Use of Electromagnetic Midsagittal Articulography in the Study of Swallowing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tongue functions as the primary articulator during the oropharyngeal stages of swallowing. However, detailed descriptions of the kinematics and spatiotemporal variability of tongue behaviors during swallowing are limited to a handful of analyses of data from the X-ray microbeam database. In this article, a new technique, electromagnetic midsagittal articulography (EMMA), is introduced for the high-resolution description of oral articulatory movements during swallowing. Data from 8 healthy, nondysphagic participants are used to illustrate the methods used for data collection and analysis. Movement data were collected for 3 fleshpoint positions on the tongue (blade, body, dorsum) during sequences of repeated discrete water swallows, and were characterized for variables of spatiotemporal variability and 4 discrete kinematic parameters (movement amplitude, peak velocity, duration, and kinematic stiffness). These data show that the movement trajectories measured using EMMA are consistent with descriptions from previous X-ray microbeam studies, indicating that EMMA is a feasible method for the detailed study of tongue movements during swallowing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".