## 2 Materials and Methods
### Correlations of Thermal Comfort Indicators with Comfort and Discomfort Scales
Notably, specific body regions exhibited varying thermal responses: higher warmth ratings were recorded at the buttocks and under thighs; the back region showed slightly cooler ratings on average; and significant variations were observed between the mesh and foam backtests. The data suggests that users experienced differences in thermal sensations, primarily due to the mesh construction of the backrest. Therefore, the backrest material may play a role in the overall perception of the chair's thermal comfort. On the other hand, the seat materials did not cause such drastic differences. Correlation analysis revealed that backrest and seat thermal comfort were the most consistently important factors determining the overall comfort across all chair designs. However, the specific patterns of correlation between thermal sensations, moisture perceptions, and comfort/discomfort varied significantly among the chair designs, reflecting their unique construction features. Moisture perception was negatively correlated with comfort and positively correlated with discomfort. These findings show the complexity of thermal comfort in seating design and emphasize the importance of considering both overall support and localized thermal sensations when designing ergonomic chairs. Researching office chairs using subjective methods is not new in itself, but this research demonstrates a different approach in trying to obtain answers about the thermal comfort of sitting on office chairs during daily use in an office environment. This study differs from existing studies in that it was conducted in real workplaces rather than in controlled laboratory conditions, that it was conducted with a relatively large number of subjects, and that most of the chairs were uniform in appearance, thereby preventing the influence of visual impression on the perception of thermal comfort. It should be emphasized that the subjects were not aware of the type, combination, and quality of the material in the seat they were sitting on. Such research conditions enabled honest responses from subjects, because they do not have an \"objective basis\" for prejudice, but are based on the actual experience and perception of the chair user. Here, we can highlight an interesting result: considering the differences in the responses shown in Figure 4, where it is visible that all chairs are equally rated slightly below neutral, the indicator T7 stands out from the \"average\" for the LS chair model. This difference suggests the thesis that the subjectswere potentially influenced by the visual impression, and that they might have subconsciously assessed the comfort and other characteristics of the LS chair believing that a chair with a \"full volume\" of seat and backrest should be warmer to sit on than chairs with breathable and cooler mesh elements (all the others). It is the fact that of the six chairs used in the study, five had a combination of mesh backrest and PUR foam seat, which, although of different characteristics, were potentially not recognized in terms of quality by the subjects. Given the complexity of the problem, this is just a hypothesis for some future research in which combinations of different materials should be used on seats and backtests (such as PUR foam vs. mesh, mesh vs. mesh, PUR vs. PUR or gel, recycled materials, etc.). Several methodological limitations and conceptual gaps were identified, which require consideration for a comprehensive understanding of the limitations of the study and opportunities for improvement for future research:  
* Uncontrolled environmental factors (lack of monitoring of localized variations in airflow patterns around the workplace, potential differences in radiant temperature from surrounding surfaces, possible variations in HVAC performance across different office zones, etc.) could influence thermal perception beyond chair design effects alone. * The gender distribution (52 women, 30 men) introduces potential bias, especially considering the well-documented gender differences in thermal perception.