The influence of activities and duration on comfort and discomfort development in time of aircraft passengers

Discomfort estimation for vertical whole-body vibration in the aircraft cabin considering the duration and static sitting comfort

This paper investigated the discomfort caused by vertical whole-body vibration (WBV) over 20 minutes using data recorded at the front, middle, and rear seats of the passenger cabin in civil aviation during a cruising flight. Twenty-four subjects experienced each stimulus at 0.5 ms-2 r.m.s. and judged discomfort at various moments (i.e. 1/6, 5, 10, 15, and 20 min) using a category-ratio method. The difference in discomfort due to high-frequency vibration components vanished after 10 min. Based on Stevens' power law, a method is developed to estimate long-term vertical WBV discomfort by considering the static discomfort and an interaction coefficient between vibration and static discomfort as parameters. The proposed estimation method showed high accuracy with determination coefficients (R2) higher than 0.97 and good linearity with values of growth rates 0.95, 1, and 0.95 for the vertical WBV discomfort at the front, middle, and rear seat positions in the aircraft cabin.Practitioner summary: An estimation method for the discomfort caused by vertical WBV considering the duration and static sitting discomfort is developed. This method can provide accurate discomfort estimating for long-term vibration exposure, e.g. in civil aviation during a cruising flight, by introducing an 'interaction term' between static and dynamic discomfort.

Measuring pressure distribution under the seat cushion and dividing the pressure map in six regions might be beneficial for comfort studies of aircraft seats

Seat pressure maps are often used to evaluate comfort of the users. In this study, we explored the relationships between pressure maps and comfort/discomfort of users in aircraft seats with a focus on a new 6-division method on the pressure maps collected at the bottom of the cushions. An experiment was designed where three cushions with identical shapes but different stiffnesses were prepared. 33 subjects joined the experiment and after sitting on each cushion in 4 postures, they completed comfort questionnaires. Pressure maps on the top as well as the bottom of cushions were collected and analysed. Results indicated that measures on the proposed 6 divisions, especially on the distal posterior thigh regions and regions close to ischial tuberosity of the bottom pressure maps, had larger correlation values to comfort scores compared to other division methods. Practitioner summary: The relations between comfort/discomfort and seat pressure maps collected from the top/bottom of three cushions were studied with 33 subjects in four postures. The distal posterior thigh and ischial tuberosity regions in the proposed 6-division of the bottom pressure maps had larger correlation values to comfort/discomfort compared to other methods.

Does a break from sitting change biomechanical outcome measures or transient pain? A laboratory-based experimental study

BACKGROUND

Sitting can induce transient low back pain (LBP) in healthy individuals. A rest from sitting should provide relief, however, the parameters of breaks (activity type, intensity, duration, and timing) are not currently known.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of 2-minute walking breaks at 40-minute intervals on sitting-induced LBP.

METHODS

Thirty-two healthy participants were recruited for a within-control study: two randomly presented sessions of sitting for 2 hours with and without breaks. Outcome measures were compared between condition and pain group using a three-way ANOVA with significance atp > 0.05.

RESULTS

Walking breaks at 40-minute intervals result in significantly lower pain ratings than those taken immediately before the break for sitting-induced back pain developers. However, this relief is short lived (<10 minutes), with ratings increasing to pre-break levels once the sitting exposure resumes. There were no differences in biomechanical factors between sessions. Regardless of session type, pain developers displayed higher spine fidget frequency than non-pain developers, females sat with less spine flexion, with greater gluteal activation levels, and with their center of pressure approximately half a centimeter to the left and forward compared to males, and males had significantly greater peak pressures over a smaller area compared to females.

CONCLUSION

Walking breaks at 40-minute intervals provide significant, but temporary, relief of sitting-induced back pain for pain developers. Future work should optimize break parameters and examine the longer-term benefit of breaks, especially for individuals that are not able to tolerate sitting for extended durations.

Desktop lighting for comfortable use of a computer screen

BACKGROUND:

The contrast between a bright computer screen and a dark ambient environment may influence comfort of the users, especially on their eyes.

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of this research is to identify the optimal desktop lighting for the comfortable use of the computer screen in a dark environment.

METHODS:

An experiment was designed where seven illumination setups were introduced for the users to perform their leisure tasks on a computer screen. Fifteen healthy subjects participated in the experiments. During each session, durations of the eye blinks, fixations and saccades of the user were recorded by an eye tracker. His/her neck and trunk movements were recorded by a motion tracking system as well. The comfort/discomfort questionnaire, localized postural discomfort questionnaire, NASA task load index and computer user questionnaire were used to record the overall comfort/discomfort, the local perceived physical discomfort, the cognitive workload, and general/eye health problems, respectively.

