↓ 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 (0179051X), September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Kinematic Visual Biofeedback Improves Accuracy of Learning a Swallowing Maneuver and Accuracy of Clinician Cues During Training
Published in
Dysphagia (0179051X), 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Other 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Unspecified 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Other 12 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 30%
Unspecified 5 14%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 4 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 21 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,270,758
of 12,871,176 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia (0179051X)
#236
of 792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,163
of 266,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia (0179051X)
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,871,176 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 266,091 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.