Adaptation and Sensitivity to Postural Change in Sitting

Abstract

We used 3 psychophysics methods to determine perceptible changes in seat height, seat pan angle, and backrest angle using an experimental chair. In the method of adjustment, the chosen chair settings were affected by the initial setting. For example, a high initial setting of the seat height led to a high selected setting and a low setting led to a low value. The difference between settings was referred to as not noticeable difference (NND). The method of limits was used to determine acceptable chair settings using verbal limits such as "too high" and "too low." Using the method of constant stimuli, just noticeable differences (JNDs) were determined for chair height (1.5 cm), seat pan angle (1.2°) and backrest angle (1.7°). The corresponding values for NNDs and verbal limits were about twice as large: chair height (2.5 cm), seat pan angle (4°) and backrest angle (3°). NNDs and verbal limits are unobtrusive measures that are considered more valid than JNDs, which exaggerate the need for adjustability. The results have practical implications for the design of office chairs.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baird, J. C. , & Noma, E. (1978). Fundamentals of scaling and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.

Chi, C. (1987). Psychophysical evaluation of handle design. Unpublished master's thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.

Conway, E. J. , & Helander, M. G. (1981). Optimum control heights for sitting cross-legged and kneeling. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society (pp. 767–771). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Cornell, P. , & Kokot, D. (1994). Use of adjustable VDT stands in an office setting. In R. Lueder & K. Noro (Eds.), Hard facts about soft machines (pp. 25–36). London: Taylor & Francis.

Dainoff, M. J. , Mark, L. , Moritz, R. , & Vogele, D. (1987). Task, seat adjustability, and postural change. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting (pp. 879–883). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Drury, C. G. (1964). A study of the relations between driver seating variables. Motor Industry Research Association Bulletin, 4, 10–12.

Gescheider, G. A. (1997). Psychophysics: The fundamentals. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grandjean, E. (1987). Ergonomics in computerized offices. London: Taylor & Francis.

Grandjean, E. , Hunting, W. , & Pidermann, M. (1983). VDT workstation design: Preferred settings and their effects. Human Factors, 25, 161–175.

10.

Grieco, A. (1986). Sitting posture: An old problem and a new one. Ergonomics, 29, 345–362.

11.

Helander, M. G. (1985). Human factors of emerging office automation systems. Human Factors, 27, 3–20.

12.

Helander, M. G. , Zhang, L. , & Michel, D. (1995). Ergonomics of ergonomic chairs: A study of adjustability features. Ergonomics, 38, 2007–2029.

13.

Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper & Row.

14.

Kroemer, K. H. E. (1997). Design of the computer workstation. In M. G. Helander , T. K. Landauer , & P. V. Prabhu (Eds.) Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd ed., pp. 1395–1414). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

15.

Le Carpentier, E. F. (1969). Easy chair dimension for comfort. Ergonomics, 12, 328–337.

16.

Lueder, R. (1994). Adjustability in context. In R. Lueder & K. Noro (Eds.), Hard facts about soft machines (pp. 25–36). London: Taylor & Francis.

17.

Mandal, A. C. (1981). The seated man (homo sedens), the seated workposture: Theory and practice. Applied Ergonomics, 12, 19–29.

18.

Poulton, E. C. (1982). Biases in quantitative judgments. Applied Ergonomics, 13, 31–42.

19.

Rinalducci, E. (1983). Video displays, work and vision. Washington, DC: National Academy.

20.

Siegel, S. , & Castellan, N. J. Jr. , (1988). Nonparametric statistics (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.