Ergonomics

ISSN: 0014-0139 (Print) 1366-5847 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20

Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of

automobile seat comfort

M Kolich & SM Taboun

To cite this article: M Kolich & SM Taboun (2004) Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of
automobile seat comfort, Ergonomics, 47:8, 841-863, DOI: 10.1080/0014013042000193273

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013042000193273

Published online: 20 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 966

View related articles

Citing articles: 33 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=terg20
ERGONOMICS, 22 JUNE, 2004, VOL. 47, NO. 8, 841 – 863

Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of automobile seat

comfort

M. KOLICH* and S. M. TABOUN

University of Windsor, Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Systems
Engineering, 401 Sunset Ave., Windsor, Ontario, Canada, N9B-3P4

Keywords: Automobile seat design; Seat interface pressure;

Subjective perceptions of comfort.

Automobile seats are developed in an iterative manner because subjective

feedback, which is usually of questionable quality, drives the design. The time and
cost associated with iteration could be justified if the process was guaranteed to
produce a comfortable seat. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Current practices
are based on the premise that seat system design teams need objective, measurable
laboratory standards, which can be linked to subjective perceptions of comfort.
Only in this way can predictions be made regarding whether or not a particular
design will be viewed by the consumer as comfortable. This type of forecasting
ability would effectively improve the efficiency with which automobile seats are
designed. In this context, the research reported, developed, and validated a
stepwise, multiple linear regression model relating seat interface pressure
characteristics, occupant anthropometry, occupant demographics, and percep-
tions of seat appearance to an overall, subjective comfort index derived from a
survey with proven levels of reliability and validity. The model performance
statistics were: adjusted r2 = 0.668, standard error of estimate = 2.308, F (6,
38) = 15.728, p = 0.000, and cross-validated r (15) = 0.952, p = 0.000. From the
model, human criteria for seat interface pressure measures were established.
These findings could not have been attained without first demonstrating that (1)
the data collection protocol for seat interface pressure measurement was
repeatable and (2) seat interface pressure measurements can be used to distinguish
between seats.

1. Introduction
Many major automobile manufacturers fail to be pro-active in their considerations
for the people who purchase their products (Porter 1994). In the early 1980s, the
familiar slogan ‘safety does not sell cars’ was believed to be true by many
manufacturers, and maybe it was. The last decade has seen a large increase in public
awareness concerning developments in primary and secondary safety. Today, a
quick browse through any car magazine shows that safety features take pride of
place. Society’s attitudes toward comfort are similarly evolving—not only in the
home and office, but in the automobile as well. Comfortable seating is no longer
considered a luxury; it is a requirement.
Rising customer expectations are, therefore, forcing the automotive seating
industry to focus design efforts on occupant comfort. Complicating matters is the

*Author for correspondence. e-mail: michael.kolich@jci.com

Ergonomics ISSN 0014-0139 print/ISSN 1366-5847 online # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0014013042000193273
842 M. Kolich and S. M. Taboun

fact that comfort, as it is currently understood, is a subjective concept that is

difficult to measure. Factors such as user subjectivity, occupant anthropometry,
seat geometry, and amount of time spent sitting also convolute the task (Thakurta
et al. 1995), as does the growth of the international automotive market, which has
served to increase diversity in seat design due to varying comfort requirements
(consider European preferences vs. North American preferences vs. Asian
preferences). To circumvent this complexity, the common belief is that seat system
design teams desperately need objective, measurable laboratory standards.
Presently, the quantification and subsequent design of automotive seating for
improved occupant comfort is one of the primary goals for seat system design
teams.
Along these lines, researchers, armed with advances in technology, have devised
several different objective measures of seat comfort. More specifically, the
development of advanced sensing and evaluation techniques has made it possible
to measure the pressure distribution at the occupant-seat interface (Reed et al. 1991).
It is, however, interesting to note that this technology was originally intended for
bio-medical applications such as dental occlusion analysis and the study of human
gait (Maness et al. 1987, Podoloff and Benjamin 1989, 1991, Soderholm 1989,
Czernik and Miszczak 1991). Until very recently, the technology relied on discrete
pressure sensors positioned at a limited number of locations between the occupant
and the seat, along with other custom modifications to the seat itself. Today, the
aforementioned sensing and evaluation techniques have evolved into thin, flexible
tactile sensor arrays (i.e., pressure mats) used to study the pressure distribution
between larger portions of the seat-occupant interface.
The application of these techniques to the study of the seat-occupant interface has
allowed information to be gathered that was previously unavailable. This can be
attributed to the high density of sensing cells provided by a grid-based structure. The
use of this technology allows a wide variety of experiments to be conducted, in real-
time, without requiring modification to the seats under investigation. The system
advantages include data resolution, high-speed data collection, real time displays,
and portability (Tekscan Inc. 1998). One of the disadvantages, according to Lu and
Lin (1996), is system repeatability.
By attaching the pressure mats to the seat cushion and seatback, information
regarding pressure magnitudes and locations can be obtained both graphically and
numerically. Some basic research, regarding the interpretation of pressure
distribution profiles, has already been conducted. In summary:

(1) A good seat cushion will produce pressure distributions for occupants with a
wide range of anthropometry that show peaks in the area of the ischial
tuberosities with gradual decreases in pressure toward the front and sides of
the cushion. In fact, Drummond et al. (1982) found that 18% of the
occupant’s body weight is taken up by each ischial tuberosity.
(2) The pressure under the distal half of the thigh should be minimal. Akerblom
(1948) was among the first to point out that the underside of the thigh has
minimal resistance to deformation until the tissue nears its compression limit
against the femur, leading to considerable restriction of circulation and
consequent discomfort. Particular attention should be paid to the pressure
distributions of small females, who are more likely to encounter interference
from the front edge of the cushion.
 Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of automobile seat comfort 843

