Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 177184

Automobile seat comfort: occupant preferences vs.

anthropometric accommodation
Mike Kolich*
Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Systems Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ont., Canada N9B-3P4
Received 20 February 2002; accepted 28 September 2002

Abstract
Automobile seat design specications cannot be established without considering the comfort expectations of the target
population. This contention is supported by published literature, which suggests that ergonomics criteria, particularly those related
to physiology, do not satisfy consumer comfort. The objective of this paper is to challenge ergonomics criteria related to
anthropometry in the same way. In this context, 12 subjects, representing a broad range of body sizes, evaluated ve different
compact car seats during a short-term seating session. Portions of a reliable and valid survey were used for this purpose. The contour
and geometry characteristics of the ve seats were quantied and compared to the survey information. Discrepancies were
discovered between published anthropometric accommodation criteria and subject-preferred lumbar height, seatback width, cushion
length, and cushion width. Based on this nding, it was concluded that automobile seat comfort is a unique science. Ergonomics
criteria, while serving as the basis for this science, cannot be applied blindly for they do not ensure comfortable automobile seats.
r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Automobile seat; Comfort; Anthropometry

1. Introduction
The ergonomics of seat comfort has been studied
from a number of different perspectives (Zhang et al.,
1996; Yamazaki, 1992). As a generalization, the current
practice is to design automobile seats to satisfy
ergonomics criteria (synonymous with ergonomics
guidelines). This approach is assumed to translate into
positive consumer comfort ratings. For the purposes of
this paper, there are two categories of ergonomics
criteria. They are physiological and anthropometric.
The physiological factors, which deal with muscles,
vertebral discs, joints, and skin, have traditionally been
quantied using electromyography (Bush et al., 1995;
Lee and Ferraiuolo, 1993; Sheridan et al., 1991), disc
pressure measurement (Andersson et al., 1974), vibration transmissibility (Ebe and Grifn, 2000), pressure
distribution at the occupantseat interface (Kamijo
*Corresponding author. Automotive Systems Group, Johnson
Controls Inc., 49200 Halyard Drive, Plymouth, MI 48170, USA.Tel.:
+1-734-254-5911; fax: +1-734-254-6277.
E-mail address: michael.kolich@jci.com (M. Kolich).

et al., 1982; Hertzberg, 1972), and microclimate at the

occupantseat interface (Diebschlag et al., 1988).
Ergonomics criteria related to physiology have, however, come under scrutiny, particularly in the past
decade. Reed et al. (1991), for example, described the
automobile seat designers dilemma as the need for a
balance between prescribing a physiologically appropriate seated posture and accommodating a driver in a
preferred posture. They reasoned that prescribed postures sometimes compromise long-term comfort. Later,
Reed et al. (1995), based on their preliminary data,
highlighted the incompatibility between the traditional
practice of designing automobile seatbacks to induce a
large degree of lumbar lordosis (which is, according to
Andersson et al., 1974, appropriate from a physiological
perspective] and the ideal of satisfying occupant-selected
spinal congurations (which, for some occupants, are
more kyphotic). Reed and Schneider (1996) veried this
incompatibility in a follow-up study. Kolich et al.
(2000), in the context of their investigation, came to a
similar conclusion. These investigations all suggest that
the human body has a great plasticity to adapt to a large
variety of sitting conditions. For this reason, ergonomics

0003-6870/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 3 - 6 8 7 0 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 4 2 - 4

