Intraoral Neuromodulation to Treat Swallowing Disorder and Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Based on Electrical Characterization of the Tongue and Soft Palate

Intraoral functions are results of complex sensorimotor loop operations, and therefore vulnerable to the small functional or neural defects. To secure the vital intraoral functions, it is important to find a way to favorably intervene the intraoral sensorimotor loop operations. The tongue and the soft palate are heavily associated with several sensorimotor loops for intraoral functions, with their dense neural innervations and occupancy of intraoral space. Electrical neuromodulation onto the tongue and the soft palate have a great potential to solve the problems in intraoral functions, such as swallowing, breathing, and talking. However, both the tongue and the soft palate have not been characterized well yet for electrical neuromodulation. In this study, we characterized electrical impedance between electrodes across the tongue and the soft palate, measured stimulation thresholds for perception, and identified type of perception evoked by the stimulation. For impedance characterization, we selected R-R-C model, which is typically used for skin impedance characterization. We found the equivalent series resistance, parallel resistance, and parallel capacitance values for R-R-C model, as 1.837 kΩ, 5.741 kΩ, and 30.148 nF, respectively. We also found that the perception thresholds for the tongue tip, lateral-inferior side of the tongue, and the soft palate as 0.16, 0.34, and 1.47 mA, respectively. As the amplitude of stimulation increases, subjects felt more natural pressure-like sensation than electrical tingling, in all three locations. Subjects could not distinguish the temporal difference of perception between 25 and 100 Hz well. The discomfort at the highest amplitude of stimulation was described as stabbing on the soft palate and stiffness on the tongue. Based on the electrical characterization of the tongue and the soft palate, we found out the effect of electrical neuromodulation, onto the tongue and the soft palate, on the pharyngeal phase of swallowing and obstructive sleep apnea, which is one of the most important intraoral sensorimotor loop operations

Intraoral Neuromodulation to Treat Swallowing Disorder and Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Based on Electrical Characterization of the Tongue and Soft Palate

Intraoral functions are results of complex sensorimotor loop operations, and therefore vulnerable to the small functional or neural defects. To secure the vital intraoral functions, it is important to find a way to favorably intervene the intraoral sensorimotor loop operations. The tongue and the soft palate are heavily associated with several sensorimotor loops for intraoral functions, with their dense neural innervations and occupancy of intraoral space. Electrical neuromodulation onto the tongue and the soft palate have a great potential to solve the problems in intraoral functions, such as swallowing, breathing, and talking. However, both the tongue and the soft palate have not been characterized well yet for electrical neuromodulation. In this study, we characterized electrical impedance between electrodes across the tongue and the soft palate, measured stimulation thresholds for perception, and identified type of perception evoked by the stimulation. For impedance characterization, we selected R-R-C model, which is typically used for skin impedance characterization. We found the equivalent series resistance, parallel resistance, and parallel capacitance values for R-R-C model, as 1.837 kΩ, 5.741 kΩ, and 30.148 nF, respectively. We also found that the perception thresholds for the tongue tip, lateral-inferior side of the tongue, and the soft palate as 0.16, 0.34, and 1.47 mA, respectively. As the amplitude of stimulation increases, subjects felt more natural pressure-like sensation than electrical tingling, in all three locations. Subjects could not distinguish the temporal difference of perception between 25 and 100 Hz well. The discomfort at the highest amplitude of stimulation was described as stabbing on the soft palate and stiffness on the tongue. Based on the electrical characterization of the tongue and the soft palate, we found out the effect of electrical neuromodulation, onto the tongue and the soft palate, on the pharyngeal phase of swallowing and obstructive sleep apnea, which is one of the most important intraoral sensorimotor loop operations

Retainer-Free Optopalatographic Device Design and Evaluation as a Feedback Tool in Post-Stroke Speech and Swallowing Therapy