(3) With respect to the seatback, Kamijo et al. (1982) found higher lumbar
pressure peaks in seats judged to be comfortable compared with lower values
in uncomfortable seats. While a seatback with adequate lumbar support will
produce pressure peaks in the lumbar area, excessively high pressure due to a
very firm lumbar support can lead to discomfort in long-term sitting (Reed et
al. 1991).
(4) There should be no isolated high pressure points in contact regions other
than the lumbar and ischial tuberosity regions. The physiological
consequence of high pressure is an interruption in blood flow to the
surrounding soft tissues (Chow and Odell 1978, Bader et al. 1986). This may
cause discomfort.
(5) The use of excessive seat padding to reduce peak pressures by more evenly
distributing pressure on the seat is likely to contribute to discomfort by
restricting pressure relieving movement (Akerblom, 1948). The seat design
should allow easy transitions to multiple postures. In this way, occupants can
adjust their pressure distribution patterns with a simple shift in body
position. If the seat is too soft, changing posture (within the constraints
imposed by the driving task) will not substantially alter the pressure
distribution profile.
(6) Park and Kim (1997) note that the pressure in a comfortable seat cushion is
distributed evenly and symmetrically around the ischial tuberosities. An
asymmetrical seat cushion may compromise comfort. The same logic can be
extended to apply to the seatback.

Given the amount of information that is already known, it is safe to state that many
researchers have, for some time, considered seat interface pressure as one of the most
influential factors in automobile seat comfort (Kohara and Sugi 1972, Hertzberg
1972, Kamijo et al. 1982, Diebschlag et al. 1988).
Subjectivity is inescapable in science as in everyday life (Annett 2002a). This
implies that quantification methods (including seat interface pressure) are mean-
ingless without an understanding of what occupants perceive as comfortable. Due
partly to the lack of proven analytical measurable and partly to the fact that
customers evaluate seat comfort in subjective ways, the seating industry relies on jury
evaluations as the main measure of seat comfort. The jury evaluation method usually
involves highly structured surveys that direct occupants to assign feelings of
discomfort to specific regions of the seat. It is acknowledged that, at present, the best
way to obtain an understanding of what occupants perceive as comfortable is to ask
them (Annett 2002b). This is usually achieved through the administration of a
questionnaire. The nature of the jury evaluation method makes it is necessary to
investigate the opinions of relatively large groups of passengers in order to determine
the seat design’s impact on perceived seating comfort (Manenica and Corlett 1973).
Given the automotive industry’s propensity to use questionnaires for seat comfort
development and the fact that many of the problems related to the collection of
subjective data are well known, it is surprising that so little attention has been paid to
the quantitative aspects of questionnaire design and analysis. Too often, seat system
design teams, in their quest to obtain design feedback, succumb to the temptation of
throwing together a questionnaire on the back of an envelope with no guarantee of
validity (Drury 2002). This is done because automobile seat comfort, as a science,
lacks a coherent, universally accepted definition (Baber 2002). As a consequence, the
844 M. Kolich and S. M. Taboun

questionnaire data typically collected by the automotive seating industry are, at best,
biased and, at worst, totally invalid. Due to the resulting measurement error,
automobile seats are, inevitably, developed in an iterative manner (i.e., trial and
error). Needless to say, this is an expensive and inefficient way to impact design.
A properly designed questionnaire is paramount because it affords the seat
system design team an instrument from which to base design decisions. A
questionnaire should not be used for this purpose unless it (1) provides
consistent ratings and is relatively free of random error (according to Salvendy
(2002), seat system design teams should have no reservations using ques-
tionnaires if, and only if, the scales provide reliable information) and (2) reflects
exactly what the seat system design teams intend to measure (valid). To satisfy
these criteria, the questionnaire must be designed with special emphasis on the
wording of the questionnaire items, the type and number of rating scale
categories, the verbal tags associated with the categories, the method of
quantification, and the interest and motivation of the respondent (as a function
of survey length). Kolich (1999) has published one of the few automobile seat
comfort questionnaires with demonstrated levels of test-retest reliability, internal
consistency, criterion-related validity, and construct-related validity. The ques-
tionnaire can be found in figure 1.
Kolich (1999) also created a method through which the entire questionnaire could
be reduced to a single score. The questionnaire scaling method made this possible.
That is, respondents who were satisfied with the comfort/support being assessed by
any one of the 10 questionnaire items would mark the ‘just right’ box, which, in the
ensuing analysis, corresponded to a score of zero. Most of the 10 items could be
rated from 7 3 to + 3. To obtain a single score, the absolute deviation of each item
from just right was summed. Therefore, the closer the score was to zero, the more
comfortable the respondent. The highest (i.e., worst) score possible was 30. This
score was referred to as the ‘overall comfort index’.
The overall comfort index was shown to reduce the bias thought to plague
traditional complete seat comfort ratings. One source of potential bias stems from
the respondent’s perception of seat appearance. The belief is that customers are more
likely to provide a positive seat comfort rating if the seat is aesthetically pleasing.

Figure 1. Reliable and valid automobile seat comfort survey—adopted from Kolich (1999).
 Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of automobile seat comfort 845

Branton (1969) was the first to make this claim. More recently, Helander (2003) has
gone so far as to suggest that consumers are guided by aesthetics more than
ergonomics. To delve further into this relationship, Kolich’s (1999) questionnaire
included a separate item for seat appearance (figure 1).
This paper’s premise is that (1) seat interface pressure measurements are
repeatable, (2) seat interface pressure can be used to distinguish between automobile
seats, and (3) automobile seat comfort, represented as the overall comfort index
derived from Kolich’s (1999) questionnaire, can be predicted using automobile seat
interface pressure, occupant anthropometry, occupant demographics, and percep-
tions of automobile seat appearance. If true, the design process should yield more
comfortable seats in a more efficient manner, which should translate to savings in
time and cost.

