Biomechanical analysis of different dynamic sitting techniques: an exploratory study

Table 1 Results of interface pressure measurement on both the whole backrest and the entire seat

DSTs	B-DCA (cm²)	B-DAP (kPa)	B-DPP (kPa)	S-DCA (cm²)	S-DAP (kPa)	S-DPP (kPa)
LPDS	143.80 ± 61.70	2.93 ± 0.61	5.19 ± 1.63	837.80 ± 193.03	6.28 ± 0.85	41.77 ± 12.19
P ^*	0.053	0.036	0.244	0.842	0.975	0.056
P ^†	0.222	0.033	0.084	0.363	0.470	0.011
FUDS	109.01 ± 67.56	2.55 ± 0.37	4.71 ± 2.59	823.06 ± 140.88	6.24 ± 0.61	37.58 ± 10.55
P ^‡	0.005	0.010	0.047	0.629	0.648	0.807
LFDS	176.02 ± 78.54	3.18 ± 0.71	6.04 ± 1.97	815.06 ± 184.13	6.38 ± 0.81	37.65 ± 12.83
P ^§	0.022	0.006	0.028	0.936	0.948	0.006

Comparison of mean dynamic contact area (DCA), dynamic average pressure (DAP), and dynamic peak pressure (DPP) on both the whole backrest (B-DCA, B-DAP, and B-DPP) and the entire seat (S-DCA, S-DAP, and S-DPP) across three dynamic sitting techniques (DSTs), which include lumbar prominent dynamic sitting (LPDS), femur upward dynamic sitting (FUDS), and lumbar prominent with femur upward dynamic sitting (LFDS). Each interface pressure parameter is given as the averaging value over the entire 20 min sitting trial. Values are mean ± standard deviation (N = 15)
^*P (W) is the significance difference as compared LPDS with FUDS
^†P (W) is the significance difference as compared LPDS with LFDS
^‡P (W) is the significance difference as compared FUDS with LFDS
^§P (F) is the significance difference as compared between the all DSTs

ISSN: 1475-925X