Stroke is one of the leading causes of long-term motor disability, including oro-facial impairments which affect speech and swallowing. Over the last decades, rehabilitation programs have evolved from utilizing mainly compensatory measures to focusing on recovering lost function. In the continuing effort to improve recovery, the concept of biofeedback has increasingly been leveraged to enhance self-efficacy, motivation and engagement during training. Although both speech and swallowing disturbances resulting from oro-facial impairments are frequent sequelae of stroke, efforts to develop sensing technologies that provide comprehensive and quantitative feedback on articulator kinematics and kinetics, especially those of the tongue, and specifically during post-stroke speech and swallowing therapy have been sparse. To that end, such a sensing device needs to accurately capture intraoral tongue motion and contact with the hard palate, which can then be translated into an appropriate form of feedback, without affecting tongue motion itself and while still being light-weight and portable. This dissertation proposes the use of an intraoral sensing principle known as optopalatography to provide such feedback while also exploring the design of optopalatographic devices itself for use in dysphagia and dysarthria therapy. Additionally, it presents an alternative means of holding the device in place inside the oral cavity with a newly developed palatal adhesive instead of relying on dental retainers, which previously limited device usage to a single person. The evaluation was performed on the task of automatically classifying different functional tongue exercises from one another with application in dysphagia therapy, whereas a phoneme recognition task was conducted with application in dysarthria therapy. Results on the palatal adhesive suggest that it is indeed a valid alternative to dental retainers when device residence time inside the oral cavity is limited to several tens of minutes per session, which is the case for dysphagia and dysarthria therapy. Functional tongue exercises were classified with approximately 61 % accuracy across subjects, whereas for the phoneme recognition task, tense vowels had the highest recognition rate, followed by lax vowels and consonants. In summary, retainer-free optopalatography has the potential to become a viable method for providing real-time feedback on tongue movements inside the oral cavity, but still requires further improvements as outlined in the remarks on future development.:1 Introduction 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Goals and contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Scope and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Basics of post-stroke speech and swallowing therapy 2.1 Dysarthria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2 Dysphagia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3 Treatment rationale and potential of biofeedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4 Summary and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3 Tongue motion sensing 3.1 Contact-based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.1 Electropalatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.2 Manometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.1.3 Capacitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2 Non-contact based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.1 Electromagnetic articulography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.2 Permanent magnetic articulography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2.3 Optopalatography (related work) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.3 Electro-optical stomatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.4 Extraoral sensing techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.5 Summary, comparison and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4 Fundamentals of optopalatography 4.1 Important radiometric quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1.1 Solid angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1.2 Radiant flux and radiant intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1.3 Irradiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1.4 Radiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.2 Sensing principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.2.1 Analytical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.2.2 Monte Carlo ray tracing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.2.3 Data-driven models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.2.4 Model comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.3 A priori device design consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.3.1 Optoelectronic components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.3.2 Additional electrical components and requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.3.3 Intraoral sensor layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5 Intraoral device anchorage 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.1.1 Mucoadhesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.1.2 Considerations for the palatal adhesive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2.1 Polymer selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2.2 Fabrication method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5.2.3 Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.4 PEO tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.5 Connection to the intraoral sensor’s encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.6 Formulation evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.1 Initial formulation evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.2 Final OPG adhesive formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 5.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 6 Initial device design with application in dysphagia therapy 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 6.2 Optode and optical sensor selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6.2.1 Optode and optical sensor evaluation procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 6.2.2 Selected optical sensor characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.2.3 Mapping from counts to millimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.2.4 Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.3 Device design and hardware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.1 Block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.2 Optode placement and circuit board dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.3 Firmware description and measurement cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 6.3.4 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.3.5 Fully assembled OPG device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.4 Evaluation on the gesture recognition task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.1 Exercise selection, setup and recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.2 Data corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.4.3 Sequence pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.4.4 Choice of classifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 6.4.5 Training and evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6.4.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 7 Improved device design with application in dysarthria therapy 7.1 Device design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 7.1.1 Design considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 7.1.2 General system overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.1.3 Intraoral sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.1.4 Receiver and controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 7.1.5 Multiplexer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 7.2 Hardware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 7.2.1 Optode placement and circuit board layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 7.2.2 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 7.3 Device characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 7.3.1 Photodiode transient response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.3.2 Current source and rise time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.3.3 Multiplexer switching speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 7.3.4 Measurement cycle and firmware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 7.3.5 In vitro measurement accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 7.3.6 Optode measurement stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 7.4 Evaluation on the phoneme recognition task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4.1 Corpus selection and recording setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4.2 Annotation and sensor data post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4.3 Mapping from counts to millimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 7.4.4 Classifier and feature selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 7.4.5 Evaluation paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 7.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 7.5.1 Tongue distance curve prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 7.5.2 Tongue contact patterns and contours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 7.5.3 Phoneme recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 7.