178

M. Kolich / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 177184

criteria based on physiology, because they do not ensure

comfort, may unnecessarily limit automobile seat design.
Due in large part to Akerbloms (1948) work,
ergonomics criteria related to anthropometry have long
been considered a key aspect of comfortable seating.
From this perspective, designers must ensure that a
range of people, from small to large, t in the seat. In
general, automobile seat designs are specied by noting,
for a target population, the constraining values of
appropriate anthropometric dimensions (usually 5th
percentile female and 95th percentile male).
Comfortable accommodation in the lumbar region is
best achieved through adjustability. This is, in the
context of most applications, often impractical, due to
the associated cost. According to Reed et al. (1994), the
apex of the lumbar contour should be positioned
between 105 and150 mm from H-Point. As an aside, in
the automotive seating industry, many anthropometric
dimensions are referenced from H-Point, which is based
on the hip point of a manikin that represents how
medium-sized men sit in, and interact with, different
vehicle seats and vehicle environments (Society of
Automotive Engineers, 1995). This aforementioned
range is thought to capture the L3 joint level for both
small females and large males in the sitting posture.
In the upper seatback (at approximately chest height),
the minimum width should support the chest breadth of
a large male when reclining. The interscye distance,
measured across the back between the posterior axillary
folds, is an appropriate anthropometric reference
measurement. According to Reed et al. (1994), 471 mm
should accommodate the 95th percentile male interscye
distance. Failure to satisfy this criterion may compromise seatback lateral support.
Cushion length is an important determinant of thigh
support. A cushion that is too long can put pressure on
the posterior portion of the occupants legs near the
knee. Pressure in this area will lead to local discomfort
and restricted blood ow to the legs (Reed et al., 1994).
Cushion length is constrained by the buttock-topopliteal length of the 5th percentile female segment of
the population. This dimension is measured on the
seated occupant from the rearmost projection of the
buttocks to the popliteal fold at the back of the knee.
Gordon et al. (1989) reported a 5th percentile female
buttock-to-popliteal length of 440 mm. This equates to
approximately 305 mm from H-Point. This dimension/
criterion is a maximum.
In the case of cushion width, the 95th percentile
female sitting hip breadth is used as a specication limit,
since this measure exceeds the 95th percentile male
sitting hip breadth. Using the principle of anthropometric accommodation, the minimum cushion width
must be greater than the 95th percentile female sitting
hip breadth of 432 mm (Gordon et al., 1989). However,

a larger minimum cushion width is required, mainly

because the cited anthropometric measurement does not
include a margin for clothing (an automobile seat must
generally be suitable for use in cold climates where
heavy clothing is worn). Reed et al. (1994) believe that
automobile seats should provide a clearance of 500 mm
at the hips. This characteristic affects cushion lateral
support.
Subjective perceptions of comfort must be quantied
before they can be compared to ergonomics criteria
related to anthropometry. In the automotive seating
industry, structured surveys are commonly used for this
purpose. The lack of emphasis on seat comfort survey
design (exceptions include Reed et al., 1991; Shen and
Parsons, 1997; Kolich, 1999) is surprising given (1) the
extent to which seat comfort development relies on
survey data and (2) the fact that many of the problems
related to the collection of subjective data have been well
known for some time.
A good survey is reliable and valid. This involves
reducing the survey measures into two components: a
true score component and a measurement error component. A reliable survey item contains little measurement
error. It is, however, impossible to directly observe the
true score and error components of an actual score on a
survey item. Instead, correlation techniques are used to
give an estimate of the extent to which the survey item
reects true score rather than measurement error.
Validity refers to whether the number/score obtained
from the survey truly reects what the researcher
intended to measure. Validity is related to, although
different than, reliability. A reliable measure provides
consistent readings but is not necessarily valid. On the
other hand, a measurement is unlikely to be valid unless
it is also reliable. In general, reliability is a necessary but
not sufcient condition for validity, with reliability
setting the upper bound to the level of validity that one
can expect to nd in a measure. Important indicators of
reliability and validity are testretest reliability, internal
consistency, criterion-related validity, construct-related
validity, and face validity (Kolich, 1999).
Reliability and validity can be assured by considering
the following principles: (a) the wording of survey items
(Oppenheim, 1966), (b) the number of rating scale
categories (Guilford, 1954; Grigg, 1978), (c) the verbal
tags associated with the categories (Osgood et al., 1957),
and (d) the interest and motivation of the respondent, as
a function of survey length. The type of rating scale (i.e.
nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio) must also be
considered, since seat comfort surveys are, typically,
subjected to some form of quantitative analysis, whether
it is a simple frequency count or a more complex
statistical treatment (Stevens, 1946; Cozby, 1989). The
type of statistical analysis employed is dependent on the
manner in which the data were collected. Failure to
attend to the quantitative aspects of survey design will

M. Kolich / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 177184

produce results that are, at best, biased and, at worst,

totally invalid. In fact, Kolich (1999) believes that the
lack of quality subjective data has hindered advances in
automobile seat comfort development. While researchers may be tempted to devise surveys with many items, if
reliability and validity are not considered, then there is
limited condence that can be placed in the results.
Kolichs (1999) position is that, in the case of surveys
items, more is not always better.

