↓ Skip to main content

Tongue-Strengthening Exercises in Healthy Older Adults: Specificity of Bulb Position and Detraining Effects

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Tongue-Strengthening Exercises in Healthy Older Adults: Specificity of Bulb Position and Detraining Effects
Published in
Dysphagia, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00455-017-9858-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leen Van den Steen, Charlotte Schellen, Katja Verstraelen, Anne-Sophie Beeckman, Jan Vanderwegen, Marc De Bodt, Gwen Van Nuffelen

Abstract

Clinical tongue-strengthening therapy programs are generally based on the principles of exercise and motor learning, including the specificity paradigm. The aim of this study was to investigate the specific effect of anterior and posterior tongue-strengthening exercises (TSE) on tongue strength (TS) in healthy older adults and to measure possible detraining effects. Sixteen healthy elderly completed 8 weeks of TSE by means of the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI). They were distributed in two different treatment arms and performed either exclusively anterior or posterior TSE (ATSE, n = 9 or PTSE, n = 7) depending on the treatment arm. Anterior and posterior maximal isometric pressures (MIPA, MIPP) were measured at baseline, halfway, and after completion of the training sessions. Detraining was measured by repeating MIPA and MIPP measures 4 weeks after the last session of TSE. MIPA and MIPP increased significantly in both treatment arms. MIPA was significantly higher in the ATSE group compared to the PTSE group across all measures in time. No significant differences were observed in MIPP between the ATSE and PTSE groups. Regardless of treatment arm, there was no significant detraining effect measured 4 weeks after the last TSE session. This study suggests that TSE show partial specificity concerning bulb position. We conclude that especially anterior training results in higher anterior TS in comparison with posterior exercises. Furthermore, we found no detraining effects, independent of bulb location.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 18%
Other 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 25 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 18%
Sports and Recreations 6 7%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Linguistics 3 4%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 28 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 May 2020.
All research outputs
#2,212,417
of 24,989,834 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#119
of 1,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,444
of 333,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#4
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,989,834 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,360 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.