Age and Strength Influences on Lingual Tactile Acuity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory function during the oral processing of liquids is thought to play a key role in informing the tailoring of swallowing motor behaviours to the flow characteristics of the bolus. In addition to taste receptors, the mouth and tongue house trigeminal nerve receptors that support the sensory detection of bolus size, shape (stereognosis), mass, temperature and movement. Recent studies suggest that healthy adults lose tongue strength with advancing age. However, little is known about changes in the sensory function of the tongue attributable to age, or associated with reductions in strength. In this study, we explored lingual tactile acuity in healthy young and older adults, and measured the relationship between tactile acuity and measures of tongue strength. The results showed an age-related reduction in lingual tactile acuity that was not explained by variations in tongue strength. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Sensory motor interactions are a topic of interest in understanding the processing activities that take place in the mouth during eating and swallowing. In this paper, we explore a test of sensory acuity in the mouth, in which the tongue is used to "read" embossed letters on Teflon strips. Our questions were to determine whether sensory acuity for this task declines with age, or with age-related reductions in tongue strength. We determined that older people perform this task with less accuracy, suggesting some changes in oral sensory function with age. However, these changes were not related to tongue strength. The findings suggest that strength does not play a major role in the kind of sensory discrimination task tested in this study.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it