2. Method
The pressure mats used for this study feature a grid-work of 48 columns and 44 rows
based on 10 mm centres. At each of the 2112 intersection points on the grid, a
sensing cell is created. An electrical resistance inversely proportional to the pressure
applied relative to the cell’s surface characterizes each sensing cell. By scanning the
grid and measuring the electrical resistance at each grid point, the pressure
distribution on the mat’s surface can be determined.
The scanning electronics are packaged in a handle assembly that clips onto the
pressure mat’s interface tab and provides the electrical connection to each sensing
cell. The data acquired by the handle is arranged into a serial data stream and
broadcast via a thin cable to the receiver board. The receiver board then manages the
flow of information between the handle and the computer’s memory.
The handle electronics feature a ratiometric, 8-bit A/D converter that compares
the measured resistance at each cell to a reference resistance. This ratio is then
converted into a digital output value for the sensing cell. By applying a known load
to the sensor’s surface while simultaneously monitoring the digital output, the
calibration constants for the sensor can be determined.
Calibration was necessary to minimize the effect of pressure mat characteristics
that can influence the accuracy of the obtained measurements (e.g., uniformity,
non-linearity, drift, and temperature sensitivity). A proper calibration can only be
obtained under conditions that simulate the test environment. In terms of load
application, the worst-case test conditions (highest load and contact area) were
used for calibration. To control for drift, the pressure mat calibration was
performed in a time frame similar to that of the test condition (i.e., participants sit
for only a minute or two). In order to limit the temperature and humidity effects,
both the calibration and the data collection were conducted in an environmentally
controlled laboratory (708C and 50% RH). For this research, the pressure mats
were calibrated at the beginning of each test day using instructions provided by
Tekscan Inc. (1998). This was sufficient (as compared to calibrating between every
participant) because the test conditions were not particularly severe. That is, the
pressure mats were not exposed to hard surfaces, sharp edges, sliding surfaces, or
shear forces.
Repeatability (or lack thereof), which refers to the ability of a device to respond
identically to the same stimulus applied on different occasions, can influence the
accuracy of the pressure mat measurements. If a pressure mat were to yield vastly
different outputs under consistent test conditions, the confidence associated with the
846 M. Kolich and S. M. Taboun

corresponding results would, obviously, suffer. It is also unrealistic to think that an

inconsistent measure can be used for the purpose of prediction. In this context, this
investigation evaluated seat interface pressure method repeatability using a test-
retest scenario. As part of the protocol, the pressure distribution profiles of 17
participants (mean stature = 175.6 cm (STD = 8.7) and mean body mass = 74.6 kg
(STD = 12.6)) were recorded on two separate days, approximately 24 h apart. It was
valuable to use human subjects as opposed to objects of fixed mass because, in the
automotive seating industry, pressure distribution studies are typically conducted
using people. The same seat (equipped with a six-way power track, power recliner,
and manual lumbar mechanism) and pressure mats were used on both days. The
pressure mats were re-calibrated at the start of the second day. The seat was set-up in
a laboratory, as opposed to a vehicle. The remainder of the repeatability method was
as follows:

(1) Prior to data collection, the seat cushion and seatback were fitted with the
calibrated mats. The mats were securely attached to the seat using strips of
masking tape. Care was exercised to ensure that the mats were placed in a
consistent location from day-to-day (i.e., centered and tucked into the
biteline, which is the region where the cushion and seatback subassemblies
converge).
(2) Participants were not permitted to sit in the seat (on top of the mats) until
they removed any wallets and belts. This was done to avoid false seat
interface pressure readings.
(3) In both experimental conditions (i.e., test and retest), each participant was
allowed to adjust the available seat features. The preferred setting was called
‘driver selected seat position’.
(4) Participants were instructed to assume a typical driving posture. Once set, the
participant’s pressure distribution profile was recorded.
(5) The pressure measures (described later in this section) were analysed using a
paired samples t-test. The decision criterion was set to 0.05.

For the next phase of this research, 12 participants volunteered to evaluate five
different front driver bucket seats using both objective (seat interface pressure) and
subjective (questionnaire) methods. All 12 participants evaluated all five seats. Their
demographic and anthropometric characteristics, obtained in a self-report fashion,
are included in Table 1. The sample was considered representative of a typical North
American population.
The seats were evaluated in their actual vehicles. At the time of the study, all the
vehicles were new (i.e., less than 1000 km). The 1997 vehicles, each designed by a
different vehicle manufacturer, were white with grey interior. This precaution was
taken to limit any potential confounding effect of colour on subjective perceptions of
comfort. The study included a range of good and bad seats (as defined by J. D.
Power & Associates). A conscious decision was made to select seats from the same
vehicle segment. Seats from the same segment (e.g., sporty, luxury car, van, etc.)
were assumed to have similar packages (i.e., headroom, leg room, seat height, etc.).
The seats, which were evaluated approximately one month apart, were base-level
(i.e., cloth with manual track and recliner).
The evaluation protocol, which was similar to that used for the repeatability
portion of this study, was as follows:
 Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of automobile seat comfort 847

