↓ Skip to main content

Dysphagia and its effects on swallowing sounds and vibrations in adults

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, May 2018
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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Dysphagia and its effects on swallowing sounds and vibrations in adults
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12938-018-0501-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua M. Dudik, Atsuko Kurosu, James L. Coyle, Ervin Sejdić

Abstract

To utilize cervical auscultation as a means of screening for risk of dysphagia, we must first determine how the signal differs between healthy subjects and subjects with swallowing disorders. In this experiment we gathered swallowing sound and vibration data from 53 (13 with stroke, 40 without) patients referred for imaging evaluation of swallowing function with videofluoroscopy. The analysis was limited to non-aspirating swallows of liquid with either thin (< 5 cps) or viscous ([Formula: see text]) consistency. After calculating a selection of generalized time, frequency, and time frequency features for each swallow, we compared our data against our findings in a previous experiment that investigated identical features for a different group of 56 healthy subjects. We found that nearly all of our chosen features for both vibrations and sounds showed significant differences between the healthy and disordered swallows despite the absence of aspiration. We also found only negligible differences between dysphagia as a symptom of stroke and dysphagia as a symptom of another condition. Non-aspirating swallows from healthy controls and patients with dysphagia have distinct feature patterns. These findings should greatly help the development of the cervical auscultation field and serve as a reference for future investigations into more specialized characterization methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 3 5%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 21 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 12 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Linguistics 2 3%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 24 39%
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 01 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,619,140
of 23,400,864 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#383
of 834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,772
of 331,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#11
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,400,864 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 834 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 331,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.