RESULTS:

Subjective and objective measurement results indicated that users felt more comfortable with high intensity warm lights using a computer screen. We also identified that the eye fixation durations, as well as the scores of two questions in the computer user questionnaire, have significant negative correlations with comfort. On the other side, the durations of blinks and the scores of three questions in the computer user questionnaire, were significantly correlated with discomfort.

CONCLUSION:

The warm (3000K) and high intensity (1500 lux) light reduced the visual and cognitive fatigue of the user and therefore improve the comfort of the user during the use of a computer screen.

A multifactorial approach to specify comfortable rail seats

BACKGROUND

A robust rail seat comfort assessment can inform the GB rail industry when procuring new seats and identify areas for comfort improvement in the refurbishment of existing seats, improving the customer experience.

OBJECTIVE

To take a multifactorial approach to measuring comfort and to create a robust seat comfort assessment method for the GB rail industry.

METHODS

Seat comfort assessment scores were developed by identifying seat dimensions (e.g. Seat height, seat width, seat depth), seat pad thickness and hardness requirements, seat accessories and seat attractiveness components. Scores for each seat feature were verified by conducting a fitting trial and asking 7 participants to rank dimensions through a range of adjustment. The combined scoring of features was verified by asking 14 participants to rank seats in three configurations (<minimum comfort; minimum comfort;>minimum comfort). The seat comfort dimensions scores were then validated by ranking seven existing rail seats using the assessment method and comparing the ranks with subjective comfort ranks of 12 participants.

RESULTS

The validation testing resulted in a moderate positive correlation, indicating an alignment between the seat comfort assessment method and subjective comfort scores.

CONCLUSIONS

A multifactorial seat comfort assessment has been shown to be a good indicator of passenger seat comfort.

Human behaviour should be recorded in (dis)comfort research

(Dis)comfort research that has no information on behaviour of the participants can be considered as incomplete, as major influencing factors could be missed. For (dis)comfort research it is important to capture factors such as context, task/activity, posture, movement, (distracting) stimuli and time, as these factors have influence on the experienced (dis)comfort. Recording the behaviour allows for better evaluation of and comparison between studies, contributing to an increase of scientific knowledge on (dis)comfort.

Future vehicles: the effect of seat configuration on posture and quality of conversation

The percentage of passengers that prefer travelling in groups is increasing. In most vehicles, passengers sit side by side and need to turn their body to be engaged in the conversation with their fellow travellers. However, rotating the body could lead to discomfort which influences conversation quality. The aim of this research is to study the effect of seat configuration on the (dis)comfort experience, conversation quality and posture. Experiments in which participants were asked to talk to each other while sitting at the same distance (1 m) were conducted in four seating arrangements (with seat-belts on), where the angle between the forward directions of two seats were positioned at 0° (side by side), 22.5°, 90° and 120° (almost opposite each other), respectively. Optical tracking has been deployed and the collected data were processed with MatLab^® to acquire postural angles over time. Questionnaires were also used to evaluate the perceived (dis)comfort and the quality of the conversation. Experiment results indicate that the 120° configuration scored the best in the overall comfort and the quality of conversation, but only slightly better than the 90° configuration. Practitioner summary: Seating side by side is not optimal to have a comfortable conversation with your seatmate. To improve comfort and quality of conversation in future vehicles, we tested four seating arrangements analysing the effect of seat layout on (dis)comfort experience. Statistical analysis of objective and subjective data shows the optimal configuration for a comfortable conversation. Abbreviation: LPD: localized postural discomfort; PDF: probability density function; OCRA: occupational repetitive action.

Neck posture and muscle activity in a reclined business class aircraft seat watching IFE with and without head support

The purpose of this study is to research if a headrest benefits the comfort of the passenger and lowers muscle activity in the neck when sitting in a reclined (slouched) posture while watching in flight entertainment (IFE) in an aircraft business class seat. No significant differences in muscle activity in the musculus sternocleidomastoid and musculus trapezius pars descendant were found between the conditions with headrest and without headrest. A significant difference in expected comfort rating was found. Subjects indicated they expect to experience more comfort with a headrest when watching IFE for a duration of two movies during a long-haul flight. This study also found a significant difference in posture. In the condition without headrest the head was more upright compared to the condition with headrest. The lack of significant difference in muscle activity and the significant difference in posture may indicate that humans tend to look for a head position that is neutral, in the sense of minimal muscle effort. This study shows that the use of a headrest may benefit the comfort experience of the passenger during flight. However, further research is necessary on the design of the headrest and the long-term effects of head support on comfort, discomfort, muscle activity and fatigue for watching IFE in a slouched posture.

