Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of interface pressure measurement on both the back part of seat and the front part of seat

From: Biomechanical analysis of different dynamic sitting techniques: an exploratory study

DSTs BS-DCA (cm2) BS-DAP (kPa) BS-DPP (kPa) FS-DCA (cm2) FS-DAP (kPa) FS-DPP (kPa)
LPDS 527.13 ± 64.00 8.11 ± 0.99 41.28 ± 12.35 342.13 ± 95.11 3.47 ± 0.56 6.55 ± 1.52
P * 0.173 0.005 0.009 0.496 0.001 0.001
P 0.015 0.002 0.009 0.712 0.001 0.001
FUDS 517.60 ± 80.16 7.13 ± 0.86 35.77 ± 10.80 350.00 ± 61.37 4.73 ± 0.42 9.97 ± 1.19
P 0.069 0.460 0.875 0.932 0.154 0.065
LFDS 495.73 ± 59.34 7.37 ± 1.14 36.88 ± 13.22 347.07 ± 83.07 4.88 ± 0.61 10.73 ± 1.66
P § 0.031 0.001 0.004 0.819 < 0.001 < 0.001
  1. Comparison of mean dynamic contact area (DCA), dynamic average pressure (DAP), and dynamic peak pressure (DPP) on both the back part of seat (BS-DCA, BS-DAP, and BS-DPP) and the front part of seat (FS-DCA, FS-DAP, and FS-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)
  2. *P (W) is the significance difference as compared LPDS with FUDS
  3. P (W) is the significance difference as compared LPDS with LFDS
  4. P (W) is the significance difference as compared FUDS with LFDS
  5. §P (F) is the significance difference as compared between the all DSTs