2. Objective
This paper, on the basis of subjective data collected
using portions of Kolichs (1999) survey and spurred by
what the automotive seating industry has realized may
be questionable ergonomics criteria related to physiology, intends to challenge the published ergonomics
criteria related to anthropometry. The thought is that
design specications developed using anthropometric
considerations do not contribute to the production of
comfortable seats. That is, consumer expectations of
automobile seat comfort are not necessarily satised
through anthropometric accommodation.

3. Method
To obtain design data, ve 1997 model year vehicles
were obtained from rental agencies and the driver seat
contours were scanned, while in the actual vehicles,
using a portable coordinate measurement machine
(CMM), known as a FaroArm (displayed in Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. FaroArm used to scan automobile seats.

179

The FaroArm had a 3.7 m spherical diameter, weighed

7 kg, and was, according to the manufacturer, accurate
to within 0.18 mm.
The seats, which were evaluated approximately 1
month apart, were base level [i.e. cloth with manual
track (2-way) and recliner]. The vehicles, each produced
by a different manufacturer, were selected from the
North American compact car segment. Seats from the
same market segment are assumed to have comparable
seat heights, which is a primary determinant of occupant
package. Owing partly to the difference in seat height
and partly to the difference in feature content, seats
from different market segments are difcult to compare.
All things considered, the seats were thought to
accurately reect the range found in the market
segment. The reader will note that, in this paper, the
seats are distinguished using the letters A through E.
The seats were not named because permission was not
sought from and therefore granted by the vehicle
manufacturers.
To fairly compare the contour and geometry characteristics, the ve seats were similarly set-up. In the
automotive seating industry, because seat designs vary,
manufacturer-specied design position is the standard
way to compare seats. This information could not be
obtained for the purposes of this research. As a
consequence, a protocol was established to estimate
each seats design position. It was as follows:
1. The seatback angle was set to 251 from vertical.
2. The track position was set to full rear.
3. The H-Point manikin (Society of Automotive Engineers, 1995) was placed in the seat (without
weights).
4. The seat was adjusted until the H-Point manikin was
adequately positioned in front of the pedals and
steering wheel.
5. The H-Point manikin was loaded (i.e. weights were
added) according to the standard developed by the
Society of Automotive Engineers (1995).
6. In this position, the H-Point to heel point relationships and the H-Point manikins critical angles (i.e.
torso, hip, knee, and foot) were determined for each
seat. Table 1 outlines this information and, by
default, denes limits that can be considered representative of the compact car segment.
After setting the seat to the estimated design position
(shown in Table 1), an alignment was created with the
FaroArm. This alignment was used to establish a
coordinate system (x; y; and z plane). The coordinate
system, in relation to the vehicle, can be visualized in
Fig. 2. An XZ plane was used to dene the centerline of
the seat (i.e. between the inboard and outboard edges of
the seat). Two separate YZ planes, one for the seatback
and one for the cushion, dened the cross car sections.

M. Kolich / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 177184

180

Table 1
Compact car limits for H-Point machine angles and H-Point to heel point relationships

Torso angle (deg)

Hip angle (deg)
Knee angle (deg)
Foot angle (deg)
H-Point to heel pointx (mm)
H-Point to heel pointz (mm)

Seat A

Seat B

Seat C

Seat D

Seat E

Mean

STD

24
96.1
129.8
87.9
887
223

24
98
131
85
833
246

24
96
127.5
87
868
222

23.5
95
127
89.5
837
169

24
97.3
128
87.5
857
243

23.9
96.5
128.7
87.4
856.4
220.6

0.2
1.2
1.7
1.6
22.3
30.9

Fig. 2. Coordinate system used for the scanning process (adopted from Society of Automotive Engineers, 1998).

