Fig 1.
Counting latencies ‘pre’ (A) and ‘post’ (B) surgery for target-dot numbers 3 to 9 in CON (Pre; n = 13, Post; n = 18) and HOT (n = 18) surgeries.
bindicates moderate to large effect size between pre and post in HOT (d = -0.52 to -0.80); cindicates moderate to large effect size between HOT and CON trials at specified target-dot numbers (d = 0.52 to 0.70). Data sets on the x-axis are staggered to prevent overlap of error bars. Each point shows Mean ± SEM.
Table 1.
Cognitive scores and number of participants for the counting span task pre and post-surgery in CON and HOT surgeries.
Fig 2.
Recall latencies ‘pre’ (A) and ‘post’ (B) surgery for serial recall positions 1 to 7 in CON (Pre; n = 13, Post; n = 18) and HOT (n = 18) surgeries.
*indicates response numbers that are significantly different from 1st response (p < .05); c indicates moderate to large effect size between HOT and CON trials at specified set size (d = 0.74 to 0.89). Data sets on the x-axis are staggered to prevent overlap of error bars. Data are noisy at serial recall positions 6 and 7 because only few trials had a set size > 5 (whereas all trials had serial positions 1 and 2 and many trials had positions 3–5) and because not every participant made it to a counting span of 6 or 7. Each point shows Mean ± SEM.
Fig 3.
Perceptual responses ‘pre’ and ‘post’ surgery in CON (n = 22) and HOT (n = 18) surgeries; thermal sensation (A), thermal comfort (B), and perceived exertion (C).
*indicates significant difference between conditions pre-surgery (p < .05); ***indicates significant difference between conditions post-surgery (p < .001). Individual and mean data shown.
Fig 4.
Scores for each dimension of the task load index in CON (n = 22) and HOT (n = 18) surgeries; mental demand (Men), physical demand (Phy), temporal demand (Tem), task complexity (Task), situation stress (Sit), distractions (Dist), and frustration (Frust).
**indicates significant difference between conditions (p < .01); ***indicates significant difference between conditions (p < .001). Results are presented as mean ± SEM.
Fig 5.
Core temperature (A) and heart rate (B) responses at 15-min intervals in CON (n = 22) and HOT (n = 18) surgeries.
***indicates significant difference between conditions (p < .001); n.b Time points beyond 180 min were removed from the plots as the sample size beyond 180 min was too small (n < 5) to accurately represent the trend in core temperature. Data points are staggered to prevent overlap of error bars. Each point shows Mean ± SEM.
Fig 6.
Fluid loss and hydration in CON (n = 22) and HOT (n = 17) surgeries; Decrease in body mass in kg (A), decrease in body mass in % of total body mass (B), rate of decrease in body mass (C), and USG scores (D).
**indicates significant difference between conditions pre-surgery (p < .01); ***indicates significant difference between conditions post-surgery (p < .001); c indicates a moderate effect size between USG scores in HOT and CON ‘post’ surgery (d = 0.50). Individual and mean data shown.