The role of muscle forces in neck comfort for static seating: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aircraft seats play a key role in the competition between aircraft companies seeking to differentiate themselves in terms of passengers’ inflight experience. The seat design process relies on computational and experimental methods based on subjective measures, such as comfort rating questionnaires, and objective comfort indicators of seat-occupant interaction, such as contact pressure distribution and muscle activation. Previous studies around muscle activity for seating comfort assessment have primarily focused on more active scenarios or active systems. As such, there are limited studies about the role of muscle force in normal and relaxed sitting conditions, common in aircraft settings. This paper explores the relationship between activities of the neck muscles, sternocleidomastoid, and upper trapezius, measured from human participants seated sedentarily on conventional business aircraft seats and their perceived comfort with different backrest inclinations. The results show, for normal seating without neck pillow, no significant association is found between the backrest inclination and the neck’s comfort or muscle activation. For general seating across different backrest inclinations, a positive medium correlation between muscle activation and comfort is found in upper trapezius (R = 0.5332, p = 0.0187). This work serves as a pilot study of this new approach of comfort evaluation using muscle feedback in seat designing processes and highlights the posterior’s effect to seating experience in the neck region.
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 | 0.000 | 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".