Tongue Pressure Modulation During Swallowing: Water Versus Nectar-Thick Liquids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evidence of tongue-palate pressure modulation during swallowing between thin and nectar-thick liquids stimuli has been equivocal. This mirrors a lack of clear evidence in the literature of tongue and hyoid movement modulation between nectar-thick and thin liquid swallows. In the current investigation, the authors sought to confirm whether tongue-palate pressures are modulated between discrete swallows of water and nectar-thick juice. METHOD: Tongue-palate pressures were measured at 3 sites (anterior, medial, and posterior palate) using an adhered 3-bulb pressure strip in 20 healthy, young adults during discrete swallows of water and nectar-thick apple juice. RESULTS: Pressure modulation was not noted with respect to pressure amplitudes (in mm Hg), but was identified both in the pressure patterns observed (the sites and number of bulbs activated) and temporal aspects of pressure duration. CONCLUSION: Tongue-palate pressure amplitude modulation does not occur for nectar-thick swallows compared to thin liquid swallows. Modulation does, however, occur with respect to the tongue-palate contact surface area and pressure durations. The authors introduce the concept of pressure slope as a meaningful way to examine tongue-palate pressure application in 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".