Table 1. Demographic and anthropometric characteristics of participants evaluating five

different front driver bucket seats using both subjective and objective methods
Participant Gender Stature (cm) Body mass (kg)
1 Female 176 55
2 Male 189 132
3 Male 198 105
4 Female 179 73
5 Male 189 82
6 Female 178 73
7 Female 153 61
8 Male 175 79
9 Female 154 64
10 Male 172 85
11 Female 152 73
12 Male 164 61
Mean 173 78
STD 15 21
Minimum 152 55
Maximum 198 132

(1) The seat cushion and seatback were fitted with the calibrated mats. The mats
were secured using strips of masking tape. Care was exercised to ensure that
the mats were placed in a consistent location (i.e., centered and tucked into
the biteline) from participant-to-participant and seat-to-seat.
(2) Before sitting in the seat (on top of the mats) participants were asked to
remove any wallets and belts to avoid false seat interface pressure readings.
(3) Each participant was allowed to adjust the track and the recliner. In the
selected vehicle segment, as defined for this research, there were no other seat
features to adjust.
(4) The participant was instructed to assume a typical driving posture. Once set,
the participant’s pressure distribution profile was recorded.
(5) The participant was asked to exit the seat so that the pressure mats could be
removed.
(6) The participant was asked to re-enter the seat in order to complete Kolich’s
(1999) questionnaire (figure 1) without interference from the mats. It should,
at this point, be stated that some participants completed the appearance
rating item prior to sitting in the seat while others completed the item after
exiting the seat. There was no standard procedure outlined for when
participants were to complete the appearance rating item. The reason should
be obvious—it is difficult for participants to rate the appearance of the seat if
they are sitting in it.
(7) Basic statistics were computed to describe the data and then a one-way
ANOVA was used to determine whether the pressure measures (described
later in this section) could be used to distinguish between seats. The decision
criterion was set to 0.05.

The entire procedure took approximately 30 min per participant to complete. Each
seat evaluation was completed within one day. Although the process was not truly
848 M. Kolich and S. M. Taboun

randomized, participants were not tested in any particular order (i.e., the order was
definitely not consistent from seat-to-seat).
In order to advance the notion that automobile seat comfort can be quantified, the
measured data were divided into a series of predictor variables. Seventy-five per cent
of the total sample was randomly selected and used to develop the model. The
remaining 25% of the total sample was used for validation. A stepwise, multiple
linear regression modelling approach was adopted. In practice, this is the most
popular regression procedure. The stepwise selection criteria used for this study were
(1) probability-of-F-to-enter = 0.05 and (2) probability-of-F-to-remove = 0.10.
Eight of the predictor variables were related to seat interface pressure. They were:

. Cushion Contact Area (cm2)—CCA

. Cushion Total Force (N)—CTF
. Cushion Load at the Centre of Force (g/cm2)—CCF
. Cushion Peak Pressure (g/cm2)—CPP
. Seatback Contact Area (cm2)—BCA
. Seatback Total Force (N)—BTF
. Seatback Load at the Centre of Force (g/cm2)—BCF
. Seatback Peak Pressure (g/cm2)—BPP

Two additional predictor variables were anthropometric in nature. They were:

. Stature (cm)—HT
. Body Mass (kg)—WT

One variable was a demographic characteristic. It was:

. Gender (for modelling purposes, males were assigned a 1, while females were
assigned a 0)

The final predictor variable was based on occupants’ perceptions of seat appearance.
It was:

. Appearance Rating (1 to 5 scale (5 is best))—AR

The dependent variable was the overall comfort index derived from Kolich’s (1999)
questionnaire (figure 1).

3. Results and discussion

Descriptive statistics for the repeatability of the pressure mat data are shown in table
2. The results from the paired samples t-test are shown in table 3. They suggest that
there is no statistically significant difference between the test and retest conditions.
That is, static pressure distribution measures are repeatable. Without this finding,
seat interface pressure could not justifiably be used as an objective measure of
comfort.
It can be speculated that repeatability could be further improved by controlling
driver selected seat position. Recall that, as part of the protocol, participants could,
if necessary, adjust any and all seat features in both the test and retest conditions.
The assumption was that participants are consistent in their selection of seat
 Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of automobile seat comfort 849

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for test-retest reliability of pressure mats used for seat interface
pressure determination
Pressure measure Condition Mean N STD
CCA (cm2) Test 1689 17 92
Retest 1696 17 93
CTF (N) Test 647 17 120
Retest 632 17 143
CCF (g/cm2) Test 41 17 19
Retest 45 17 26
BCA (cm2) Test 1214 17 297
Retest 1266 17 268
BTF (N) Test 224 17 63
Retest 214 17 54
BCF (g/cm2) Test 34 17 22
Retest 37 17 26

Table 3. Paired samples t-test for test-retest reliability of pressure mats used for seat interface
pressure determination
95% Confidence
Paired interval of
differences the difference

Std,
Pressure error Sig.
measure Mean STD mean Lower Upper t df (2-tailed)
CCA (Test – Retest) 7 6.7 45.0 10.9 7 29.9 16.4 7 0.617 16 0.546
CTF (Test – Retest) 15.0 75.3 18.3 7 23.7 53.7 0.822 16 0.423
CCF (Test – Retest) 7 3.5 18.4 4.5 7 12.9 6.0 7 0.777 16 0.449
BCA (Test – Retest) 7 52.3 129.2 31.3 7 118.8 14.1 7 1.670 16 0.114
BTF (Test – Retest) 9.8 27.6 6.7 7 4.4 23.9 1.462 16 0.163
BCF (Test – Retest) 7 2.2 17.2 4.2 7 11.1 6.6 7 0.538 16 0.598

