Spine Posture and Discomfort During Prolonged Simulated Driving With Self-Selected Lumbar Support Prominence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined magnitude preference, subjective discomfort, and spine posture during prolonged simulated driving with a self-selected amount of lumbar support. BACKGROUND: The general use of lumbar supports has been associated with decreased reports of low-back pain during driving exposures; however, minimal data exist regarding occupant magnitude preference. METHOD: Participants chose between five discrete levels of lumbar support (0-4 cm). Time-varying postural and discomfort responses were then monitored throughout 2 hr of simulated driving. RESULTS: There were no significant effects of gender or time on posture. Women preferred larger amounts of support than men (3.25 cm ± 0.71 and 2.56 cm ± 0.88, respectively, p = .048). All participants exhibited significant increases (p = .003) in pelvic discomfort throughout the 2-hr trial regardless of the level of support chosen. Discomfort related to various aspects of the lumbar support increased significantly over time. Retrospectively, no participants desired a setting beyond 4 cm, and the majority of respondents indicate had they been able to change their initial selection, they would choose a setting between 2 and 3 cm. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that occupants would prefer increasing the excursion capability of automobile lumbar supports beyond 2 cm. APPLICATION: Excursion capability and adjustability of automobile lumbar supports are important features to better meet end-user preference and to reducing lumbar flexion in sitting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".