Cool after hot	Standing	Not walking
14	Cool after hot	ROM	Not walking
15	Cool after hot	Sitting after ROM	Not walking

Changeroom type environment at 23℃.

ROM (range of motion) was a set of gentle stretching exercises undertaken while standing, which were designed to generate some movement of the garment over the skin surface with minimal change of physiological state.

Climate chamber at 40℃ and 24% relative humidity.

Table 3.

Sensations rated and the definition supplied to the wearer in each test session

Sensation	Definition
Absorbent	The garment is able to soak up sweat from your body like absorbent paper
Clingy	The fabric in the garment is apt to cling or adhere to the body
Cold	The garment feels cold to the body – feeling no warmth
Damp	The garment feels wet or moist
Discomfort^a	The garment evokes a sensation of discomfort
Heavy	The garment makes you feel weighed down and burdened
Itchy	The fabric evokes a desire to scratch
Muggy	The air under the garment feels hot and humid
Prickly	The fabric evokes a sensation like many very gentle pin pricks
Scratchy	The fabric feels harsh or abrasive (like sandpaper) on the skin
Sweaty	Your skin under the garment feels wet with sweat

Comfort is defined as the complement of discomfort.

Table 4.

Common scale used to describe each of the sensations in each period

Score	Description
1	Sensation not detected
2	Sensation is just detected/threshold level
3	Slightly present sensation
4
5	Moderately felt sensation
6
7	Very aware of the sensation
8
9	Extremely aware of the sensation

Statistical analysis

Using data from experiments with the same protocol as that described here, McGregor et al.¹⁸ have shown that there is a linear relationship between the logarithm of prickle score and both the fiber diameter of the fabric and the wool comfort meter measurement of the fabrics. These relationships support the assumption that the sensory scores in this paper represent measurable scales rather than just ordinal scales.

A linear mixed model was fitted to the sensory scores for each sensation.¹⁵ The fixed model included BMI, garment effects, period effects, ethnicity effects (control versus Chinese), garment by period interaction effects, ethnicity by period interaction effects, ethnicity by garment interaction effects and ethnicity by garment by period interaction effects. The effect of period was subdivided on the basis of environment and activity (Table 2¹⁵) and the effect of garment was subdivided according to fiber type (pure wool versus cashmere or wool/cashmere) and fiber diameter (within fiber type). The random model included a complex covariance structure that allowed variance between scores to change with wearer, garment and period. Since the purpose of this work is to examine differences between the control and Chinese groups, only the effects of ethnicity and its interaction with other factors are presented and discussed. Results from familiarization tests were excluded from analyses.

A generalized linear mixed model for binomial data was fitted to the binary response (Like/Dislike) that each wearer gave to a garment at the end of each test session.¹⁵ The model included fixed effects for garments and ethnicity and their interaction.

All models were fitted using GenStat.¹⁹ Residual plots were examined to ensure that statistical tests complied with assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance and, where necessary, data were transformed to meet these assumptions. All effects assessed to be significant at a significance level of 5% are reported. Means have been compared using a protected 5% least significant difference (5%LSD), which has been presented with the means to indicate significant differences and the variability of the means.

Results

Chinese wearers were shorter (mean ± SD; control: 164 ± 4.4 cm; Chinese: 160 ± 6.0 cm) and lighter (control: 64.6 ± 8.3 kg; Chinese: 56.4 ± 9.1 kg) than those in the control group with a lower BMI (control: 24.1 ± 3.4; Chinese: 22.2 ± 3.8; Figure 1). Since the effect of BMI was not significant when it was introduced into the linear mixed model for absorbency (p = 0.843), clinginess (p = 0.941), coldness (p = 0.139), dampness (p = 0.625), discomfort (p = 0.673), heaviness (p = 0.515), itchiness (p = 0.645), mugginess (p = 0.906), prickle (p = 0.605), scratchiness (p = 0.914) or sweatiness (p = 0. 565), it was removed from the fixed model.

Figure 1.

