Effect of office chair design features on lumbar spine posture, muscle activity and perceived pain during prolonged sitting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chair design features are typically compared using multiple seats, which can lead to confounding effects. Using a single chair, configurable to four designs (control, lumbar support, seat pan tilt and scapular relief), we investigated the effect of chair design on spine posture and movement, muscle activity and perceived pain in a sample of 31 asymptomatic adults. A total of 39% of the population were classified as pain developers, having significantly higher peak pain levels across most body regions. The lumbar support and seat pan tilt condition resulted in more neutral spine and pelvic postures. Greater muscle activity was found in the seat pan condition and non-pain developers displayed lower spine muscle activation levels overall. Despite some improvements in spine posture, sitting-induced pain was present in the study sample at similar proportions to those reported previously. Future studies may consider investigating interventions targeted to sitting-induced pain developers as opposed to the general population. Practitioner summary: Four office chair configurations were tested. The lumbar support and seat pan tilt conditions resulted in the most neutral back posture but did not mitigate the clinically significant levels of sitting-induced pain experienced by a large portion of the tested sample. Future work should target interventions to these individuals.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".