position. This may not be a safe assumption because the study was done in a
laboratory setting. If the study was conducted in a vehicle, participants may have
been forced to consider task requirements (e.g., vision, steering wheel position, and
pedal location) prior to selecting seat positions, which may have made their selection
more consistent.
With respect to all five seats, table 4 presents the mean, standard deviation,
minimum, and maximum for the overall comfort index, appearance rating, and seat
interface pressure measures. A one-way ANOVA (shown in table 5) was used to
determine whether the selected measures could be used to distinguish between seats.
Both the appearance rating and overall comfort index produced statistically
significant differences between seats (table 5). The post hoc results (table 6) suggest
that Seat B (mean = 2.8) was among the least favourite while Seat C (mean = 4.4)
was among the most favourite (i.e., most aesthetically pleasing). In terms of the
overall comfort index, the post hoc (table 6) showed that all comparisons were
significantly different with the exception of Seat B (mean = 10.3) and Seat D
(mean = 8.6). Seat C (mean = 2.3) was the most comfortable. Together these
 850
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for overall comfort index, appearance rating, and seat interface pressure measures
Overall Appearance CCA CTF CCF CPP BCA BTF BCF BPP
SEAT Comfort Index Rating (cm2) (N) (g/cm2) (g/cm2) (cm2) (N) (g/cm2) (g/cm2)

A Mean 6.0 3.8 1717 598 26 112 1318 273 27 71

N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
STD 2.2 0.7 113 160 19 28 191 74 16 28
Min 2 2.5 1585 377 0 71 1086 192 5 46
Max 11 4.5 1967 1010 68 160 1653 422 51 135
B Mean 10.3 2.8 1699 588 26 124 1338 240 19 68
N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

M. Kolich and S. M. Taboun

STD 1.9 0.6 122 194 12 50 248 74 11 17
Min 7 2.0 1494 367 0 63 990 137 3 44
Max 13 4.0 1964 1066 43 247 1896 363 40 103
C Mean 2.3 4.4 1746 697 24 158 1342 277 18 115
N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
STD 1.1 0.6 112 172 16 75 281 108 12 91
Min 1 3.0 1623 537 3 63 850 140 0 43
Max 4 5.0 2002 1186 51 349 1908 518 40 291
D Mean 8.6 3.8 1630 564 32 110 1219 250 30 75
N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
STD 1.3 1 119 155 16 31 183 88 12 21
Min 6 2.5 1494 359 6 61 1005 126 7 46
Max 10 5.0 1917 958 56 173 1711 451 46 106
E Mean 12.8 3.2 1725 579 23 89 1358 322 39 75
N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
STD 1.4 0.7 117 149 11 28 254 116 15 17
Min 10 2.0 1494 424 4 54 953 154 13 48
Max 15 4.5 1948 970 36 159 1978 557 61 117
Total Mean 8 3.6 1703 605 26 118 1315 272 27 81
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
STD 4 0.9 120 168 15 50 232 95 15 47
Min 1 2.0 1494 359 0 54 850 126 0 43
Max 15 5.0 2002 1186 68 349 1978 557 61 291
 Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of automobile seat comfort 851

Table 5. One-way ANOVA for differences between seats pertaining to overall comfort index,
appearance rating, and seat interface pressure measures
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Overall Comfort Index Between seats 780.267 4 195.067 74.677 0.000
Within seats 143.667 55 2.612
Total 923.933 59
Appearance Rating Between seats 18.400 4 4.600 8.680 0.000
Within seats 29.146 55 0.530
Total 47.546 59
CCA Between seats 94346.798 4 23586.699 1.731 0.156
Within seats 749382.925 55 13625.144
Total 843729.723 59
CTF Between seats 133067.292 4 33266.823 1.195 0.323
Within seats 1531350.961 55 27842.745
Total 1664418.253 59
CCF Between seats 554.233 4 138.558 0.604 0.661
Within seats 12613.500 55 229.336
Total 13167.733 59
CPP Between seats 30635.136 4 7658.784 3.632 0.011
Within seats 115966.372 55 2108.479
Total 146601.507 59
BCA Between seats 147976.804 4 36994.201 0.674 0.613
Within seats 3020261.389 55 54913.843
Total 3168238.193 59
BTF Between seats 47893.236 4 11973.309 1.369 0.257
Within seats 480967.674 55 8744.867
Total 528860.910 59
BCF Between seats 3436.433 4 859.108 4.930 0.002
Within seats 9584.500 55 174.265
Total 13020.933 59
BPP Between seats 18360.978 4 4590.244 2.278 0.072
Within seats 110814.024 55 2014.800
Total 129175.002 59

findings warrant a more thorough examination into the relationship between seat
appearance and seat comfort.
With regards to the seat interface pressure measures, table 5 reveals that only CPP
and BCF can be used to quantitatively distinguish between seats. That is, these
measures resulted in a statistically significant difference between seats. The post hoc
results for CPP (table 6) indicate that Seat C (mean = 158 g/cm2) was different than
Seat E (mean = 89 g/cm2). Similarly, for BCF, table 6 reveals that Seat B
(mean = 19 g/cm2) and Seat C (mean = 18 g/cm2) were different than Seat E
(mean = 39 g/cm2).
The primary deliverable of this research work is to establish a model, expressed via
an equation, for predicting perceptions of comfort from objective measures. In
addition to predicting the outcome variable for a new sample of data, the model will
(1) assess how well subjective perceptions of comfort can be explained by knowing
the value of a set of predictor variables and (2) identify which subset from many
measures is most effective for estimating subjective perceptions of comfort.
Prior to model development, the relationship between each of the 12 predictor
variables (i.e., three anthropometric/demographic variables, one appearance rating
852 M. Kolich and S. M. Taboun