Body mass index (BMI) distributions for control (light gray bars) and Chinese wearers (dark gray bars).

Average discomfort scores over all periods were not significantly different between the Chinese and control groups (p = 0.631) and ethnicity did not interact with fiber type (p = 0.459) or fiber diameter (p = 0.408). Discomfort scores for each group in each period (Figure 2) showed that both groups gave consistently high discomfort scores to the 20.3 µm wool garment in comparison to other garments, with the Chinese group showing a response to the range of motion (ROM) activity for this garment, which was not evident in the control group. As a result there was a significant ethnicity by fiber type by Activity 1 interaction (p = 0.002). There was also a significant ethnicity by environment interaction (p = 0.005) and a significant ethnicity by Activity 2 interaction (p = 0.026), because all garment scores for the control group rose to a higher level than scores for the Chinese group when walking in a hot environment.

Figure 2.

Discomfort scores for each garment in each period for (a) the control group and (b) the Chinese group.

Average prickle scores over all periods were not significantly different between ethnic groups (p = 0.249). Prickle scores for each ethnic group in each period (Figure 3) show that both groups gave consistently high prickle scores to the 20.3 µm wool garment in comparison to other garments and the distinction between this garment and the other garments was particularly clear for the Chinese group. There was a significant ethnicity by fiber type by Activity 1 interaction (p = 0.045), because the Chinese and control groups did not respond to ROM activity in the same way for different garments. The Chinese group showed increased sensations of prickle during ROM activity while wearing the 20.3 µm wool garment compared with the control group. In contrast, the scores for the control group rose when they performed the ROM activity while wearing the 18.1 µm wool garment and the 70%wool/30% cashmere garment while scores for the Chinese group showed a much smaller change. Results for scratch were very similar to those for prickle and are not presented.

Figure 3.

Prickle scores for each garment in each period for (a) the control group and (b) the Chinese group.

There was no significant difference in average itch scores over any period between the ethnic groups (p = 0.416). Both the control group and the Chinese group gave the highest itch scores to the 20.3 µm wool garment (Figure 4), but the average score for the control group for this garment was significantly higher than for the Chinese group (2.35 versus 1.82, respectively; 5% LSD = 0.55). As itch scores for other garments were similar for both groups, this resulted in a significant ethnicity by fiber diameter interaction (p = 0.045). The change in itch scores when control wearers were walking in a hot environment was higher than for Chinese wearers, but the ethnicity by environment and ethnicity by Activity 2 interactions were not significant (p = 0.071 and p = 0.055, respectively).

Figure 4.

Itch scores for each garment in each period for (a) the control group and (b) the Chinese group.

Scores for muggy and sweaty were very similar to one another and very similar for all garments, reaching higher levels for the control group than the Chinese group when walking in the hot environment (Figure 5; sweaty results not presented). This led to a significant ethnicity by environment interaction for sensations of muggy (p = 0.005) and sweaty (p = 0.002). The muggy and sweaty scores for Chinese wearers were higher for the 70% wool/30% cashmere garment than other garments, but these differences were not significant at the 5% level (p = 0.170 and p = 0.080, respectively). The differences in average scores across all periods between the control and Chinese groups were not significant (p = 0.886 and p = 0.788 for muggy and sweaty, respectively). Chinese wearers gave slightly higher damp scores than control wearers for all garments when walking in a hot environment (Ethnicity × Environment: p = 0.070; Figure 6). There was a complementary effect on absorbency scores with scores for all garments rising significantly higher for control than Chinese wearers when walking in a hot environment (p < 0.001; results not shown).

Figure 5.

Muggy scores for each garment in each period for (a) the control group and (b) the Chinese group.

Figure 6.

Dampness scores for each garment in each period for (a) the control group and (b) the Chinese group.

Clingy scores were similar for both the control and Chinese groups apart from the 70% wool/30% cashmere garment, which was given higher scores than other garments by the Chinese group (Figure 7). This resulted in a significant ethnicity by fiber type interaction (p = 0.041).