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 8 Conclusion and future work 115 9 Appendix 9.1 Analytical light transport models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 9.2 Meshed Monte Carlo method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 9.3 Laser safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 9.4 Current source modulation voltage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 9.5 Transimpedance amplifier’s frequency responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 9.6 Initial OPG device’s PCB layout and circuit diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 9.7 Improved OPG device’s PCB layout and circuit diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 9.8 Test station layout drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Bibliography 152Der Schlaganfall ist eine der häufigsten Ursachen für motorische Langzeitbehinderungen, einschließlich solcher im Mund- und Gesichtsbereich, deren Folgen u.a. Sprech- und Schluckprobleme beinhalten, welche sich in den beiden Symptomen Dysarthrie und Dysphagie äußern. In den letzten Jahrzehnten haben sich Rehabilitationsprogramme für die Behandlung von motorisch ausgeprägten Schlaganfallsymptomatiken substantiell weiterentwickelt. So liegt nicht mehr die reine Kompensation von verlorengegangener motorischer Funktionalität im Vordergrund, sondern deren aktive Wiederherstellung. Dabei hat u.a. die Verwendung von sogenanntem Biofeedback vermehrt Einzug in die Therapie erhalten, um Motivation, Engagement und Selbstwahrnehmung von ansonsten unbewussten Bewegungsabläufen seitens der Patienten zu fördern. Obwohl jedoch Sprech- und Schluckstörungen eine der häufigsten Folgen eines Schlaganfalls darstellen, wird diese Tatsache nicht von der aktuellen Entwicklung neuer Geräte und Messmethoden für quantitatives und umfassendes Biofeedback reflektiert, insbesondere nicht für die explizite Erfassung intraoraler Zungenkinematik und -kinetik und für den Anwendungsfall in der Schlaganfalltherapie. Ein möglicher Grund dafür liegt in den sehr strikten Anforderungen an ein solche Messmethode: Sie muss neben Portabilität idealerweise sowohl den Kontakt zwischen der Zunge und dem Gaumen, als auch die dreidimensionale Bewegung der Zunge in der Mundhöhle erfassen, ohne dabei die Artikulation selbst zu beeinflussen. Um diesen Anforderungen gerecht zu werden, wird in dieser Dissertation das Messprinzip der Optopalatographie untersucht, mit dem Schwerpunkt auf der Anwendung in der Dysarthrie- und Dysphagietherapie. Dies beinhaltet auch die Entwicklung eines entsprechenden Gerätes sowie dessen Befestigungsmethode in der Mundhöhle über ein dediziertes Mundschleimhautadhäsiv. Letzteres umgeht das bisherige Problem der notwendigen Anpassung eines solchen intraoralen Gerätes an einen einzelnen Nutzer. Für die Anwendung in der Dysphagietherapie erfolgte die Evaluation anhand einer automatischen Erkennung von Mobilisationsübungen der Zunge, welche routinemäßig in der funktionalen Dysphagietherapie durchgeführt werden. Für die Anwendung in der Dysarthrietherapie wurde eine Lauterkennung durchgeführt. Die Resultate bezüglich der Verwendung des Mundschleimhautadhäsives suggerieren, dass dieses tatsächlich eine valide Alternative zu den bisher verwendeten Techniken zur Befestigung intraoraler Geräte in der Mundhöhle darstellt. Zungenmobilisationsübungen wurden über Probanden hinweg mit einer Rate von 61 % erkannt, wogegen in der Lauterkennung Langvokale die höchste Erkennungsrate erzielten, gefolgt von Kurzvokalen und Konsonanten. Zusammenfassend lässt sich konstatieren, dass das Prinzip der Optopalatographie eine ernstzunehmende Option für die intraorale Erfassung von Zungenbewegungen darstellt, wobei weitere Entwicklungsschritte notwendig sind, welche im Ausblick zusammengefasst sind.:1 Introduction 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Goals and contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Scope and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Basics of post-stroke speech and swallowing therapy 2.1 Dysarthria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2 Dysphagia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3 Treatment rationale and potential of biofeedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4 Summary and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3 Tongue motion sensing 3.1 Contact-based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.1 Electropalatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.2 Manometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.1.3 Capacitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2 Non-contact based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.1 Electromagnetic articulography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.2 Permanent magnetic articulography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2.3 Optopalatography (related work) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.3 Electro-optical stomatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.4 Extraoral sensing techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.5 Summary, comparison and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4 Fundamentals of optopalatography 4.1 Important radiometric quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1.1 Solid angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1.2 Radiant flux and radiant intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1.3 Irradiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1.4 Radiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.2 Sensing principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.2.1 Analytical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.2.2 Monte Carlo ray tracing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.2.3 Data-driven models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.2.4 Model comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.3 A priori device design consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.3.1 Optoelectronic components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.3.2 Additional electrical components and requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.3.3 Intraoral sensor layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5 Intraoral device anchorage 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.1.1 Mucoadhesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.1.2 Considerations for the palatal adhesive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2.1 Polymer selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2.2 Fabrication method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5.2.3 Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.4 PEO tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.5 Connection to the intraoral sensor’s encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.6 Formulation evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.1 Initial formulation evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.2 Final OPG adhesive formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 5.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 6 Initial device design with application in dysphagia therapy 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 6.2 Optode and optical sensor selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6.2.1 Optode and optical sensor evaluation procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 6.2.2 Selected optical sensor characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.2.3 Mapping from counts to millimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.2.4 Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.3 Device design and hardware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.1 Block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.2 Optode placement and circuit board dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.3 Firmware description and measurement cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 6.3.4 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.3.5 Fully assembled OPG device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.4 Evaluation on the gesture recognition task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.1 Exercise selection, setup and recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.2 Data corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.4.3 Sequence pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.4.4 Choice of classifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 6.4.5 Training and evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6.4.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 7 Improved device design with application in dysarthria therapy 7.1 Device design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 7.1.1 Design considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 7.1.2 General system overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.1.3 Intraoral sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.1.4 Receiver and controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 7.1.5 Multiplexer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 7.2 Hardware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Augmented Reality

