Designing seats is crucial not only for health issues but also for the (dis)comfort perception. The seat pan design could be mainly influenced by two factors: pressure distribution and seat contour. For seat pan discomfort, the lower average pressure is accompanied by less discomfort. Moreover, a seat contour with a large contact area is correlated with more comfort. So, a shaped seat pan was accurately realized following the buttock-thigh shape of an international population (including P5 females and P95 males). For the comfort assessment, a comparison was made between this shaped seat pan (shaped cushion) and a standard aircraft seat pan (flat cushion). Twenty-two international
participants (11 males and 11 females, with BMI between 16 and 30) took part in the blind experiment assuming six different postures. Subjective data were gained from questionnaires, whose results showed that the shaped cushion is better in terms of perceived postural comfort. Also, 64% of participants chose the shaped cushion as a preferred cushion because it was more comfortable and suitable for the buttock shape. Objective data were gathered with a pressure mat, and results showed a higher contact area and lower mean pressure distribution for shaped cushion. Significant correlations were calculated between objective and subjective data with Spearman Correlation coefficients.@en

The study of ergonomics and (dis)comfort is a major topic of interest to scientific literature since the introduction of ISO 11228. Over the past 30 years, researchers have attempted to understand the mechanisms underlying perceptions of (dis)comfort for a seated subject. Three main factors are recognized as paramount for the comfort performance of a seat: human body posture, pressure at interface, and load distribution on the contact area; this study investigates the relationships between them and examines their significance for (dis)comfort perception. Physiological factors are known to play a role in (dis)comfort perception, and we consider these as a consequence of the three main parameters above. An explanation is given for this hypothesis. Experimental tests were conducted using a school chair with a rigid seat pan and no armrests for reducing the number of factors of influence. Conclusions show the levels of correlation between acquired information and perceived (dis)comfort.

@en

In recent years, methods that allow for an objective evaluation of perceived comfort, in terms of postural, physiological, cognitive and environmental comfort, have received a great deal of attention from researchers. This paper focuses on one of the factors that influences physiological comfort perception: the temperature difference between users and the objects with which they interact. The first aim is to create a measuring system that does not affect the perceived comfort during the temperatures' acquisition. The main aim is to evaluate how the temperature at the human-mattress interface can affect the level of perceived comfort. A foam mattress has been used for testing in order to take into account the entire back part of the human body. The temperature at the interface was registered by fourteen 100 Ohm Platinum RTDs (Resistance Temperature Detectors) placed on the mattress under the trunk, the shoulders, the buttocks, the legs, the thighs, the arms and the forearms of the test subject. 29 subjects participated in a comfort test in a humidity controlled environment. The test protocol involved: dress-code, anthropometric-based positioning on mattress, environment temperature measuring and an acclimatization time before the test. At the end of each test, each of the test subject's thermal sensations and the level of comfort perception were evaluated using the ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) scale. The data analyses concerned, in the first instance, correlations between the temperature at the interface and comfort levels of the different parts of the body. Then the same analyses were performed independently of the body parts being considered. The results demonstrated that there was no strong correlation among the studied variables and that the total increase of temperature at interface is associated with a reduction in comfort.

@en