Figure 7.

Clingy scores for each garment in each period for (a) the control group and (b) the Chinese group.

The percentage of wearers who liked a garment was not affected by ethnicity (p = 0.236) or ethnicity interactions (p > 0.140).

Discussion

All sensory scores for both the control and Chinese groups changed as environment and activities varied. Average scores across all periods were not significantly different between the two groups for any sensation. However, for sensations of discomfort, mugginess, sweatiness and absorbency Chinese wearers gave relatively lower scores than control wearers as conditions became more stressful when walking in a hot environment. As an example, average discomfort score for the 100% cashmere garment rose from 1.1 in period 1 to 2.1 in period 11 for the Chinese group but rose from 1.2 to 2.6 for the control group. For discomfort and the tactile sensations of prickle, scratch and itch, for which there were garment differences, the ranking of garments was the same for the control and Chinese wearers, although for the sensation of itch the difference between the 20.3 µm garment and the 16.3 µm garments was smaller for the Chinese group than the control group. Only the sensory score for clinginess showed a difference between garments for one group (70% wool/30% cashmere versus other garments for Chinese wearers) that was not present in the other group.

Li¹ states that while there may be physiological differences in the intensity of pain experienced by patients in different ethnic groups, the patients may also have different perceptions of the same intensity of pain. Both intensity of pain and perception of pain will affect the sensory scores they record. Thus, it is difficult to know whether the non-significant differences between the control and Chinese groups in average scores for all sensation (p > 0.05) mean there is no difference in the intensity of sensations felt by the two groups or whether a difference in the perception of the sensations is masking a difference between the two groups. In order to deal with differences in the perception of taste between tasters, Bartoshuk et al.²⁰ advocate the use of a labeled scale that is developed using magnitude matching, which effectively matches the mean and range of scores between tasters. Because more than one score is recorded by a wearer for each sensation during a test session, we have been able to deal with the problem in a slightly different way. In the random model within the linear mixed model,¹⁴ a variance has been included for each wearer that represents the range of scores the wearer uses, and only interactions between ethnicity and period and between ethnicity and garment have been considered when interpreting differences between the ethnic groups (effectively using the period 1 and garment 1 score for each wearer to standardize mean scores). In other words, we have assumed that the changes in scores with changing environment and activity between the control and Chinese groups (interactions between ethnicity and environment and activity) represent real differences between the two groups. Thus, when the control group had a larger increase in scores as the environment changed from cool to hot (Ethnicity × Environment: p < 0.05 for discomfort, mugginess, sweatiness and absorbency), we concluded that this group experienced a more intense sensational response to the hot environment. Similarly, interactions between ethnicity and garments, which were significant for clinginess and itch (p < 0.05), indicated that one group experienced a more intense increase in clinginess and itch in response to different garments.

The only sensations, other than discomfort, to show a differential response between the control and Chinese wearers as levels of temperature and activity increased were absorbency, mugginess and sweatiness, all of which relate to the thermophysiological state of the wearer. It can be inferred that these sensations, which describe how the wearer feels rather than how the garment feels, were associated with the increased discomfort that control wearers experienced as conditions became more stressful in comparison to the Chinese group. Because of the association between prickle and low-grade activity of pain receptors, the results for prickle and the associated sensations of scratch and itch presented here can be compared with the results of tests measuring mechanical parameters presented by Yang et al.¹⁴ The fact that there were no differences between the control and Chinese groups for prickle, itch and scratch while Yang et al.¹⁴ found that Chinese were more sensitive to mechanical pain than Danes is probably because of the low-grade level of pain associated with the sensations induced by the garments in this experiment. While differences in sensitivity to thermal stimulation (thermal pain in Yang’s paper) between Chinese and Danes presented by Yang et al.¹⁴ demonstrate that different populations may react differently to thermal stimulation, they cannot be compared with the work presented here as garments did not induce thermal stimulation.

