Posture variation in a car within the restrictions of the driving task

Perceived discomfort and neuromuscular fatigue during long-duration real driving with different car seats

INTRODUCTION

Identification of the seat features that could improve driving experience is a main issue for automotive companies.

OBJECTIVE

Long duration real driving sessions were performed to assess the effect of three seats (soft-S1, firm-S2 and suspended-S3) on perceived discomfort and neuromuscular fatigue (NMF).

MATERIALS & METHODS

For each seat, the muscular activity of bilateral Trapezius Descendens (TD), Erector Spinae (ES) and Multifidus (MF) muscles of twenty-one participants was recorded during real driving sessions of 3-hours each lasting approximately 3 hours and following the same itinerary. During each driving session, participants were also regularly asked to self-evaluate their level of whole-body and local discomfort. In addition, an endurance static test (EST) was performed before (ESTpre) and after (ESTpost) each driving session to assess the seat effect on physical capacity.

RESULTS

Whole-body discomfort increased with driving time for all seats, but this increase became significant latter for S3. The highest scores of local discomfort occurred for neck and lower back. Contrary to S1 and S2, the duration of ESTpost was not significantly lower compared to ESTpre with the S3. Interestingly, muscular activity of S1 remained stable throughout the driving task which could be attributed to sustained muscular contraction, while muscular recruitment adjustments occurred for S2 and S3 from 1H00 of driving. This muscular compensation concerns mostly the right side for S2 and S3 but with different profiles. On the left side, the muscular adjustments concern only the MF with S2 and the ES with S3.

CONCLUSION

Overall, our results demonstrated that S3 could be considered as the most suitable seat to delay discomfort and NMF appearance.

Trunk sway changes in professional bus drivers during actual shifts on long-distance routes

Although professional bus drivers are required to perform their task while adopting a prolonged constrained sitting posture, existence of possible effects in terms of postural strategies has been scarcely investigated under actual working conditions. This study aimed to characterise modifications of trunk sway in 14 professional bus drivers during regular shifts performed on non-urban routes using a pressure-sensitive mat placed on the seat. Centre-of-pressure (COP) time series were extracted from body-seat pressure data to calculate sway parameters (i.e. sway area, COP path length, COP displacements and velocities). Results show generalised increase in trunk sway as driving progresses, which becomes statistically significant after approximately 70-100 minutes of continuous driving. This may indicate the adoption of specific strategies to cope with discomfort onset or a fatigue-induced alteration of postural features. Trunk sway monitoring of bus drivers may be useful in detecting postural behaviours potentially associated with deteriorating performance and discomfort onset. Practitioner summary: Professional bus drivers operate in sitting position for prolonged time. Such constrained posture may induce discomfort and fatigue. We investigated trunk sway during actual shifts using pressure-sensitive mats. Significant increase of sway was detected after 70 min of continuous driving. Body-seat pressure data could be used as discomfort and fatigue markers. Abbreviations: ANOVA-RM: analysis of variance with repeated measures; AP: antero-posterior; COP: center of pressure; EC: ellipse's centroid; ML: medio-lateral; SA: sway area; SP: sway path.

The effects of stature, age, gender, and posture preferences on preferred joint angles after real driving

Few studies have investigated preferred driving posture involving real-world driving. For this purpose, seven preferred joint angles of 127 participants were recorded three times from sagittal plane photographs after a short, standardized drive on public roads. Participants' individual driving posture preferences were determined using a word-based questionnaire. The inter- and intraindividual joint angle differences were calculated and some significant effects of stature, age, and gender on these joint angle differences were found. Additionally, significant correlations were found between posture preferences and joint angles, except for the lower extremities. The results show that the factors stature, age, gender, and posture preferences have influence on the preferred joint angles. However, other human-, vehicle-, and context-related factors also seem relevant and should be considered in future studies. The results provide important field-based knowledge for an application-oriented understanding of driving posture and for the human-centered design process of future vehicle interior research and development.

Neuromuscular fatigue profiles depends on seat feature during long duration driving on a static simulator

Prolonged driving could induce neuromuscular fatigue and discomfort since drivers have little opportunity to adjust their position. However, better car seat design could play a major role in limiting these effects. This study compared the effect of two different seats (S - soft and F - firm) on neuromuscular fatigue and driver's perceived discomfort during prolonged driving, also assessing the effect of different road types on neuromuscular activity. Twenty participants performed two 3-h driving sessions, one for each seat, on a static simulator. Every 20 min, participants self-evaluated their level of whole-body and individual body-area discomfort. Surface electromyography (sEMG) was recorded for eight muscles including Trapezius descendens (TD), Erector spinae longissimus (ESL), Multifidus (MF), Vastus lateralis (VL) and Tibialis anterior (TA) throughout the driving sessions. Moreover, an endurance static test (EST) was performed prior to and after each driving session. Whole-body discomfort increased with time with both seats, but no difference in discomfort scores was observed between seats throughout the driving sessions. The highest discomfort scores were for neck and lower back areas with both seats. Neuromuscular fatigue was revealed by a shorter endurance time in post-driving EST for both seats. EMG recordings showed different neuromuscular fatigue profiles for the two seats, with earlier onset of fatigue for S. Despite the lack of difference in perceived discomfort level, the two seats have different impacts: the softness of S induces greater activity of the lower back muscles, while F offers greater support for the lower back.

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?