## 2 Materials and Methods
### Correlations of Thermal Comfort Indicators with Comfort and Discomfort Scales  
Thermal comfort assessments for this study were conducted as part of an investigation on the general comfort and discomfort of sitting on office chairs, using the Chair Evaluation Checklist (CEC-14) developed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [34]. The values obtained for comfort and discomfort scales were extracted and thermal comfort indicators were correlated with them. Table 8 presents Pearson correlation coefficients (_r_) for the relationships between the selected thermal indicators and the comfort and discomfort scales. This structure allows for the identification of meaningful relationships between specific thermal sensations and overall comfort perceptions. The most significant finding was the consistent, strong positive correlation between backrest thermal comfort (T13) and overall comfort across all the chair designs. This relationship was highly significant for every chair type, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.401 (BS) to 0.617 for the LS chair. Similarly, seat thermal comfort (T14) demonstrated significant positive correlations with overall comfort across all chair types, with the LS chair exhibiting the strongest relationship (0.513). These findings establish that fundamental sup  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**COMFORT**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**BS**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**IS**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**KS**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**LS**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**MA**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**RS**} \\ \hline T12 & \(r\) & 0.042 & \(-\)0.146 & \(-\)0.093 & \(-\)0.266 * & \(-\)0.041 & \(-\)0.247 * \\  & & (0.713) & (0.197) & (0.430) & (0.021) & (0.726) & (0.030) \\ \hline T13 & \(r\) & 0.401 ** & 0.420 ** & 0.476 ** & 0.617 ** & 0.524 ** & 0.441 ** \\  & & (0) & (0) & (0) & (0) & (0) & (0) \\ \hline T14 & \(r\) & 0.479 ** & 0.412 ** & 0.486 ** & 0.513 ** & 0.340 ** & 0.275 * \\  & & (0) & (0) & (0) & (0) & (0.002) & (0.016) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DISCOMFORT**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**BS**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**IS**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**KS**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**LS**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**MA**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**RS**} \\ \hline T11 & \(r\) & \(-\)0.061 & 0.342 ** & 0.254 * & 0.323 ** & 0.145 & 0.110 \\  & & (0.597) & (0.002) & (  
port elements, specifically backrest and seat comfort, transcend specific design variations as primary comfort determinants. A consistent pattern emerged regarding moisture perception and comfort ratings. Torso back moisture perception (T12) showed significant negative correlations with comfort for the LS (\(-0.266\)) and RS (\(-0.247\)) chairs, indicating that increased moisture in the backcontact area diminishes comfort. The relationship between moisture and discomfort was more striking. Torso front moisture (T11) was significantly correlated with discomfort for multiple chair designs, especially IS (0.342), KS (0.254), and LS (0.323). Similarly, torso back moisture (T12) showed significant positive correlations with discomfort for the IS (0.363) and LS (0.342). These relationships demonstrate that a higher moisture perception in both the front and back torso areas contribute substantially to seating discomfort. The analysis confirmed a consistent relationship between comfort and discomfort ratings. Both backrest thermal comfort (T13) and seat thermal comfort (T14) showed significant negative correlations with discomfort across almost all chair types, with the strongest negative correlations for backrest thermal comfort observed in the BS, MA, and RS chairs. This validates the measurement scales and confirms that comfort and discomfort are distinct, yet complementary entities [35]. Based on the given results, it can be noted that this study revealed predominantly neutral thermal sensations on the chairs. The overall mean thermal rating was 4.12 on a seven-point scale, indicating generally acceptable thermal conditions during the experiment.