The Chinese group discriminated clearly between the 20.3 µm wool garment and the other garments on the basis of discomfort, prickle, scratch and itch. The control group similarly discriminated between the 20.3 µm wool garment and the other garments on the basis of discomfort and itch, but the discrimination was not as clear for prickle and scratch. The difference in itch scores between the 20.3 µm garment and the 16.3 µm garment was much larger for the control group than the Chinese group (0.68 versus 0.37), indicating that the control group experienced a higher level of itch from this garment in comparison to other garments. Control group prickle scores for the 18.1 µm wool garment and the 70% wool/30% cashmere garments were almost as high as for the 20.3 µm wool garment in some periods, while Chinese group prickle scores for the same garments remained low and were similar to the 16.3 µm and 100% cashmere garments. These results indicate that the control group was more sensitive than the Chinese group to the sensations of prickle, itch and scratch caused by some garments. Further, they indicate that while prickle and scratch are very similar sensations, they are different from itch, leading to small differences in responses to garments between the control and Chinese groups.

ROM activities were chosen to cause garments to move across the surface of the skin and to enhance interactions between the garment and the skin. The Chinese group was more sensitive to discomfort caused by the ROM activity when wearing the 20.3 µm wool garment than the control group (Figure 2). A similar pattern was seen in scores for prickle (Figure 3) and scratch (not shown) from which it might be inferred that these tactile sensations were associated with the discomfort that Chinese wearers experienced with the 20.3 µm wool garment during ROM activity in comparison to the control group. While it cannot be ruled out that this increase in garment discomfort during ROM activity experienced by Chinese wearers was the result of differences in body shape between the groups, which were reflected in part by differences in BMI between the groups, this seems unlikely as the effect of BMI was not significant when it was introduced into the linear mixed models for all sensory scores. In addition, single jersey fabrics are known to be extensible and all garments were fitted to all wearers using the same criterion, which was to balance between adequate contact between the garment and the body without restricting the movement of the wearer, in order to ensure that ease of body movement^5,6 was the same for all wearers. Increased discomfort of Chinese wearers due to ROM activity was not obvious for other garments, which would indicate that the increase in garment discomfort during ROM activity experienced by Chinese wearers with the 20.3 µm wool garment was the result of a garment-specific effect rather than body shape. Why the Chinese group should respond more to ROM activity in the 20.3 µm wool garment is difficult to say, but it may relate to past experiences, including environment and activities, that may be different from the control group.³

The Chinese wearers were chosen using the same selection criteria as the control wearers with the additional restriction that they met the experimental definition of Chinese ethnicity. As a result, it might be expected that the variability between average sensory scores for each wearer in the control group would be higher than the variability for the Chinese group. However, this was not the case with the standard deviation between average discomfort scores for each wearer being 0.242 for the control group and 0.297 for the Chinese group. The standard deviation between average prickle scores for each wearer was almost the same for the control and Chinese groups (0.380 versus 0.379, respectively).

Conclusions

The results of this experiment indicate that while the sensory perception of next-to-skin garments worn during a range of environments and activities was similar for ethnic Chinese wearers and a matched control group of wearers, there were differences in the perception of garment comfort between groups that should be considered when testing and designing garments. For sensations of mugginess and sweatiness that relate to the thermophysiological state of the body, the control group experienced increased sensation as temperature and activity rose in comparison to the Chinese group. For sensations of prickle, itch and scratch that relate to the feel of garments against the skin, the Chinese group experienced increased sensation in comparison to the control group during ROM activities, for the 20.3 µm wool garment only. These differences in the sensational responses to activity and environment were associated with similar responses in discomfort scores.

There is no evidence from this experiment to conclude that Chinese wearers are more sensitive in their discomfort, prickle and scratch response to the test garments than the control group. They recorded lower scores and smaller increases in scores in response to activity, environment and garment type than wearers in the control group. However, when wearing the highest scoring 20.3µm garment, the Chinese group did show a larger increase in these scores during ROM activity, which was designed to enhance the movement of the garment over the skin.

