↓ Skip to main content

Kinematic Visual Biofeedback Improves Accuracy of Learning a Swallowing Maneuver and Accuracy of Clinician Cues During Training

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
Kinematic Visual Biofeedback Improves Accuracy of Learning a Swallowing Maneuver and Accuracy of Clinician Cues During Training
Published in
Dysphagia, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00455-016-9749-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alba M. Azola, Kirstyn L. Sunday, Ianessa A. Humbert

Abstract

Submental surface electromyography (ssEMG) visual biofeedback is widely used to train swallowing maneuvers. This study compares the effect of ssEMG and videofluoroscopy (VF) visual biofeedback on hyo-laryngeal accuracy when training a swallowing maneuver. Furthermore, it examines the clinician's ability to provide accurate verbal cues during swallowing maneuver training. Thirty healthy adults performed the volitional laryngeal vestibule closure maneuver (vLVC), which involves swallowing and sustaining closure of the laryngeal vestibule for 2 s. The study included two stages: (1) first accurate demonstration of the vLVC maneuver, followed by (2) training-20 vLVC training swallows. Participants were randomized into three groups: (a) ssEMG biofeedback only, (b) VF biofeedback only, and (c) mixed biofeedback (VF for the first accurate demonstration achieving stage and ssEMG for the training stage). Participants' performances were verbally critiqued or reinforced in real time while both the clinician and participant were observing the assigned visual biofeedback. VF and ssEMG were continuously recorded for all participants. Results show that accuracy of both vLVC performance and clinician cues was greater with VF biofeedback than with either ssEMG or mixed biofeedback (p < 0.001). Using ssEMG for providing real-time biofeedback during training could lead to errors while learning and training a swallowing maneuver.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 105 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 13%
Other 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 35 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 17%
Neuroscience 7 7%
Psychology 3 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 41 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 October 2020.
All research outputs
#8,106,179
of 25,019,915 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#585
of 1,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,200
of 329,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,019,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,360 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,773 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.