The Vehicle Seating Intervention Trial: Cross-Over Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Impact of 2 Car Seat Configurations on Spinal Posture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driving posture can lead to musculoskeletal pain. Most work focuses on the lower back; therefore, we know little about automobile seat design and neck posture. This study evaluated an automobile driver seat that individualized upper back support to improve head and neck posture. Specifically, we examined the system's impact on anterior head translation with secondary outcomes of spine posture and perceptions of comfort/well-being compared with a control. Forty participants were block randomized to experience either the activated or deactivated version of the same seating system first. Participants completed two 30-minute simulated driving trials, separated by washout, with continuous measures of anterior head translation, spine posture, and pelvis orientation. Perceptions of comfort/well-being were assessed by survey and open-ended questions immediately following each condition. Small, but statistically significant decreases in anterior head translation and posterior pelvic tilt occurred with the activated seat system. Participants reported lower satisfaction with the activated seat system. Order of the 2 seat conditions affected differences in pelvis orientation and participant perceptions of comfort/well-being. An anthropometric-based seat system targeting upper back support can significantly affect head and pelvic posture but not satisfaction during simulated driving. Future work should examine long-term impacts of these posture changes on health outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".