For each seat, the seatback plane was rotated to the

estimated design position torso angle (refer to Table 1).
The cushion plane was not rotated. The minimum
distance between points was set to 0.1 mm. This,
basically, served to lter through points and delete
redundant data. As part of the actual scanning process,
the probe was passed back and forth over the selected
plane. Each time the probe passed over the plane a point
was digitized. Once enough, data points were collected,
AnthroCAMTM (Faro Technologies, Inc., 1998) was
used to connect the dots in each of the specied
planes.
Points were taken to the center of the probe. For this
reason, the scan lines, in a post processing operation,
were offset by the radius of the probe (i.e. 3 mm). Each
scan line was offset individually. This was an AutoCAD
function (Autodesk, Inc, 1996).
In addition to the contour, the H-Point (in estimated
design position) was digitized. To perform this task, the
H-Point manikin was, once again, placed in the seat.
The H-Point was, as part of the analysis, related to some
of the seat contour and geometry characteristics.
The nished scan, an example of which is included in
Fig. 3, was then dimensioned to dene design parameters. For this study, cushion width at H-Point
(corresponding to hip breadth) and seatback width

Fig. 3. Example of nished seat scan (isometric view).

300 mm superior to H-Point (corresponding to chest

height) were measured between the two widest points on
the contour scan (Fig. 4which represents a typical
cross car section). Cushion length was measured as the

M. Kolich / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 177184

horizontal distance from H-Point to the leading edge of

the cushion. The location of the apex of the lumbar
contour was measured as the most prominent point on
the seatback contour tangent and parallel to the design
position torso line. Once identied, a line was drawn
through the apex that was perpendicular to the torso
line. The height of the apex was measured from this line
along the torso line to the H-Point. Cushion length and
lumbar height are operationally dened in Fig. 5, which
represents a typical centerline section.
After each seat was scanned, 12 subjects completed
the survey shown in Table 2. The survey was designed to
assess showroom comfort. While it is acknowledged that
short-term evaluations do not capture all aspects of
automobile seat comfort [the physical properties of

Fig. 4. Operational denition of dimensions obtained from cross car

section of scan data (YZ plane).

181

foam, for example, change over time, which is probably

more important to long-term comfort (i.e. ride quality)],
the survey was appropriate in the context of this studys
purpose. In other words, it was felt that the short-term,
subjective data collected as part of the experimental
protocol, because they were focused on specic aspects
of seat contour/geometry, could be used to compare
occupant preferences and criteria associated with
anthropometric accommodation. It is also worth stating
that reference values for what constitutes just right or
uncomfortable (i.e. the verbal qualiers associated
with the rating scales in this study) were not provided.
This was justied by the fact that reference values are
not dened for consumers presented with an opportunity to rate a vehicle/seat in the market place. In this
way, the study was thought to reect real world
comfort ratings. Subjects were allowed to adjust the seat
to a comfortable position prior to completing the four
survey items. The same 12 subjects evaluated each of the
ve seats.
The number of survey items was not considered a
limitation. It was much more important to include items
with proven levels of reliability and validity than it was
to include a large number of items. Reliability and
validity were assured by selecting items from a
previously published surveyone that had demonstrated levels of reliability and validity (Kolich, 1999).
Also, the survey items were specically selected because
of their hypothesized relationship to the design aspects
of interest (e.g. lumbar comfort vs. height of the apex of
the lumbar contour, back lateral comfort vs. seatback
width +300 mm from H-Point, thigh comfort vs.
cushion length, and cushion lateral comfort vs. cushion
width at H-Point).

Table 2
Seat comfort survey (adapted from Kolich, 1999)
Item

Fig. 5. Operational denition of dimensions obtained from centerline

section of scan data (XZ plane).

