| Title |
Supportive effect of interferential current stimulation on susceptibility of swallowing in guinea pigs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-018-5325-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Toshiro Umezaki, Yoichiro Sugiyama, Shinya Fuse, Shigeyuki Mukudai, Shigeru Hirano |
| Abstract |
Sensory-motor control of the pharyngeal swallow requires sensory afferent inputs from the pharynx and larynx evoked by introducing bolus into the pharynx. Patients with reduced sensitivity of the pharynx and larynx are likely to have a swallowing impairment, such as pre-swallow aspiration due to delayed swallow triggering. Interferential current stimulation applied to the neck is thought to improve the swallowing function of dysphagic patients, although the mechanism underlying the facilitatory effect of such stimulation remains unknown. In the present study, we examined the changes in the elicitability of swallowing due to the stimulation and the responses of the swallowing-related neurons in the nucleus tractus solitarius and in the area adjacent to the stimulation in decerebrate and paralyzed guinea pigs. The swallowing delay time was shortened by the stimulation, whereas the facilitatory effect of eliciting swallowing was attenuated by kainic acid injection into the nucleus tractus solitarius. Approximately half of the swallowing-related neurons responded to the stimulation. These data suggest that the interferential current stimulation applied to the neck could enhance the sensory afferent pathway of the pharynx and larynx, subserving excitatory inputs to the neurons of the swallowing pattern generator, thereby facilitating the swallowing reflex. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 July 2018.
All research outputs
#20,525,274
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,933
of 3,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,500
of 328,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#31
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 328,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.