Tongue control for speech and swallowing in healthy younger and older subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current literature on oral motor control reports contradictory findings regarding physiological, functional and sensory changes that occur in the muscles of the tongue with normal aging. It has been suggested that the high level of activity required of tongue muscles in mastication and speech may play a role in preserving them when other skeletal muscles are more likely to show functional effects of such changes. To test whether indeed tongue movements remain unaltered in both speech and swallowing tasks as a function of aging, kinematic measures of tongue dorsum movements were taken as 21 healthy young (20-30) and older (65-74) adults performed repeated iterations of speech tasks and a sequential water swallowing task. Tongue motion was recorded using electromagnetic articulography and from these data information was extracted with respect to movement range, duration, and variability. The findings suggest that in general tongue movements for swallowing were slower and more variable than for speech, and most importantly, more variable among older than younger participants. As well, the findings show that aging does influence the nature of tongue motions, in particular by inducing a more extreme distinction in the variability of movements for speech (less variable) and swallowing (more variable) tasks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".