A proper seat is crucial not only for preventing health issues but also for the (dis)comfort perception. In the design of a seat, the seat pan’s geometric shape, either in or under the cushion, plays a vital role as it constrains the deformation of the foam it supports. The contact area and pressure distributions between the foam and the human body, closely associated with (dis)comfort, are influenced by those constrained deformations. In this paper, using a comparative study, the aim is to determine if opportunely shaped seat pans are better than a standard flat pan regarding postural comfort and pressure distribution. Two cushions with the same type of foam but two different seat pans were used in the comparison. The first seat pan is the standard one used in current aircraft seats and the second is a shaped seat pan, which was designed following the mean buttock-thigh shape of an international population (including P5 females and P95 males). Twenty-two international participants (11 males and 11 females, with BMI between 16 and 30) took part in the blind experiment. Results indicated that the cushion with shaped seat pan performed better as it led to less postural comfort, a larger contact area and more uniform pressure distribution. Also, 64% of participants favored the cushion with the shaped seat pan as they felt it was more comfortable and suitable for the buttock shape.

This research aims to study the effect of seat and/or backrest rotation on comfort and quality of conversation. Different sitting arrangements were tested to study the effect of the seat layout on: 1) (dis)comfort experience; 2) conversation quality and 3) postures. Two seats were arranged in different angles (0° 45° 90° and 180°) at the same distance (1 m) and participants were asked to talk to each other. The participants’ postures were acquired by using cameras and markers on the participants’ body. Questionnaires were used to rate the perceived (dis)comfort and quality of conversation. Results show that 90° configuration scored the best both in overall comfort and quality of conversation; while the 0° configuration scored the lowest in both ratings. A strong correlation was established between high comfort and good quality of conversation.