Augmented Reality (AR) is a natural development from virtual reality (VR), which was developed several decades earlier. AR complements VR in many ways. Due to the advantages of the user being able to see both the real and virtual objects simultaneously, AR is far more intuitive, but it's not completely detached from human factors and other restrictions. AR doesn't consume as much time and effort in the applications because it's not required to construct the entire virtual scene and the environment. In this book, several new and emerging application areas of AR are presented and divided into three sections. The first section contains applications in outdoor and mobile AR, such as construction, restoration, security and surveillance. The second section deals with AR in medical, biological, and human bodies. The third and final section contains a number of new and useful applications in daily living and learning

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF A POTENZIATED PIEZOSURGERGICAL DEVICE AT THE RABBIT SKULL

The number of available ultrasonic osteotomes has remarkably increased. In vitro and in vivo studies have revealed differences between conventional osteotomes, such as rotating or sawing devices, and ultrasound-supported osteotomes (Piezosurgery®) regarding the micromorphology and roughness values of osteotomized bone surfaces. Objective: the present study compares the micro-morphologies and roughness values of osteotomized bone surfaces after the application of rotating and sawing devices, Piezosurgery Medical® and Piezosurgery Medical New Generation Powerful Handpiece. Methods: Fresh, standard-sized bony samples were taken from a rabbit skull using the following osteotomes: rotating and sawing devices, Piezosurgery Medical® and a Piezosurgery Medical New Generation Powerful Handpiece. The required duration of time for each osteotomy was recorded. Micromorphologies and roughness values to characterize the bone surfaces following the different osteotomy methods were described. The prepared surfaces were examined via light microscopy, environmental surface electron microscopy (ESEM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and atomic force microscopy. The selective cutting of mineralized tissues while preserving adjacent soft tissue (dura mater and nervous tissue) was studied. Bone necrosis of the osteotomy sites and the vitality of the osteocytes near the sectional plane were investigated, as well as the proportion of apoptosis or cell degeneration. Results and Conclusions: The potential positive effects on bone healing and reossification associated with different devices were evaluated and the comparative analysis among the different devices used was performed, in order to determine the best osteotomes to be employed during cranio-facial surgery

Models and Analysis of Vocal Emissions for Biomedical Applications

The MAVEBA Workshop proceedings, held on a biannual basis, collect the scientific papers presented both as oral and poster contributions, during the conference. The main subjects are: development of theoretical and mechanical models as an aid to the study of main phonatory dysfunctions, as well as the biomedical engineering methods for the analysis of voice signals and images, as a support to clinical diagnosis and classification of vocal pathologies