Comparison of child and ATD belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters during self-selected, holding device, and nominal conditions

•Compares pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (“crash test dummies”) to children.•Evaluates posture and belt fit in nominal and holding device conditions on boosters.•Anthropomorphic test devices underestimated forward/flexed head device positions.•Anthropomorphic test devices represented realist...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Accident analysis and prevention 2023-11, Vol.192, p.107280-107280, Article 107280
Hauptverfasser: Baker, Gretchen H., Bohman, Katarina, Mansfield, Julie A., Jakobsson, Lotta, Bolte, John H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 107280
container_issue
container_start_page 107280
container_title Accident analysis and prevention
container_volume 192
creator Baker, Gretchen H.
Bohman, Katarina
Mansfield, Julie A.
Jakobsson, Lotta
Bolte, John H.
description •Compares pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (“crash test dummies”) to children.•Evaluates posture and belt fit in nominal and holding device conditions on boosters.•Anthropomorphic test devices underestimated forward/flexed head device positions.•Anthropomorphic test devices represented realistic lap belt fit across boosters. Pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) are important tools for the assessment of child occupant protection and should represent realistic child belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters. Previous comparisons have been made to children in either self-selected or nominal postural conditions. This study compares belt fit and postural measurements between pediatric ATDs and a single cohort of children assuming different postures on boosters: self-selected, holding a portable electronic device, and nominal. A cohort of children (n = 25) were evaluated in a stationary vehicle on five boosters and in three postural conditions: nominal, self-selected, and a representative holding electronic device position. The Hybrid III 6- and 10-year-old and Q-Series 6- and 10-year-old ATDs were evaluated in the same five boosters and in two postural conditions: nominal and a representative holding electronic device position. A 3D coordinate measurement device was used to quantify belt fit (shoulder belt score, lap belt score, maximum gap size, and gap length) and anatomic landmark positions (head, suprasternale, ASIS, and patella). Landmark positions and belt fit were compared between ATDs and children for each booster and postural condition, and Pearson correlations (r) were assessed across boosters. ATDs generally represented Nominal child postures across boosters. In the Device condition, ATDs were seldom able to be positioned to represent both the torso and head position of children, due to limited ATD spinal flexibility. When the torso position was matched, the ATD head was more rear by 63 mm. Correlations between Nominal child and ATD belt fit and belt gap metrics were generally weak and not significant, with the exception of lap belt score (all ATDs p 
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.aap.2023.107280
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2864619503</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0001457523003275</els_id><sourcerecordid>2864619503</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c325t-415948273d2e05cc89eed5bdc37c4847a9e01aa4af0a32a131bb015919a6c7593</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM9PwyAcxYnRxDn9A7xx9LBOoGW08bTMn8kSL_NMKHzrWDqo0C7xX_Cvlm6evUDe472X8EHolpI5JXRxv5sr1c0ZYXnSgpXkDE1oKaqMES7O0YQQQrOCC36JrmLcJSlKwSfoZ-X3nQo2eod9g_XWtgYrZ_By84hraHvc2P5odD72QwCcgqOfJW176511n7j26RFCxGYIo47QNlk6QPdgZnjrWzPaBg5Ww-w45_zeOtVi7Z057sRrdNGoNsLN3z1FH89Pm9Vrtn5_eVst15nOGe-zgvKqKJnIDQPCtS4rAMNro3Ohi7IQqgJClSpUQ1TOFM1pXZPUoZVaaMGrfIruTrtd8F8DxF7ubdTQtsqBH6Jk5aJY0IqTPEXpKaqDjzFAI7tg9yp8S0rkyF3uZOIuR-7yxD11Hk4dSH84WAgyagtOg7Eh8ZDG23_avwO_jG8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2864619503</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of child and ATD belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters during self-selected, holding device, and nominal conditions</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Baker, Gretchen H. ; Bohman, Katarina ; Mansfield, Julie A. ; Jakobsson, Lotta ; Bolte, John H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Baker, Gretchen H. ; Bohman, Katarina ; Mansfield, Julie A. ; Jakobsson, Lotta ; Bolte, John H.</creatorcontrib><description>•Compares pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (“crash test dummies”) to children.•Evaluates posture and belt fit in nominal and holding device conditions on boosters.•Anthropomorphic test devices underestimated forward/flexed head device positions.•Anthropomorphic test devices represented realistic lap belt fit across boosters. Pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) are important tools for the assessment of child occupant protection and should represent realistic child belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters. Previous comparisons have been made to children in either self-selected or nominal postural conditions. This study compares belt fit and postural measurements between pediatric ATDs and a single cohort of children assuming different postures on boosters: self-selected, holding a portable electronic device, and nominal. A cohort of children (n = 25) were evaluated in a stationary vehicle on five boosters and in three postural conditions: nominal, self-selected, and a representative holding electronic device position. The Hybrid III 6- and 10-year-old and Q-Series 6- and 10-year-old ATDs were evaluated in the same five boosters and in two postural conditions: nominal and a representative holding electronic device position. A 3D coordinate measurement device was used to quantify belt fit (shoulder belt score, lap belt score, maximum gap size, and gap length) and anatomic landmark positions (head, suprasternale, ASIS, and patella). Landmark