Towards comfortable communication in future vehicles

This research aims to study the effect of seat and/or backrest rotation on comfort and quality of conversation. Different sitting arrangements were tested to study the effect of the seat layout on: 1) (dis)comfort experience; 2) conversation quality and 3) postures. Two seats were arranged in different angles (0°, 45°, 90°, and 180°) at the same distance (1 m) and participants were asked to talk to each other. The participants' postures were acquired by using cameras and markers on the participants' body. Questionnaires were used to rate the perceived (dis)comfort and quality of conversation. Results show that 90° configuration scored the best both in overall comfort and quality of conversation; while the 0° configuration scored the lowest in both ratings. A strong correlation was established between high comfort and good quality of conversation.

Design and analysis of comparative experiments to assess the (dis-)comfort of aircraft seating

This paper focuses on the comparative assessment of comfort and discomfort (hereafter, (dis-)comfort) for aircraft seating. Subjective and objective data of seating (dis-)comfort were collected during an experiment involving 20 volunteers who tested 3 aircraft double-seats in upright and reclined position. In order to minimize experimental uncertainty due to well-known noise factors (i.e. patterns of discomfort during the work week and during the work day, order of evaluation, inter-individual differences), experimental trials were performed according to a crossover design. Statistical data analysis aimed mainly at investigating (dis-)comfort differences across seat conditions; gender-based differences in perceived discomfort on different body parts; effect of sitting duration on perceived discomfort on different body parts. The experimental results show that differences across seat conditions impacted differently on perceived discomfort depending on gender, body parts and sitting duration. No significant differences in perceived discomfort across gender were evident for the lightweight seat in both upright and reclined positions. On the contrary, for both baseline configurations, perceived discomfort at head and neck areas was higher for males than for females. For all seat conditions, participants experienced a significant worsening of perceived comfort over time at shoulders, back, sacrum and thighs and, in addition, at upper body area (i.e. neck, arm and forearm) and knees only for seats in reclined position.

Effect of in-seat exercising on comfort perception of airplane passengers

Sitting still for extended periods of time can lead to physical discomfort and even serious health risks. Due to safety regulations, reducing passenger' sitting time in aircrafts is not feasible. This paper presents the results of a laboratory study, in where an interactive airplane seat was compared with a current economy class seat. Participants used both seats for 3.5 h, and performed significantly more in-seat movements when using the interactive seating system. Furthermore, this interactive seat predominantly lead to significantly better comfort experiences and reduced discomfort experiences, however no significant differences have been found in self-reported localized musculoskeletal discomfort. Passengers indicated that they would prefer this interactive seat over a standard aircraft seat.

Improving long term driving comfort by taking breaks - How break activity affects effectiveness

During long duration journeys, drivers are encouraged to take regular breaks. The benefits of breaks have been documented for safety; breaks may also be beneficial for comfort. The activity undertaken during a break may influence its effectiveness. Volunteers completed 3 journeys on a driving simulator. Each 130 min journey included a 10 min break after the first hour. During the break volunteers either stayed seated, left the simulator and sat in an adjacent room, or took a walk on a treadmill. The results show a reduction in driver discomfort during the break for all 3 conditions, but the effectiveness of the break was dependent on activity undertaken. Remaining seated in the vehicle provided some improvement in comfort, but more was experienced after leaving the simulator and sitting in an adjacent room. The most effective break occurred when the driver walked for 10 min on a treadmill. The benefits from taking a break continued until the end of the study (after a further hour of driving), such that comfort remained the best after taking a walk and worst for those who remained seated. It is concluded that taking a break and taking a walk is an effective method for relieving driving discomfort.

Modeling the relationship between the environment and human experiences

Within this special issue, different aspects of the environment are studied: aspects that are distant from the human body, close to the body and touching the human body. Consequently, different human senses are involved in these studies as well as the different consequences and effects on the brain and human behaviour. This special issue also highlights many remaining questions about the effects and relationships between environments and human beings and the need for more studies and research. In particular, future studies are needed that address long-term effects and the effects of the combinations of elements which provide comfort or discomfort.

Don't forget time in environmental design1

This paper discusses the importance of including time in environmental design and the challenges facing environmental design now and in the future. Research shows that important factors for studying the effects of environments are time, body movement, control and sensory variability. There are many ways to incorporate time into the design and it is dependent on the type of environmental design. Research also suggests that discomfort in restrictive environments, e.g., in an airplane or automobile are strongly related long periods of inactivity and lack of sensory stimulation. Research also suggests that office workers' health risks are in a large part due to restrictive movement, training inefficiencies, and lack of variation found in the environment. A challenge is how to incorporate stimulating activities and variation into restrictive environments. Another challenge is the cost versus benefit of designing comfortable and healthy environments. Will comfort standards be accomplished through volunteer compliance or is it necessary to push for compliance through legal requirements, standards and regulations? Is it time to consider reducing discomfort as a necessity and apply what research has suggested, i.e., that variation and movement over time in interior environments promotes well-being and productivity? Is it time to accept the results of research and apply the findings to the designs and practice of environmental design?