Backset and cervical retraction capacity among occupants in a modern car
- PMID: 17366340
- DOI: 10.1080/15389580600911010
Backset and cervical retraction capacity among occupants in a modern car
Abstract
Objectives: The horizontal distance between the back of the head and the frontal of the head restraint (backset) and rearward head movement relative to the torso (cervical retraction) were studied in different occupant postures and positions in a modern car.
Methods: A stratified randomized population of 154 test subjects was studied in a Volvo V70 year model 2003 car, in driver, front passenger, and rear passenger position. In each position, the subjects adopted (i) a self-selected posture, (ii) a sagging posture, and (iii) an erect posture. Cervical retraction, backset, and vertical distance from the top of the head restraint to the occipital protuberance in the back of the head of the test subject were measured. These data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and linear regression analysis with a significance level set to p < 0.05.
Results: In the self-selected posture, the average backset was 61 mm for drivers, 29 mm for front passengers, and 103 mm for rear passengers (p < 0.001). Women had lower mean backset (40 mm) than men (81 mm), particularly in the self-selected driving position. Backset was larger and cervical retraction capacity lower in the sagging posture than in the self-selected posture for occupants in all three occupant positions. Rear passengers had the largest backset values. Backset values decreased with increased age. The average cervical retraction capacity in self-selected posture was 35 mm for drivers, 30 mm for front passengers, and 33 mm for rear passengers (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Future design of rear-end impact protection may take these study results into account when trying to reduce backset before impact. Our results might be used for future development and use of BioRID manikins and rear-end tests in consumer rating test programs such as Euro-NCAP.
Similar articles
-
Effect of head restraint backset on head-neck kinematics in whiplash.Accid Anal Prev. 2006 Mar;38(2):317-23. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2005.10.005. Epub 2005 Nov 11. Accid Anal Prev. 2006. PMID: 16289336
-
Cervical spine curvature during simulated rear crashes with energy-absorbing seat.Spine J. 2011 Mar;11(3):224-33. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.01.025. Spine J. 2011. PMID: 21377605
-
Energy-absorbing car seat designs for reducing whiplash.Traffic Inj Prev. 2008 Dec;9(6):583-91. doi: 10.1080/15389580802365767. Traffic Inj Prev. 2008. PMID: 19058106
-
Does knowledge of seat design and whiplash injury mechanisms translate to understanding outcomes?Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Dec 1;36(25 Suppl):S187-93. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182387eff. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011. PMID: 22020611 Review.
-
[Biomechanical aspects of injuries of the cervical vertebrae].Orthopade. 1994 Aug;23(4):262-7. Orthopade. 1994. PMID: 7970681 Review. German.
Cited by
-
Neck muscle responses of driver and front seat passenger during frontal-oblique collisions.PLoS One. 2018 Dec 31;13(12):e0209753. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209753. eCollection 2018. PLoS One. 2018. PMID: 30596721 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources