BACKGROUND: Selecting the most suitable questionnaire(s) in comfort research for product design is always a challenge, even for experienced researchers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to create a list of Preferred Comfort Questionnaires (PCQ) for product design to help researchers in the selection of questionnaires for comfort research. METHODS: Fifteen questionnaires that are often used in comfort research for product design were selected as candidate questionnaires. During the Second International Comfort Congress (ICC 2019), 55 researchers and practitioners working in the field of comfort joined together in a workshop to rate these questionnaires individually as well as rank them in groups based on their experience. The criteria of rating and ranking included easiness to answer, easiness for data interpretation, time needed to complete, the need for prior training, as well as mapping the applicable design phases and field of application. RESULTS: The elicited responses related to each questionnaire were analyzed. For comfort research in five proposed application fields and four design phases, the preferred questionnaires were highlighted and categorized into four categories: preferred questionnaire, suitable for less prior training, suitable for fast completion and generally applicable, which led to a list of PCQ for product design. CONCLUSION: We expect that the PCQ list can be used as a useful instrument to help researchers in selecting questionnaires for comfort research in product design.@en

The percentage of passengers that prefer travelling in groups is increasing. In most vehicles, passengers sit side by side and need to turn their body to be engaged in the conversation with their fellow travellers. However, rotating the body could lead to discomfort which influences conversation quality. The aim of this research is to study the effect of seat configuration on the (dis)comfort experience, conversation quality and posture. Experiments in which participants were asked to talk to each other while sitting at the same distance (1 m) were conducted in four seating arrangements (with seat-belts on), where the angle between the forward directions of two seats were positioned at 0° (side by side), 22.5°, 90° and 120° (almost opposite each other), respectively. Optical tracking has been deployed and the collected data were processed with MatLab® to acquire postural angles over time. Questionnaires were also used to evaluate the perceived (dis)comfort and the quality of the conversation. Experiment results indicate that the 120° configuration scored the best in the overall comfort and the quality of conversation, but only slightly better than the 90° configuration. Practitioner summary: Seating side by side is not optimal to have a comfortable conversation with your seatmate. To improve comfort and quality of conversation in future vehicles, we tested four seating arrangements analysing the effect of seat layout on (dis)comfort experience. Statistical analysis of objective and subjective data shows the optimal configuration for a comfortable conversation. Abbreviation: LPD: localized postural discomfort; PDF: probability density function; OCRA: occupational repetitive action.@en

The aviation industry is constantly making compromises when designing comfortable airplane cabins. Providing passengers with a pleasant acoustic environment without adding weight to the cabin structure is a field of tension that challenges cabin interior designers. The aim of this study was to investigate whether noise levels affect the comfort and physical discomfort experienced by airplane passengers, and whether control influences comfort perception. To this end, 30 participants experienced three conditions (silence, aircraft engine noise at 75 dB, and the same noise with the ability to use earplugs), and comfort and discomfort were measured using a questionnaire. It was concluded that aircraft engine noise negatively affected the airplane passengers’ comfort experiences. Having the ability to control this noisy environment with earplugs resulted in the lowest reported physical discomfort.@en

Designing seats is crucial not only for health issues but also for the (dis)comfort perception. The seat pan design could be mainly influenced by two factors: pressure distribution and seat contour. For seat pan discomfort, the lower average pressure is accompanied by less discomfort. Moreover, a seat contour with a large contact area is correlated with more comfort. So, a shaped seat pan was accurately realized following the buttock-thigh shape of an international population (including P5 females and P95 males). For the comfort assessment, a comparison was made between this shaped seat pan (shaped cushion) and a standard aircraft seat pan (flat cushion). Twenty-two international participants (11 males and 11 females, with BMI between 16 and 30) took part in the blind experiment assuming six different postures. Subjective data were gained from questionnaires, whose results showed that the shaped cushion is better in terms of perceived postural comfort. Also, 64% of participants chose the shaped cushion as a preferred cushion because it was more comfortable and suitable for the buttock shape. Objective data were gathered with a pressure mat, and results showed a higher contact area and lower mean pressure distribution for shaped cushion. Significant correlations were calculated between objective and subjective data with Spearman Correlation coefficients.@en

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.@en