The Effect of Chair Designs on Sitting Pressure Distribution and Tissue Perfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of five chair designs on interface pressure distribution and tissue perfusion in the buttock-thigh region. BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting has been found to contribute to the symptoms of work-related low back pain. Studies have found that chair design affects users' sitting posture and comfort. As sitting applies pressure to the user, it is necessary to investigate how chair design affects sitting pressure and tissue perfusion during sitting. METHOD: We tested five chair designs (Suspension A, Suspension B, Foam A, Foam B, and bicompliant) on 15 young, healthy females. Sitting interface pressure and buttock-thigh tissue perfusion (in terms oftranscutaneous partial pressure of oxygen and carbon dioxide, tcPO2 and tcPCO2, respectively) were measured during 10-min sitting on each chair. RESULTS: We found that chair design significantly affected the distribution of the sitting pressure (p < .001) and buttock-thigh tissue perfusion (p < .023). Average pressure and total contact area were found highest in both foam designs, and the average pressure was the lowest in one of the suspension designs. Across all tested chair designs, the anterior portion of the seat sustained the lowest contact pressure. It was also found that tcPO2 was the lowest (p < .003) and tcPCO2 was the highest (p < .001) in tissue around ischial tuberosity for all chair designs. CONCLUSION: Chair design and materials of the seat significantly affect the sitting interface pressure distribution and tissue perfusion in sitting area. Further evaluation of these outcomes may provide useful information to correlate chair design with sitting comfort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".