Just right

Setback
Lumber comfort
Back lateral comfort

Uncomfortable
Uncomfortable

&
&

&
&

&
&

&
&

Cushion
Thigh coushin
Cushion lateral comfort

Uncomfortable
Uncomfortable

&
&

&
&

&
&

&
&

Table 3
Measured dimensions (mm) for ve automobile seats

Height of lumbar apex from H-Point

Seatback width at chest level
Cushion length from H-Point
Cushion width at hips

Seat A

Seat B

Seat C

Seat D

Seat E

Mean

STD

89
451
351
428

124
508
341
484

116
514
362
481

143
507
352
445

143
462
357
414

123.0
488.4
352.6
450.4

22.4
29.5
7.8
31.3

M. Kolich / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 177184

182

demonstrates that a large range of body sizes was

represented (i.e. 3rd to 99th percentile male standing
height and 5th to 99th male body weight). This study
could not, however, be used to determine how particular
aspects of seat design affect different anthropometric
groups (e.g. short, medium, and tall) because operational anthropometric measures (e.g. the height of the
L3 joint level in the seated posture, interscye distance,
buttock-to-popliteal length, and sitting hip breadth)
were not considered. Future research should strive to
include a more complete picture of the anthropometric
characteristics of the subject sample.
Descriptive statistics for the four survey items can be
found in Table 5. A cursory examination of this
information suggests that the seats are not equally
comfortable and that Seat C is, with respect to all four
items, the best performer (closest to just right). In
fact, Seat C also has among the smallest standard
deviations implying that the occupants tended to agree
in their perceptions of comfort.
The differences in Table 5 were tested for statistical
signicance. The approach taken here was to test the
hypothesis that the means outlined in Table 5 were
equal. Within the automotive industry, the statistical
treatment of survey data is the source of controversy.
Most seat comfort surveys use ordinal scalesas does
the survey used in the present contribution. Knowingly
or not, seat system design teams, due to the sophisticated manner in which they statistically treat survey
data, are, basically, assuming at least an interval scale (if
not ratio). According to one school of thought, led by
Stevens (1946), this is incorrect. Stevens (1946) believes
that ordinal data should not be analyzed using parametric statistics. The competing school of thought
rejects this premise claiming that although error may
be introduced, it is offset by the use of more powerful
and better developed statistics (Labovitz, 1972). The
interested reader is referred to Kolich (1999) for a more
detailed discussion concerning the acceptability of
applying parametric statistics to ordinal data. This
paper subscribes to the second school of thought. Based
on this position, a one-way ANOVA, which is a
parametric statistical test that assumes normality of
data (Table 6 veries that the data are normal at the 0.05
level), was used to test the previously stated hypothesis.

4. Results and discussion

Table 3 presents the seat dimensions obtained from
the scan data. Descriptive statistics are also provided.
With respect to the height of the lumbar apex from HPoint, only Seat A does not satisfy Reed et al.s (1994)
anthropometric accommodation criterion of 105
150 mm. Seats BD exceed the seatback width at chest
level requirement of 471 mm (Reed et al., 1994). It was
interesting to note that all ve seats fail to meet the
anthropometric criteria of 305 and 500 mm for cushion
length and cushion width, respectively (Reed et al.,
1994).
The anthropometric and demographic details of the
sample, obtained in a self-report fashion, are included in
Table 4. Three-dimensional anthropometric data [obtained through laser scans, as in the Civilian American
and European Surface Anthropometry Resource (CAESAR) project (Robinette et al., 1999)] would have been
ideal. Unfortunately, obtaining this type of data is an
expensive, time consuming, and equipment-dependent
proposition. The required resources were not available
for this study. Note that the percentile values listed in
Table 4 were derived from Gordon et al. (1989). Table 4

Table 4
Anthropometric and demographic characteristics of subjects evaluating ve seats
Subject

Gender

Standing
height
(cm)

Percentile Body
Percentile
mass (kg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Mean
STD

Female
Male
Male
Female
Male
Female
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male

176
189
198
179
189
178
153
175
154
172
152
164
173
15

90
98
99
99
98
99
5
45
10
30
5
3
57
44

55
132
105
73
82
73
61
79
64
85
73
61
78
21

20
99
98
90
65
90
50
55
60
75
90
5
66
30

Table 5
Descriptive statistics for subjective ratings derived from survey
Seat A
Survey Item
Lumbar comfort
Back lateral comfort
Thigh comfort
Cushion lateral comfort

Mean
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7

Seat B
STD
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5

Mean
1.3
1.1
1.4
0.8

Seat C
STD
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.5

Mean
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1

Seat D
STD
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5

Mean
0.7
0.8
1.3
0.7

Seat E
STD
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.5

Mean
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3

Overall
STD
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.7

Mean
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.7

STD
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4

M. Kolich / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 177184

The ANOVA results, shown in Table 7, reveal that there

was a statistically signicant difference between the seats
(decision criterion of 0.05). This was the case for all four
survey items.
The preceding information, when considered in
unison, suggests that there is a discrepancy between
the ergonomics criteria related to anthropometry and
subjective perceptions of comfort. Consider, for example, the fact that signicantly different comfort ratings
were received by seats that satised the same ergonomics
criteria related to anthropometry. For example, the
lumbar height requirement is satised by Seats BE, yet
the subjective ratings suggest that the seats do not offer
a comparable level of lumbar comfort. In lieu of this
nding, it may be more appropriate to revise the design
specications to accommodate the top-performing seat,
which was, with respect to all four survey items, Seat C.
This was done in Table 8.
The present contribution assumes that comfort
aspects are independent. It is, however, plausible that
Table 6
KolmogorovSmirnov Z test for normality of survey data
Survey item