positions and belt fit were compared between ATDs and children for each booster and postural condition, and Pearson correlations (r) were assessed across boosters. ATDs generally represented Nominal child postures across boosters. In the Device condition, ATDs were seldom able to be positioned to represent both the torso and head position of children, due to limited ATD spinal flexibility. When the torso position was matched, the ATD head was more rear by 63 mm. Correlations between Nominal child and ATD belt fit and belt gap metrics were generally weak and not significant, with the exception of lap belt score (all ATDs p &lt; 0.07, r = 0.8549–0.9857). ATDs were generally able to represent realistic child postures and lap belt fit in Nominal and short duration Self-selected postures in a laboratory setting. However, these results display the potential difficulty of utilizing ATDs to represent more naturalistic child postures, especially the more forward head positions and flexed spinal posture associated with utilizing a portable electronic device.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0001-4575</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-2057</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2023.107280</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Belt-positioning Booster ; Child Restraint System ; Pediatric ATD ; Posture ; Seat Belt Fit</subject><ispartof>Accident analysis and prevention, 2023-11, Vol.192, p.107280-107280, Article 107280</ispartof><rights>2023 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c325t-415948273d2e05cc89eed5bdc37c4847a9e01aa4af0a32a131bb015919a6c7593</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7302-6995 ; 0000-0001-9894-4998 ; 0000-0001-8536-445X ; 0000-0002-9292-2672</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2023.107280$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Baker, Gretchen H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bohman, Katarina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mansfield, Julie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jakobsson, Lotta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bolte, John H.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of child and ATD belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters during self-selected, holding device, and nominal conditions</title><title>Accident analysis and prevention</title><description>•Compares pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (“crash test dummies”) to children.•Evaluates posture and belt fit in nominal and holding device conditions on boosters.•Anthropomorphic test devices underestimated forward/flexed head device positions.•Anthropomorphic test devices represented realistic lap belt fit across boosters. Pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) are important tools for the assessment of child occupant protection and should represent realistic child belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters. Previous comparisons have been made to children in either self-selected or nominal postural conditions. This study compares belt fit and postural measurements between pediatric ATDs and a single cohort of children assuming different postures on boosters: self-selected, holding a portable electronic device, and nominal. A cohort of children (n = 25) were evaluated in a stationary vehicle on five boosters and in three postural conditions: nominal, self-selected, and a representative holding electronic device position. The Hybrid III 6- and 10-year-old and Q-Series 6- and 10-year-old ATDs were evaluated in the same five boosters and in two postural conditions: nominal and a representative holding electronic device position. A 3D coordinate measurement device was used to quantify belt fit (shoulder belt score, lap belt score, maximum gap size, and gap length) and anatomic landmark positions (head, suprasternale, ASIS, and patella). Landmark positions and belt fit were compared between ATDs and children for each booster and postural condition, and Pearson correlations (r) were assessed across boosters. ATDs generally represented Nominal child postures across boosters. In the Device condition, ATDs were seldom able to be positioned to represent both the torso and head position of children, due to limited ATD spinal flexibility. When the torso position was matched, the ATD head was more rear by 63 mm. Correlations between Nominal child and ATD belt fit and belt gap metrics were generally weak and not significant, with the exception of lap belt score (all ATDs p &lt; 0.07, r = 0.8549–0.9857). ATDs were generally able to represent realistic child postures and lap belt fit in Nominal and short duration Self-selected postures in a laboratory setting. However, these results display the potential difficulty of utilizing ATDs to represent more naturalistic child postures, especially the more forward head positions and flexed spinal posture associated with utilizing a portable electronic device.</description><subject>Belt-positioning Booster</subject><subject>Child Restraint System</subject><subject>Pediatric ATD</subject><subject>Posture</subject><subject>Seat Belt Fit</subject><issn>0001-4575</issn><issn>1879-2057</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM9PwyAcxYnRxDn9A7xx9LBOoGW08bTMn8kSL_NMKHzrWDqo0C7xX_Cvlm6evUDe472X8EHolpI5JXRxv5sr1c0ZYXnSgpXkDE1oKaqMES7O0YQQQrOCC36JrmLcJSlKwSfoZ-X3nQo2eod9g_XWtgYrZ_By84hraHvc2P5odD72QwCcgqOfJW176511n7j26RFCxGYIo47QNlk6QPdgZnjrWzPaBg5Ww-w45_zeOtVi7Z057sRrdNGoNsLN3z1FH89Pm9Vrtn5_eVst15nOGe-zgvKqKJnIDQPCtS4rAMNro3Ohi7IQqgJClSpUQ1TOFM1pXZPUoZVaaMGrfIruTrtd8F8DxF7ubdTQtsqBH6Jk5aJY0IqTPEXpKaqDjzFAI7tg9yp8S0rkyF3uZOIuR-7yxD11Hk4dSH84WAgyagtOg7Eh8ZDG23_avwO_jG8</recordid><startdate>202311</startdate><enddate>202311</enddate><creator>Baker, Gretchen H.</creator><creator>Bohman, Katarina</creator><creator>Mansfield, Julie A.</creator><creator>Jakobsson, Lotta</creator><creator>Bolte, John H.