The Influence of Stimulus Taste and Chemesthesis on Tongue Movement Timing in Swallowing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the influence of taste and trigeminal irritation (chemesthesis) on durational aspects of tongue movement in liquid swallowing, controlling for the influence of perceived taste intensity. METHOD: Electromagnetic midsagittal articulography was used to trace tongue movements during discrete liquid swallowing with 5 liquids: water, 3 moderate concentration tastants without odor (sweet, sour, sweet-sour), and a high concentration of citric acid (sour taste plus chemesthesis). Participants were 33 healthy adults in 2 gender-balanced, age-stratified groups (under/over 50). Perceived taste intensity was measured using the Generalized Labeled Magnitude Scale (Bartoshuk, 2000; Bartoshuk et al., 2004). Tongue movement sequencing and durations of the composite tongue movement envelope and component events (rise phase, location of first movement peak, release phase) were calculated. RESULTS: No obligate sequence of tongue segment movement was observed. Overall durations and the timing of the first movement peak were significantly longer with water than with the moderate concentration of sweet-sour liquid. Perceived taste intensity did not modulate stimulus effects in a significant way. The expected pattern of shorter movement durations with the high concentration of citric acid was not seen. CONCLUSIONS: A chemesthetic-taste stimulus of high citric acid did not influence the durations of tongue movements compared with those seen during the swallowing of moderate concentration tastants and water.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".