- Review
22 Pages
Background/Objectives: Associations between seat–occupant interface pressure metrics and subjective comfort or discomfort remain unclear. This review synthesized these associations. Methods: Four databases were searched from inception to July 2026. Unipolar comfort, unipolar discomfort, and bipolar outcomes were treated separately. Pressure metrics were classified as load magnitude, contact geometry, or pressure distribution characteristics. Correlations were pooled using Fisher’s z transformation and random-effects models. Results: Seventeen studies were included, and eleven contributed to quantitative synthesis. In primary comfort analyses, load magnitude was not significantly associated with comfort (3 studies; r = −0.275, 95% CI: −0.695 to 0.285; p = 0.336; I2 = 81.620%), whereas contact geometry showed a positive association (3 studies; r = 0.241, 95% CI: 0.040 to 0.424; p = 0.020; I2 = 0%). Expanded analyses of the three metric categories were nonsignificant. Load magnitude showed a positive but imprecise association with unipolar discomfort (4 studies; r = 0.440, 95% CI: −0.118 to 0.787). Conclusions: Associations varied across metrics and measurement regions. The contact-geometry finding was based on three studies and was sensitive to study composition. Interface pressure should supplement subjective assessment; evidence does not support causal inference, metric hierarchies, or universal thresholds.
Appl. Sci.
6 November 2026