Table 6. Post-hoc (Tukey’s honestly significant difference test) in support of one-way

ANOVA
Mean Mean
(I) (J) difference (I) (J) difference
Seat Seat (I-J) Sig. Seat Seat (I-J) Sig.
Overall A B 7 4.25 0.00 CPP A B 7 12.44 0.96
comfort C 3.75 0.00 C 7 46.02 0.12
index D 7 2.58 0.00 D 2.08 1.00
E 7 6.75 0.00 E 22.49 0.75
B A 4.25 0.00 B A 12.44 0.96
C 8.00 0.00 C 7 33.58 0.39
D 1.67 0.10 D 14.53 0.94
E 7 2.50 0.00 E 34.93 0.35
C A 7 3.75 0.00 C A 46.02 0.12
B 7 8.00 0.00 B 33.58 0.39
D 7 6.33 0.00 D 48.10 0.09
E 7 10.50 0.00 E 68.51 0.01
D A 2.58 0.00 D A 7 2.08 1.00
B 7 1.67 0.10 B 7 14.53 0.94
C 6.33 0.00 C 7 48.10 0.09
E 7 4.17 0.00 E 20.41 0.81
E A 6.75 0.00 E A 7 22.49 0.75
B 2.50 0.00 B 7 34.93 0.35
C 10.50 0.00 C 7 68.51 0.01
D 4.17 0.00 D 7 20.41 0.81
Appearance A B 0.96 0.02 BCF A B 7.92 0.59
rating C 7 0.63 0.23 C 9.08 0.45
D 7 0.04 1.00 D 7 3.17 0.98
E 0.63 0.23 E 7 11.50 0.22
B A 7 0.96 0.02 B A 7 7.92 0.59
C 7 1.58 0.00 C 1.17 1.00
D 7 1.00 0.01 D 7 11.08 0.25
E 7 0.33 0.79 E 7 19.42 0.01
C A 0.63 0.23 C A 7 9.08 0.45
B 1.58 0.00 B 7 1.17 1.00
D 0.58 0.30 D 7 12.25 0.17
E 1.25 0.00 E 7 20.58 0.00
D A 0.04 1.00 D A 3.17 0.98
B 1.00 0.01 B 11.08 0.25
C 7 0.58 0.30 C 12.25 0.17
E 0.67 0.18 E 7 8.33 0.54
E A 7 0.63 0.23 E A 11.50 0.22
B 0.33 0.79 B 19.42 0.01
C 7 1.25 0.00 C 20.58 0.00
D 7 0.67 0.18 D 8.33 0.54

variable, and eight seat interface pressure variables) and the overall comfort index
(dependent variable representing subjective perceptions of comfort) was examined.
Scatter plots (figures 2 – 13) were used for this purpose.
One might expect the predictor variables, particularly those dealing with seat
interface pressure (figure 6 to figure 13), to have a quadratic relationship with the
dependent variable. That is, one would think that there was an optimal amount of
CCA, for example, and that too much or too little CCA would be equally
detrimental. The scatter plots did not reveal this to be the case. The same was true
Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of automobile seat comfort 853

Figure 2. Scatter plot of overall comfort index vs. gender.

Figure 3. Scatter plot of overall comfort index vs. stature.

854 M. Kolich and S. M. Taboun

Figure 4 Scatter plot of overall comfort index vs. body mass.

Figure 5. Scatter plot of overall comfort index vs. appearance rating.

 Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of automobile seat comfort 855

Figure 6. Scatter plot of overall comfort index vs. cushion contact area.

Figure 7. Scatter plot of overall comfort index vs. cushion total force.
856 M. Kolich and S. M. Taboun

Figure 8. Scatter plot of overall comfort index vs. cushion load at the centre of force.

Figure 9. Scatter plot of overall comfort index vs. cushion peak pressure.
 Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of automobile seat comfort 857

Figure 10. Scatter plot of overall comfort index vs. seatback contact area.

Figure 11. Scatter plot of overall comfort index vs. seatback total force.
858 M. Kolich and S. M. Taboun

Figure 12. Scatter plot of overall comfort index vs. seatback load at the centre of force.

Figure 13. Scatter plot of overall comfort index vs. seatback peak pressure.
 Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of automobile seat comfort 859

for the factors dealing with demographics (figure 2), anthropometry (figure 3 to
figure 4), and appearance rating (figure 5). For this reason, a linear modelling
approach was adopted.
Table 7 reveals that AR, BCF, and CPP resulted in the strongest linear
relationships with the overall comfort index. In fact, these relationships were
statistically significant. Although correlation does not imply causality, automobile
seat design studios would be interested in knowing that appearance is related to
comfort. As an interesting aside, this result substantiates the claim made by Branton
(1969) and Helander (2003).
As mentioned, 75% of the total sample was randomly selected and used to develop
the stepwise, linear regression model. The remaining 25% was used for validation.
Automatic modelling procedures cannot do all the work. They should be used as
tools to determine roughly the number of predictors needed. It is possible to find

