In the case of temperature baselines, the comparisons could not be made as clearly as they could with GSR. For example, S1’s temperature had a .01 volt swing, S2’s temperature had a .02 volt swing, S3’s temperature had a .03 volt swing, and P1’s temperature had a .02 volt swing. P3’s temperature was the most active: it had a .11 volt swing. This might be explained by the fact that the data was taken during a live performance. P3’s temperature trajectory is given, below, in Figure 41; it reflects his temperature signal during a forty-minute segment in the third and last act in the concert.
During the entire segment, P3’s temperature slowly decreases with a small upward feature at the end. At the beginning of the third act, his signal begins at 5.52 volts. During the first piece, his signal quickly decreases to 5.48. During the second piece, the temperature signal starts at 5.47 and slowly decreases to 5.45. During a short interval, his signal decreases slightly to 5.44, then increases slightly to 5.45 while talking. During the third piece, his signal starts at 5.45 and slowly decreases to end at 5.44. During the following interval, it decreases quickly. Then, during the fourth piece, it begins at 5.42 and ends at 5.43. During the next interval, the signal decreases down to 5.41 and increases slightly. The fifth piece began at 5.43, decreased to 5.42, and slowly increased back up to 5.45 by the end. The sixth piece began at 5.44 and remained constant until its ending at 5.45. The seventh piece began at 5.43, increased up to 5.45, and decreased to 5.43. The eighth and final piece began at 5.42, decreased slightly, and then ended at 5.46 volts. One hypothesis about the greater activity of P3’s temperature relative to the other subjects is that the stressfulness of the concert situation makes temperature more variable; the five other subjects had a much more static temperature value.