Effect of seat orientation on ingress/egress joint kinematics and reach envelope

Christopher W. Moore
{"title":"Effect of seat orientation on ingress/egress joint kinematics and reach envelope","authors":"Christopher W. Moore","doi":"10.3233/OER-140213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: Little is known about ingress/egress requirements and forward reach for workstations with horizontal seats. This research explored differences between ingress/egress kinematics and reach due to seat orientation. METHODS: 10 participants performed ingress/egress tasks using three seat orientations (horizontal with 90 ◦ and 120 ◦ seat angles, and vertical with 90 ◦ seat angle) and planar reach tasks in three anatomical planes using horizontal and vertical seats with 90 ◦ seat angle. An optical motion capture system was used to record kinematic data. Marker data was processed and modeled to estimate peak joint angles and ranges of motion of several body joints. For reach tasks, marker data of the clavicle and finger were used to plot reach capacity. RESULTS:Ingress/egress joint kinematics differed greatly between horizontal and vertical seats, while few differences existed between the horizontal seat orientations. Peak angles and ranges of motion during ingress/egress of the horizontal seats were significantly higher than the vertical seats, often by a factor of 3–4. The direction of motion affected several peak angles and ranges of motion, but to a lesser extent than seat orientation. Reach was unaffected by seat orientation. CONCLUSION: This study’s findings suggest that ingress/egress of horizontal seats is more stressful for the body, especially the shoulders and lower back, than regular upright seats.","PeriodicalId":91780,"journal":{"name":"Occupational ergonomics : the journal of the International Society for Occupational Ergonomics and Safety","volume":"11 1","pages":"137-151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3233/OER-140213","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Occupational ergonomics : the journal of the International Society for Occupational Ergonomics and Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/OER-140213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about ingress/egress requirements and forward reach for workstations with horizontal seats. This research explored differences between ingress/egress kinematics and reach due to seat orientation. METHODS: 10 participants performed ingress/egress tasks using three seat orientations (horizontal with 90 ◦ and 120 ◦ seat angles, and vertical with 90 ◦ seat angle) and planar reach tasks in three anatomical planes using horizontal and vertical seats with 90 ◦ seat angle. An optical motion capture system was used to record kinematic data. Marker data was processed and modeled to estimate peak joint angles and ranges of motion of several body joints. For reach tasks, marker data of the clavicle and finger were used to plot reach capacity. RESULTS:Ingress/egress joint kinematics differed greatly between horizontal and vertical seats, while few differences existed between the horizontal seat orientations. Peak angles and ranges of motion during ingress/egress of the horizontal seats were significantly higher than the vertical seats, often by a factor of 3–4. The direction of motion affected several peak angles and ranges of motion, but to a lesser extent than seat orientation. Reach was unaffected by seat orientation. CONCLUSION: This study’s findings suggest that ingress/egress of horizontal seats is more stressful for the body, especially the shoulders and lower back, than regular upright seats.
座椅方位对进出关节运动学和到达包络的影响
背景:对于卧式座椅工作站的入口/出口要求和前伸距离了解甚少。本研究探讨了由于座椅朝向而导致的进出运动学和到达的差异。方法:10名参与者使用三种座椅方向(水平90◦和120◦座椅角度,垂直90◦座椅角度)进行进入/出口任务,并使用水平和垂直90◦座椅角度的三个解剖平面进行平面到达任务。光学运动捕捉系统用于记录运动数据。对标记数据进行处理和建模,以估计几个身体关节的峰值关节角和运动范围。对于伸够任务,使用锁骨和手指的标记数据来绘制伸够能力。结果:水平方向和垂直方向的关节进出运动学差异较大,水平方向的关节进出运动学差异较小。水平座椅进出时的峰值角度和运动范围明显高于垂直座椅,通常是3-4倍。运动方向对几个峰值角和运动范围的影响较小,但对座椅方向的影响较小。距离不受座椅方向的影响。结论:本研究结果表明,水平座椅的进出对身体的压力更大,尤其是肩膀和下背部,而不是普通的直立座椅。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信