4.4 Article

Effect of office chair design features on lumbar spine posture, muscle activity and perceived pain during prolonged sitting

期刊

ERGONOMICS
卷 66, 期 10, 页码 1465-1476

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2022.2152113

关键词

Office chair design; sitting; posture; EMG; spine movement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the effect of chair design on spine posture, muscle activity, and perceived pain. Lumbar support and seat pan tilt conditions result in more neutral spine and pelvic postures. However, sitting-induced pain remains present in the study sample without significant improvement.
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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据