KS Z test

p value

Lumbar comfort
Back lateral comfort
Thigh comfort
Cushion lateral comfort

2.003
2.246
1.803
2.418

0.001
0.000
0.003
0.000

183

lumbar comfort may be affected by thigh comfort, for

example. The interdependence of various seat comfort
aspects should be investigated as part of future research.
This research suggests that automobile seats designed
using ergonomics criteria related to anthropometry are
not necessarily perceived as more comfortable. In fact,
the differences are signicant enough to affect design
practices, specically with respect to packaging and seat
contour/geometry development. In the case of cushion
width, for example, the published anthropometric
criterion is excessively generous based on occupant
preferences. This is a concern, because in todays
environment, interior space is at a premium. Due to
this mismatch, automobile seats may be consuming
valuable space in the vehicle interior; space that could,
otherwise, be used for other features. At the same time,
the ergonomics criteria related to anthropometry may be
insufcient in terms of cushion length and seatback
width. That is, occupants appeared to prefer longer
cushions and wider seatbacks. Design ranges for the
lumbar region, a well-documented problem area, can
rightly be lowered and narrowed. This may help reduce
the frequency and/or severity of lumbar complaints.

5. Conclusion
This paper has found discrepancies between published
anthropometric accommodation criteria and occupant

Table 7
One-way ANOVA for survey differences between seats
Sum of squares

df

Mean square

Sig.

Lumbar comfort

Between seats
Within seats
Total

13.500
16.833
30.333

4
55
59

3.375
0.306

11.027

0.000

Back lateral comfort

Between seats
Within seats
Total

9.233
16.417
25.650

4
55
59

2.308
0.298

7.734

0.000

Thigh comfort

Between seats
Within seats
Total

14.100
25.833
39.933

4
55
59

3.525
0.470

7.505

0.000

Cushion lateral comfort

Between seats
Within seats
Total

9.433
15.167
24.600

4
55
59

2.358
0.276

8.552

0.000

Table 8
Occupant preferences as compared to anthropometric criteria
Critical to comfort

Design Characteristic

Anthropometric criterion (mm)

Occupant preference (mm)

Lumbar support
Seatback lateral support
Thigh support
Cushion lateral support

Height of lumbar apex from H-Point

Seatback width at chest level
Cushion length
Cushion width at hips

105150
>471
o305
>500

90123
X514
X362
446483

184

M. Kolich / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 177184

preferences related to the height of the apex of the

lumbar contour, seatback width, cushion length, and
cushion width. Based on this nding it was concluded
that, while it is important for designers to understand
the related ergonomics (especially physiology and
anthropometry), automobile seat comfort is a unique
science. It should, therefore, be studied as such. This
involves consideration of the target populations preferences. Only in this way can the development process
ensure comfortable automobile seats.
References
Akerblom, B., 1948. Standing and sitting posture with special reference
to the construction of chairs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Karolinska Institutet, A.B. Nordiska Bokhandeln, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Andersson, B.J.G., Ortengren, R., Nachemson, A., Elfstrom, G., 1974.
Lumbar disc pressure and myoelectric back muscle activity during
sitting. IV. Studies on a car drivers seat. Scand. J. Rehab. Med. 6,
128133.
Autodesk, Inc., 1996. AutoCAD (release 13). Computer software.
Bush, T.R., Mills, F.T., Thakurta, K., Hubbard, R.P., Vorro, J., 1995.
The use of el;ectromyography for seat assessment and comfort
evaluation. Technical Paper No. 950143. Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, USA.
Cozby, P.C., 1989. Understanding research results. In: Methods in
Behavioral Research, 4th Edition. Mayeld Publishing Company,
Mountain View, CA, USA, pp. 129152.
Diebschlag, W., Heidinger, F., Kuurz, B., Heiberger, R., 1988.
Recommendation for ergonomic and climatic physiological vehicle
seat design. Technical Paper No. 880055, Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, USA.
Ebe, K., Grifn, M.J., 2000. Qualitative models of seat discomfort
including static and dynamic factors. Ergonomics 43 (6), 771790.
Faro Technologies, Inc., 1998. AnthroCAM(version 2.32). Computer
software.
Gordon, C.C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C.E., Bradtmiller, B., McConville, J.T., Tebbetts, I., Walker, R.A., 1989. 1988 Anthropometric
survey of US army personnel: methods and summary statistics.
Technical Report NATICK/TR-89/044, Anthropology Research
Project, Yellow Springs, OH, USA.
Grigg, A.O., 1978. A review of techniques for scaling subjective
judgments. Supplementary Report 379 ISSN 0305-1315, Transport
and Road Research Laboratory, Department of the Environment
and Department of Transport, Crawthorne, Berkshire, UK.
Guilford, J.P., 1954. Psychometric Methods. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Hertzberg, H.T.E., 1972. The human buttocks in sitting: pressures,
patterns, and palliatives. Technical Paper No. 72005. Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc., New York.
Kamijo, K., Tsujimura, H., Obara, H., Katsumata, M., 1982.
Evaluation of seating comfort. Technical Paper No. 820761.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA.
Kolich, M., Taboun, S.M., Mohamed, A.I., 2000. The inuence of
automobile seat backrest angle and lumbar support on low back