Table 7. Relationship between predictor variables and overall comfort index

Overall comfort index
Pearson correlation Gender 0.076
Stature 0.163
Body mass 0.031
Appearance rating 7 0.645**
Cushion contact area 7 0.181
Cushion total force 7 0.219
Cushion load at the centre of force 7 0.032
Cushion peak pressure 7 0.381**
Seatback contact area 0.062
Seatback total force 0.203
Seatback load at the centre of force 0.505**
Seatback peak pressure 7 0.201
Sig. (2-tailed) Gender 0.562
Stature 0.213
Body mass 0.817
Appearance rating 0.000
Cushion contact area 0.166
Cushion total force 0.092
Cushion load at the centre of force 0.808
Cushion peak pressure 0.003
Seatback contact area 0.635
Seatback total force 0.119
Seatback load at the centre of force 0.000
Seatback peak pressure 0.124
N Gender 60
Stature 60
Body mass 60
Appearance rating 60
Cushion contact area 60
Cushion total force 60
Cushion load at the centre of force 60
Cushion peak pressure 60
Seatback contact area 60
Seatback total force 60
Seatback load at the centre of force 60
Seatback peak pressure 60
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
860 M. Kolich and S. M. Taboun

several subsets that perform equally well. Then knowledge of the subject matter, how
accurately individual variables are measured, and what a variable communicates,
may guide selection of the model to report. The performance of the selected model is
summarized in table 8. The corresponding ANOVA is outlined in table 9. The
coefficients are included in table 10.
It is important to note that the preceding model cannot be advocated until it is
validated. To accomplish this, the model was used to obtain predicted overall
comfort index values for the validation sample. Validity was assessed by computing a
cross-validated r-value between the predicted and observed values. The result was as
follows: r (15) = 0.952, p = 0.000. Due to the strength of this relationship, the model
was considered valid.
Using this model it can be said that a comfortable seat in the selected vehicle
segment is aesthetically pleasing (design studio implications) and more accommo-
dating for lighter individuals, such as small females (marketing implications). The
model also demonstrates that (1) measures of CCA, CCF, BCA, and BPP do not
impact perceptions of comfort, (2) measures of BCF and BTF should be low, and (3)
measures of CPP and CTF should be high. This information is significant because it
allows seat system design teams to (1) focus on only those seat interface pressure
measures that are related to comfort and (2) establish human criteria for the
important seat interface pressure parameters. It is reasonable to use the most

Table 8. Summary of model relating predictor variables to the overall comfort index
r r2 Adjusted r2 Std. error of the estimate
0.844 0.713 0.668 2.308
Predictors: (constant), AR, BCF, CPP, BTF, CTF, WT

Table 9. ANOVA for model relating predictor variables to the overall comfort index
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Regression 502.752 6 83.792 15.728 0.000

Residual 202.448 38 5.328
Total 705.200 44
Predictors: (constant), AR, BCF, CPP, BTF, CTF, WT

Table 10. Coefficients for model relating predictor variables to the overall comfort index
Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.

(Constant) 13.749 2.684 5.123 0.000

AR 7 2.038 0.470 7 0.414 7 4.336 0.000
BCF 0.062 0.025 0.239 2.472 0.018
CPP 7 0.010 0.009 7 0.128 7 1.075 0.289
BTF 0.010 0.007 0.256 1.531 0.134
CTF 7 0.020 0.006 7 0.862 7 3.422 0.002
WT 0.133 0.054 0.669 2.460 0.019
 Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of automobile seat comfort 861

comfortable seat as the basis for human criteria. Recall that Seat C was, according to
the overall comfort index, the most comfortable. The mean seat interface pressure
values for Seat C were, therefore, used to derive the human criteria shown in table
11.

4. Conclusion
Technology has changed automobiles over the years. As a result, consumer
expectations, in terms of automobile performance, have risen. The consumer
demands comfort. The seat has a huge role to play in fulfilling consumer
expectations. With this said, the seat comfort design process needs to change in
order to (1) meet consumer expectations and (2) reduce development time and
ultimately cost.
Tools like seat interface pressure have been available to the automotive seating
industry for some time. The technology is, unfortunately, useless without an
understanding of how the output relates to subjective perceptions of comfort. One of
the problems with past seat comfort quantification efforts is that there was no good
way to translate perceptions of comfort into something tangible. While the
questionnaires used and the studies performed by seat system design teams offered
credible evaluations in terms of face validity, the comparisons were poor in terms of
experimental rigor. Consequently, the results were questionable on the grounds of
methodological weaknesses. This research addresses this shortcoming by using a
subjective output (i.e., dependent variable) with proven levels of reliability and
validity. Another problem is based on the fact that seat comfort cannot be
legitimately predicted if the measurement methods produce vastly different outputs
under consistent test conditions. In this context, pressure measures were shown to be
repeatable in a test – retest scenario. This may seem like a trivial result, but it has
never before been demonstrated in the context of automobile seating using human
subjects. This finding lends credibility to the method used to quantify automobile
seat comfort.
With a repeatable method, it was demonstrated that seat interface pressure
measurements could be used to distinguish between seats. When coupled with a
reliable and valid subjective output (overall comfort index), it became possible to
develop a stepwise, linear regression model. The input variables included (1) seat
interface pressure measurements, (2) participant anthropometry and demographics,
and (3) perceptions of seat appearance. In this way, the link between objective
measures and subjective perceptions was established and validated. Using this
model, human criteria for seat interface pressure parameters were established. This is
a valuable contribution, especially in the context of product validation
The prediction models presented as part of this research can only confidently be
applied to the studied vehicle segment. The belief is that seats from different vehicle

Table 11. Human criteria for important seat interface pressure measures
Seat interface pressure measure Human criterion

