Kuo Y-L1, Wang P-S2, Huang K-Y3, Ko P-Y3,4, Tsai Y-J5
1National Cheng Kung University, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Medicine, Tainan City, Taiwan, 2Taitung Christian Hospital, Department of Rehabilitation, Taitung, Taiwan, 3National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Department of Orthopedics, Tainan, Taiwan, 4National Cheng Kung University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tainan, Taiwan, 5National Cheng Kung University, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Medicine, Tainan, Taiwan
Background: Prolonged sitting and awkward posture greatly increases the risk of developing spinal pain in computer workers. Many types of assistive device such as ergonomic chairs and seat cushions are commercially available to help the users passively maintaining good sitting posture. A wearable assistive device using inertial sensors has been recently developed to monitor posture. The users receive vibratory feedback whenever they slouch, which provides postural awareness and facilitates the users to actively adjust their posture. It is unclear whether the newly developed active postural device is more effective than passive postural device on maintaining ideal sitting posture while performing a prolonged computer typing task.
Purpose: We aimed to compare the passive postural device (BackJoy SitSmart Posture Plus seat cushion) and the active postural device (Lumo Lift posture tracker) on modifying spinal posture in healthy adults during a computer typing task.
Methods: Forty-one healthy adults were assigned to the passive and active groups. The participants in each group performed a one-hour computer typing task twice, with and without using the postural device. A 3-dimensional motion analysis system with 6 infrared cameras (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK) was used to measure the sagittal spinal posture (head tilt, neck flexion, thoracic, lumbar, and pelvic plane angles) at 10-minute increments during the computer typing tasks. For each type of assistive device, a two-way repeated measures ANOVA (2 conditions [with and without the device] × 6 time increments) was used to examine any statistically significant differences in spinal angles.
Results: The passive (n = 20) and active (n =21) groups had similar demographic data and habitual sitting posture. For the active group, using the active device significantly decreased the neck flexion (mean difference = 2.8°, hp2 = 0.464), thoracic kyphotic (mean difference = 1.9°, hp2 = 0.208), and pelvic plane (mean difference = 2.2°, hp2 = 0.238) angles, as compared with not using the active device (p 0.05). On the other hand, for the passive group whether using the passive device or not did not significantly change any spinal angles (p > 0.05).
Conclusion(s): In this study, we found that the active postural device utilizing biofeedback is effective on correcting spinal posture during a prolonged computer typing task. Using the active postural device significantly improves the forward head and slouch sitting postures. On the contrary, the use of the passive postural device has no significant effects on sitting posture.
Implications: Computer or office workers may benefit from active postural devices utilizing biofeedback to actively maintain good sitting posture during prolonged deskwork.
Keywords: Self-help devices, Posture, Computer users
Funding acknowledgements: This study was funded by the National Science Council of Taiwan (R.O.C.) (grant number MOST 106-2410-H-006-083-MY2).
Purpose: We aimed to compare the passive postural device (BackJoy SitSmart Posture Plus seat cushion) and the active postural device (Lumo Lift posture tracker) on modifying spinal posture in healthy adults during a computer typing task.
Methods: Forty-one healthy adults were assigned to the passive and active groups. The participants in each group performed a one-hour computer typing task twice, with and without using the postural device. A 3-dimensional motion analysis system with 6 infrared cameras (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK) was used to measure the sagittal spinal posture (head tilt, neck flexion, thoracic, lumbar, and pelvic plane angles) at 10-minute increments during the computer typing tasks. For each type of assistive device, a two-way repeated measures ANOVA (2 conditions [with and without the device] × 6 time increments) was used to examine any statistically significant differences in spinal angles.
Results: The passive (n = 20) and active (n =21) groups had similar demographic data and habitual sitting posture. For the active group, using the active device significantly decreased the neck flexion (mean difference = 2.8°, hp2 = 0.464), thoracic kyphotic (mean difference = 1.9°, hp2 = 0.208), and pelvic plane (mean difference = 2.2°, hp2 = 0.238) angles, as compared with not using the active device (p 0.05). On the other hand, for the passive group whether using the passive device or not did not significantly change any spinal angles (p > 0.05).
Conclusion(s): In this study, we found that the active postural device utilizing biofeedback is effective on correcting spinal posture during a prolonged computer typing task. Using the active postural device significantly improves the forward head and slouch sitting postures. On the contrary, the use of the passive postural device has no significant effects on sitting posture.
Implications: Computer or office workers may benefit from active postural devices utilizing biofeedback to actively maintain good sitting posture during prolonged deskwork.
Keywords: Self-help devices, Posture, Computer users
Funding acknowledgements: This study was funded by the National Science Council of Taiwan (R.O.C.) (grant number MOST 106-2410-H-006-083-MY2).
Topic: Occupational health & ergonomics; Musculoskeletal: spine
Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: National Cheng Kung University Hospital
Ethics committee: Institutional Review Board of National Cheng Kung University Hospital
Ethics number: A-ER-104-271
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