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7302-6995</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9894-4998</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8536-445X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9292-2672</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202311</creationdate><title>Comparison of child and ATD belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters during self-selected, holding device, and nominal conditions</title><author>Baker, Gretchen H. ; Bohman, Katarina ; Mansfield, Julie A. ; Jakobsson, Lotta ; Bolte, John H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c325t-415948273d2e05cc89eed5bdc37c4847a9e01aa4af0a32a131bb015919a6c7593</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Belt-positioning Booster</topic><topic>Child Restraint System</topic><topic>Pediatric ATD</topic><topic>Posture</topic><topic>Seat Belt Fit</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Baker, Gretchen H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bohman, Katarina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mansfield, Julie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jakobsson, Lotta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bolte, John H.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Accident analysis and prevention</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Baker, Gretchen H.</au><au>Bohman, Katarina</au><au>Mansfield, Julie A.</au><au>Jakobsson, Lotta</au><au>Bolte, John H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of child and ATD belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters during self-selected, holding device, and nominal conditions</atitle><jtitle>Accident analysis and prevention</jtitle><date>2023-11</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>192</volume><spage>107280</spage><epage>107280</epage><pages>107280-107280</pages><artnum>107280</artnum><issn>0001-4575</issn><eissn>1879-2057</eissn><abstract>•Compares pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (“crash test dummies”) to children.•Evaluates posture and belt fit in nominal and holding device conditions on boosters.•Anthropomorphic test devices underestimated forward/flexed head device positions.•Anthropomorphic test devices represented realistic lap belt fit across boosters. Pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) are important tools for the assessment of child occupant protection and should represent realistic child belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters. Previous comparisons have been made to children in either self-selected or nominal postural conditions. This study compares belt fit and postural measurements between pediatric ATDs and a single cohort of children assuming different postures on boosters: self-selected, holding a portable electronic device, and nominal. A cohort of children (n = 25) were evaluated in a stationary vehicle on five boosters and in three postural conditions: nominal, self-selected, and a representative holding electronic device position. The Hybrid III 6- and 10-year-old and Q-Series 6- and 10-year-old ATDs were evaluated in the same five boosters and in two postural conditions: nominal and a representative holding electronic device position. A 3D coordinate measurement device was used to quantify belt fit (shoulder belt score, lap belt score, maximum gap size, and gap length) and anatomic landmark positions (head, suprasternale, ASIS, and patella). Landmark positions and belt fit were compared between ATDs and children for each booster and postural condition, and Pearson correlations (r) were assessed across boosters. ATDs generally represented Nominal child postures across boosters. In the Device condition, ATDs were seldom able to be positioned to represent both the torso and head position of children, due to limited ATD spinal flexibility. When the torso position was matched, the ATD head was more rear by 63 mm. Correlations between Nominal child and ATD belt fit and belt gap metrics were generally weak and not significant, with the exception of lap belt score (all ATDs p &lt; 0.07, r = 0.8549–0.9857). ATDs were generally able to represent realistic child postures and lap belt fit in Nominal and short duration Self-selected postures in a laboratory setting. However, these results display the potential difficulty of utilizing ATDs to represent more naturalistic child postures, especially the more forward head positions and flexed spinal posture associated with utilizing a portable electronic device.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.aap.2023.107280</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7302-6995</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9894-4998</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8536-445X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9292-2672</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0001-4575
ispartof Accident analysis and prevention, 2023-11, Vol.192, p.107280-107280, Article 107280
issn 0001-4575
1879-2057
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2864619503
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Belt-positioning Booster
Child Restraint System
Pediatric ATD
Posture
Seat Belt Fit
title Comparison of child and ATD belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters during self-selected, holding device, and nominal conditions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T20%3A01%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20child%20and%20ATD%20belt%20fit%20and%20posture%20on%20belt-positioning%20boosters%20during%20self-selected,%20holding%20device,%20and%20nominal%20conditions&rft.jtitle=Accident%20analysis%20and%20prevention&rft.au=Baker,%20Gretchen%20H.&rft.date=2023-11&rft.volume=192&rft.spage=107280&rft.epage=107280&rft.pages=107280-107280&rft.artnum=107280&rft.issn=0001-4575&rft.eissn=1879-2057&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.aap.2023.107280&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2864619503%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2864619503&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0001457523003275&rfr_iscdi=true