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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The effect of transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation on laryngeal vestibule closure timing in swallowing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12901-018-0054-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher R. Watts, Matthew J. Dumican |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on the timing of laryngeal vestibule closure during the pharyngeal stage of swallowing in healthy adults. The theoretical framework proposed that NMES applied to these muscles would present a perturbation to laryngeal vestibular closure reaction time (the amount of time for the laryngeal vestibule to close once the swallowing reflex has been triggered) by providing an antagonistic force to the direction of vestibule closure. Nine healthy adults (2 males, 7 females) received ten consecutive stimulations applied to the submandibular hyolaryngeal muscles while performing dry swallows. Laryngeal vestibule closure reaction time (LVCrt) and the laryngeal vestibule closure duration (LVCd) were measured from videoflouroscopic images pre-stimulation and post-stimulation. Results indicated a significant effect of stimulation on LVCrt but not LVCd. LVCrt was significantly reduced (timing was faster) during swallows immediately after stimulation compared to pre-stimulation. Findings from this study support the supposition that laryngeal muscles respond to perturbations via adaptation learning, which might be used for rehabilitation of neuromuscular swallowing impairment. This pilot study supports the need for further research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 36% |
| United States | 4 | 29% |
| South Africa | 3 | 21% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 93% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 18% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 18 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,579,987
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
#6
of 82 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,369
of 326,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 82 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 326,580 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them