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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Accident analysis and prevention 2023-11, Vol.192, p.107280-107280, Article 107280 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 < 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 < 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 < 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 |