↓ Skip to main content

Electromyography and Mechanomyography Signals During Swallowing in Healthy Adults and Head and Neck Cancer Survivors

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Electromyography and Mechanomyography Signals During Swallowing in Healthy Adults and Head and Neck Cancer Survivors
Published in
Dysphagia, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00455-016-9742-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriela Constantinescu, William Hodgetts, Dylan Scott, Kristina Kuffel, Ben King, Chris Brodt, Jana Rieger

Abstract

Surface electromyography (sEMG) is used as an adjuvant to dysphagia therapy to demonstrate the activity of submental muscles during swallowing exercises. Mechanomyography (MMG) has been suggested as a potential superior alternative to sEMG; however, this advantage is not confirmed for signal acquired from submental muscles. This study compared the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) obtained from sEMG and MMG sensors during swallowing tasks, in healthy participants and those with a history of head and neck cancer (HNC), a population with altered anatomy and a high incidence of dysphagia. Twenty-two healthy adults and 10 adults with a history of HNC participated in this study. sEMG and MMG signals were acquired during dry, thin liquid, effortful, and Mendelsohn maneuver swallows. SNR was compared between the two sensors using repeated measures ANOVAs and subsequent planned pairwise comparisons. Test-retest measures were collected on 20 % of participants. In healthy participants, MMG SNR was higher than that of sEMG for dry [t(21) = -3.02, p = 0.007] and thin liquid swallows [t(21) = -4.24, p < 0.001]. Although a significant difference for sensor was found in HNC participants F(1,9) = 5.54, p = 0.043, planned pairwise comparisons by task revealed no statistically significant difference between the two sensors. sEMG also showed much better test-retest reliability than MMG. Biofeedback provided as an adjuvant to dysphagia therapy in patients with HNC should employ sEMG technology, as this sensor type yielded better SNR and overall test-retest reliability. Poor MMG test-retest reliability was noted in both healthy and HNC participants and may have been related to differences in sensor application.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Other 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 21 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Engineering 6 9%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 23 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,398,884
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#959
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,638
of 341,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#17
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 341,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.