The results of this experiment demonstrate that the experimental protocol used here and described by Stanton et al.¹⁵ can be used to detect differences between wearer groups in their perceptions of garment comfort as well as to detect differences between garments.⁸

Footnotes

Funding

This work was supported by the CRC for Sheep Industry Innovation, CSIRO and the Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank The Merino Company for supplying the fabrics and garments used in this study. The expert assistance of G Howarth and L Staynes at CSIRO, and S Pieruzzini, J Bielby and A Clarke at the Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food were also critical to the success of this work.

References

. The science of clothing comfort. Text Prog 2001; 31: 1–138.

Roy-Choudhury

Majumdar

Datta

Factors affecting comfort: human physiology and the role of clothing. In: Song

(ed). Improving comfort in clothing, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 2011, pp. 3–60.

Kilinc-Balci

Testing, analyzing and predicting the comfort properties of textiles. In: Song

(ed). Improving comfort in clothing, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 2011, pp. 138–158.

Wong

ASW

Yeung

PKW

. Neural network predictions of human psychological perceptions of clothing sensory comfort. Text Res J 2003; 73: 31–37.

Fuzek

. Some factors affecting the comfort assessment of knit T-shirts. Ind Eng Chem Prod Res Dev 1981; 20: 254–259.

Hatch

. Text Sci, New York: West Publishing Company, 1993, pp. 500–500.

Garnsworthy

Gully

Kenins

. Identification of the physical stimulus and neural basis of fabric-evoked prickle. J Neurophysiol 1988; 59: 1083–1097.

Naylor

GRS

Stanton

Speijers

. Skin comfort of base layer knitted garments. Part 2: Fiber diameter effects on fabric and garment prickle. Text Res J 2014; 84: 1506–1514.

Poimena Analysis & Delta Consultants. IWTO market information 2010. Brussels: International Wool Textile Organisation, 2010.

10.

Mahar TJ, Dhingra RC and Postle R. Comparison of fabric handle assessments in Japan, Australia, New Zealand and India. In: Kawabata S, Postle R and Niwa M (eds) Objective specification of fabric quality, mechanical properties and performance. Osaka: Textile Machinery Society of Japan, 1982.

11.

Kim

Winakor

. Fabric hand as perceived by U.S. and Korean males and females. Cloth Text Res J 1996; 14: 133–144.

12.

McGregor BA, Naebe M, Wang H et al. Relationships between wearer assessment and the instrumental measurement of the handle and prickle of knitted wool fabrics. Text Res J. Epub ahead of print 15 October 2014. DOI: 0040517514551460.

13.

Keefe

Lumley

Buffington

ALH

. Changing face of pain: evolution of pain research in. Psychosom Med 2002; 64: 921–938.

14.

Yang

Luo

Baad-Hansen

. Ethnic differences in oro-facial somatosensory profiles – quantitative sensory testing in Chinese and Danes. J Oral Rehabil 2013; 40: 844–853.

15.

Stanton

Speijers

Naylor

GRS

. Skin comfort of base layer knitted garments. Part 1: Development and evaluation of a wearer trial protocol. Text Res J 2014; 84: 1385–1399.

16.

IWTO Test Method IWTO-47-00:2000. Measurement of the mean and distribution of fiber diameter of wool using an Optical Fiber Diameter Analyser (OFDA).

17.

McKenzie

Crowcroft

. Ethnicity, race and culture: guidelines for research, audit, and publication. Br Med J 1996; 312: 1094–1094.

18.

McGregor

Naebe

Stanton

. Relationship between wearer prickle response with fibre and garment properties and Wool ComfortMeter assessment. J Text Inst 2013; 104: 618–627.

19.

VSN International. GenStat reference manual (release 15), part 1 summary, Hemel Hempstead: VSN International, 2012, pp. 352–352.

20.

Bartoshuk

Duffy

Green

. Valid across-group comparisons with labeled scales: the gLMS versus magnitude matching. Physiol Behav 2004; 82: 109–114.