## 3 Results  
### Seat Comfort  
An initial analysis through observation yielded notable results. The general comfort ratings obtained during the dynamic experiment were mostly positive in all conditions and times of measuring. Table 1 details a summary of the mean values and standard deviations from the analyzed data. The means for general comfort, for any seat position during any time (0 min, 10 min, 15 min) of measuring, were between 1.2, slightly over a \"weak\" comfort, and 2.0, a \"moderate\" comfort. This outcome shows that there were no major points of short-term discomfort during the driving and sitting experience. However, discomfort-specific ratings showed that some parts of the seat produced more intense discomfort in certain conditions. For example, the legs and feet area was rated more negatively in the upright and reclined positions, whereas the head region was the most negatively evaluated by participants in the flat condition. The first remarkable observation that can be detected when graphically plotting the results is the different behavior of the comfort ratings of the conditions with time (Figure 5). Throughout the three measuring times, 0 min, 10 min and 15 min, the comfort ratings changed differently depending on the conditions. In the case of the flat position, the mean ratings improved over time, from minute 0 at 1.2 to the end of the drive (minute 15) at 1.9. Meanwhile, while in the reclined condition, the means remained mostly stable for the duration of the study. Lastly, in the upright position condition, the general comfort mean declined with time. Figure 4: General comfort scale. When visually observing the discomfort of different body areas (Figure 6), it can be detected that of the region of highest discomfort was the back area for all the seat positions. Moreover, another discomfort area was the lower part of the body in the reclined position. On the other hand, as the seat position grew more inclined, the discomfort seemed to be located higher on the body. Regarding the time of the rating, we could not find a correlation visually. ANOVA significant tests also support the previous claim that general comfort ratings were significantly different depending on the condition and time of the comfort rating. This differing behavior was revealed by the indication of a significant effect on the interaction (Table 2). Moreover, ANOVAs did not indicate any other significant differences except in the legs and feet area, where the seat position was shown to affect leg discomfort ratings. Further analyses, for example, paired comparison, showed additional significant results. For instance, between the upright and reclined positions, there was a significant difference in terms of back discomfort, where discomfort was consistently greater in the reclined condition. Paired comparisons between upright and flat conditions revealed that discomfort was significantly higher for the variables head and legs/feet in the flat and upright position, respectively. Finally, the paired comparison between the reclined \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
\begin{tabular}{l} Back \\ Buttocks \\ Legs/Feet \\ \end{tabular} & \(-0.4\) (\(\pm 0.5\)) & \(-0.7\) (\(\pm 0.6\)) & \(-0.7\) (\(\pm 0.8\)) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Measures for the comfort and discomfort perceptions for the upright, reclined and flat conditions. Figure 5: Boxplot with general comfort ratings for the flat, reclined and upright seat conditions over time. The diamond shapes indicate the mean and circles indicate outliers. and flat positions found no significant effect, except in the leg factor, and the reclined position received consistently higher discomfort ratings. The results concerning [PERSON]'s d effect sizes, indicating large or very large sizes of effect, were according to the significant test results. Regarding the discomfort in different body parts and correlation with general comfort ratings, there was only a clear effect in the case of the legs/feet and back areas.