muscle activity. In: McCabe, P.T., Hanson, M.A., Robertson, S.A.

(Eds.), Contemporary Ergonomics, 2000. Taylor & Francis,
London, pp. 406410.
Kolich, M., 1999. Reliability and validity of an automobile seat
comfort survey. Technical Paper No. 990132. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, USA.
Labovitz, S., 1972. Statistical usage in sociology: sacred cows and
ritual. Sociol. Methods Res. 1, 1338.
Lee, J., Ferraiuolo, P, 1993. Seat comfort. Technical Paper No.
931005. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA,
USA.
Oppenheim, A.N., 1966. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. Basic Books, New York.
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., Tannenbaum, P.H., 1957. The Measurement
of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, USA.
Reed, M.P., Schneider, L.W., 1996. Lumbar support in auto seats:
conclusions from a study of preferred driving posture. SAE
Technical Paper No. 960478. Society of Automotive Engineers,
Inc.,Warrendale, PA, USA.
Reed, M.P., Schneider, L.W., Eby, B.A., 1995. Some effects of lumbar
support contour on driver seated posture. SAE Technical Paper
No. 950141. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale,
PA, USA.
Reed, M.P., Schneider, L.W., Ricci, L.L., 1994. Survey of Auto Seat
Design Recommendations for Improved Comfort. Report No.
UMTRI-94-6. University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Reed, M.P., Saito, M., Kakishima, Y., Lee, N.S., Schneider, L.W.,
1991. An investigation of driver discomfort and related seat design
factors in extended-duration driving. SAE Technical Paper No.
910117. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA,
USA.
Robinette, K.M., Daanen, H., Paquet, E., 1999. The Caesar project: a
3-D surface anthropometry survey. Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Recent Advances in 3-D Digital
Imaging and Modeling (3DIM99), Ottawa, Ont., October 48,
1999, pp. 380386 10/4/1999 NRC 43592.
Shen, W., Parsons, K.C., 1997. Validity and reliability of rating
scales for seated pressure distribution. Int. J. Ind. Ergonom. 20,
441461.
Sheridan, T.B., Meyer, J.E., Roy, S.H., Decker, K.S., Yanagishima,
T., Kishi, Y., 1991. Physiological and psychological evaluations of
driver fatigue during long term driving. SAE Technical Paper No.
910116. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA,
USA.
Society of Automotive Engineers, 1998. Surface vehicle recommended
practice. Motor vehicle dimensions. SAE J1100. Issued 1973-09,
Revised 1998-06. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, USA.
Society of Automotive Engineers, 1995. Surface vehicle standard.
Devices for use in dening and measuring vehicle seating
accommodation. SAE J826. Issued 1962-11, Revised 1995-07.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, USA.
Stevens, S.S., 1946. On the theory of measurement. Science 103,
677680.
Yamazaki, N., 1992. Analysis of sitting comfortably of drivers seat by
contact shape. Ergonomics 35 (56), 677692.
Zhang, L., Helander, M.G., Drury, C.G., 1996. Identifying factors of
comfort and discomfort in sitting. Hum. Factors 38 (3), 377389.