The chapter "Revisiting Thermal Comfort and Thermal Sensation" by Zhiwei Lian explores the intricate relationship between thermal comfort and thermal sensation, highlighting the limitations of current evaluation metrics. Thermal comfort is a crucial concept for assessing the thermal environment, but it is often evaluated using thermal sensation, which is influenced by environmental factors and individual subjective, physiological, and cognitive aspects. The current association between thermal sensation and thermal comfort is deemed less rigorous due to these complexities. Subjective measurement is a reliable method for evaluating thermal comfort, and most prediction models and guidelines rely on thermal sensation. The 7-level scale (cold, cool, slightly cool, neutral, slightly warm, warm, hot) recommended by ASHRAE-55 is commonly used, but it lacks emotional information. Despite this, thermal sensation is often directly associated with comfort and satisfaction in many evaluations. However, thermally neutral states may not align with the highest probability of comfort, and individuals may experience different emotions based on the same thermal sensation state. The PMV model, based on the heat balance equation, is a widely used index in engineering applications, but it relies heavily on thermal sensation voting and lacks consideration for subjective responses like thermal comfort and satisfaction. Other indices, such as Standard Effective Temperature (SET), also focus on thermal sensation without incorporating emotional aspects. The environment and human responses are complex. Six main factors—air temperature, radiant temperature, air velocity, humidity, clothing insulation, and metabolic rate—directly influence thermal sensation. These factors can introduce additional sensations like draft or muggy feeling, making it challenging to rely solely on thermal sensation for expressing thermal comfort levels. Psychological factors can also mediate the relationship between thermal sensation and thermal comfort, further complicating the evaluation process. In conclusion, the chapter emphasizes the need for a reevaluation of how thermal comfort is effectively and accurately assessed, considering various aspects such as conceptual nuances, research methods, and evaluation criteria.The chapter "Revisiting Thermal Comfort and Thermal Sensation" by Zhiwei Lian explores the intricate relationship between thermal comfort and thermal sensation, highlighting the limitations of current evaluation metrics. Thermal comfort is a crucial concept for assessing the thermal environment, but it is often evaluated using thermal sensation, which is influenced by environmental factors and individual subjective, physiological, and cognitive aspects. The current association between thermal sensation and thermal comfort is deemed less rigorous due to these complexities. Subjective measurement is a reliable method for evaluating thermal comfort, and most prediction models and guidelines rely on thermal sensation. The 7-level scale (cold, cool, slightly cool, neutral, slightly warm, warm, hot) recommended by ASHRAE-55 is commonly used, but it lacks emotional information. Despite this, thermal sensation is often directly associated with comfort and satisfaction in many evaluations. However, thermally neutral states may not align with the highest probability of comfort, and individuals may experience different emotions based on the same thermal sensation state. The PMV model, based on the heat balance equation, is a widely used index in engineering applications, but it relies heavily on thermal sensation voting and lacks consideration for subjective responses like thermal comfort and satisfaction. Other indices, such as Standard Effective Temperature (SET), also focus on thermal sensation without incorporating emotional aspects. The environment and human responses are complex. Six main factors—air temperature, radiant temperature, air velocity, humidity, clothing insulation, and metabolic rate—directly influence thermal sensation. These factors can introduce additional sensations like draft or muggy feeling, making it challenging to rely solely on thermal sensation for expressing thermal comfort levels. Psychological factors can also mediate the relationship between thermal sensation and thermal comfort, further complicating the evaluation process. In conclusion, the chapter emphasizes the need for a reevaluation of how thermal comfort is effectively and accurately assessed, considering various aspects such as conceptual nuances, research methods, and evaluation criteria.