Buccal and lingual activity during mastication and swallowing in typical adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A non-invasive protocol was developed to assess tongue and cheek movements during mastication and to evaluate the temporal relationship between mastication and the initiation of pharyngeal swallowing. Typical adults (three males and three females) were monitored during chewing. Miniature pressure transducers were bonded unilaterally to the buccal and lingual surfaces of the first mandibular molar and the buccal surface of the first maxillary molar on each subject's preferred chewing side. Surface electromyography of the ipsilateral masseter muscle was recorded as an indicator of jaw-closing activity. Pressure and electromyography (EMG) recordings were time-linked to simultaneous B-mode ultrasound imaging of the oral cavity using a submental, coronal view aligned with the first mandibular molar. The intervals between peak pressure recorded at each pressure transducer and peak jaw-closing activity for each masticatory cycle were not statistically different [analysis of variance (anova), P=0.9856] and displayed large statistical variation. These intervals were not different at the beginning of the trials (hard biscuit) than they were at the completion of mastication when the cookie had been broken down to a paste/puree consistency bolus. The interval between the last chewing stroke and the initiation of swallowing was 0.92 +/- 0.34 s). No significant difference existed among subjects for this time interval (anova, P=0.382).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".