Seatback load at the centre of force (BCF) 5 18 g/cm2

Seatback total force (BTF) 5 277 N
Cushion peak pressure (CPP) 4 158 g/cm2
Cushion total force (CTF) 4 697 N
862 M. Kolich and S. M. Taboun

segments are bound by unique comfort expectations. This belief needs to be

substantiated with data. For this reason, it makes sense, as part of future research, to
study seats from different vehicle segments to determine if there are segment specific
differences. If differences are found, the automotive seating industry would be wise
to create segment specific models. The model(s) need to be periodically updated to
reflect the fact that perceptions of comfort will, inevitably, change with time.
Without considering the growth of the international automotive market, efforts to
quantify comfort must be considered incomplete. For this reason, seats from other
parts of the world need to be investigated using participants/consumers from the
intended markets. The assumption is that perceptions of comfort are unique to
different parts of the world. For example, Western Europeans, as compared to North
Americans, are, generally, thought to prefer firmer seats. Data are required to
support or refute these types of claims.
Emerging technologies such as neural networks have many potential industrial
applications in diagnostics, modelling, and control. With this said, it should be
possible to train a neural network to learn the relationships between objective
measures and subjective perceptions of comfort. As a first attempt, a neural network
should be trained and compared, in terms of performance, to the stepwise, linear
regression model published as part of this research. The neural network may also be
used to refine the ranges for human criteria.

References
AKERBLOM, B. 1948, Standing and sitting posture with special reference to the construction of
chairs, Unpublished doctoral dissertation (Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm: A.B.
Nordiska Bokhandeln).
ANNETT, J. 2002a, Target paper—subjective rating scales: science or art?, Ergonomics, 45, 966 –
987.
ANNETT, J. 2002b, Subjective rating scales in ergonomics – A reply, Ergonomics, 45, 1042 –
1046.
BABER, C. 2002, Subjective evaluation of usability, Ergonomics, 45, 1021 – 1025.
BADER, D. L., BARNHILL, R. L. and RYAN, T. J. 1986, Effect of externally applied skin surface
forces on tissue vascularization, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 67,
807 – 811.
BRANTON, P. 1969, Behaviour, body mechanics and discomfort, Ergonomics, 12, 316 – 327.
CHOW, W. W. and ODELL, E. I. 1978, Deformations and stresses in soft body tissues of a sitting
person, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 100, 79 – 87.
CZERNIK, D. E. and MISZCZAK, F. L. 1991, A New Technique to Measure Real-time Static and
Dynamic Gasket Stresses, Technical Paper No. 910205 (Warrendale, PA: Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc.).
DIEBSCHLAG, W., HEIDINGER, F., KUURZ, B. and HEIBERGER, R. 1988, Recommendation for
Ergonomic and Climatic Physiological Vehicle Seat Design, Technical Paper No. 880055
(Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.).
DRUMMOND, D. S., NARECHANIA, R. G., ROSENTHAL, A. N., BREED, A. L., LANGE, T. A. and
DRUMMOND, D. K. 1982, A study of pressure distributions measured during balanced
and unbalanced sitting, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 64(A), 1034 – 1039.
DRURY, C. G. 2002, Measurement and the practicing ergonomist, Ergonomics, 45, 988 – 990.
HELANDER, M. G. 2003, Forget about ergonomics in chair design? Focus on aesthetics and
comfort, Ergonomics, 44, 1306 – 1319.
HERTZBERG, H. T. E. 1972, The Human Buttocks in Sitting: Pressures, Patterns, and Palliatives,
Technical Paper No. 72005 (New York, NY: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.).
KAMIJO, K., TSUJIMURA, H., OBARA, H. and KATSUMAT, M. 1982, Evaluation of Seating Comfort,
Technical Paper No. 820761 (Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.).
 Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of automobile seat comfort 863

KOHARA, J. and SUGI, T. 1972, Development of Biomechanical Manikins for Measuring seat
Comfort, Technical Paper No. 720006 (New York, NY: Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc.).
KOLICH, M. 1999, Reliability and Validity of an Automobile Seat Comfort Survey, Technical
Paper No. 1999-01-3232 (Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.).
LU, H. and LIN, G. 1996, An investigation of various factors affecting measurement accuracy
of the Tekscan seat pressure system, in Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society, Inc.), 1036 – 1040.
MANENICA, I. and CORLETT, E. N. 1973, Model of vehicle comfort and a model for its
assessment, Ergonomics, 11, 849 – 854.
MANESS, W. L., BENJAMIN, M. H., PODOLOFF, R. M., BOBOCK, A. and GOLDEN, R. F. 1987,
Computerized occlusal analysis: A new technology, Quintessence International, 18, 287 –
292.
PARK, S. J. and KIM, C. B. 1997, The Evaluation of Seating Comfort by the Objective Measures,
Technical Paper No. 970595 (Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.).
PODOLOFF, R. M. and BENJAMIN, M. H. 1991, A pressure mapping system for gait analysis,
Sensors Magazine, 8, 21 – 25.
PODOLOFF, R. M. and BENJAMIN, M. H. 1989, A tactile sensor for analyzing dental occlusion,
Sensors Magazine, 6, 41 – 47.
PORTER, J. M. 1994, Seating design: Current problems and future strategies, Automotive
Interiors International, Autumn, 6 – 19.
REED, M. P., SCHNEIDER, L. W., SAITO, M., KAKISHIMA, Y. and LEE, N. S. 1991, Investigation of
Automotive Seating Discomfort and Seat Design Factors, Report No. UMTRI-91-11
(Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute).
SALVENDY, G. 2002, Use of subjective rating scores in ergonomics research and practice,
Ergonomics, 45, 1005 – 1007.
SODERHOLM, L. G. 1989, Sensing systems for touch and feel, Design News, 45, 72 – 76.
TEKSCAN Inc1998, BPMS - Body Pressure Measurement System – Tekscan User’s Manual
(Boston, MA: Tekscan Inc.).
THAKURTA, K., KOESTER, D., BUSH, N. and BACHLE, S. 1995, Evaluating Short and Long Term
Comfort, Technical Paper No. 950144 (Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc.).