A non-invasive device to measure mechanical interaction between tongue, palate and teeth during speech production

This paper describes an original experimental procedure to measure the mechanical interaction between the tongue and teeth and palate during speech production. It consists in using edentulous people as subjects and to insert pressure sensors in the structure of their complete dental prosthesis. Hence, there is no perturbation of the vocal tract cavity due to the sensors themselves. Several duplicates are used with transducers situated at different locations of the complete denture according to palatography's results, in order to carefully analyze the production of specific sounds such as stop consonants.. It is also possible to measure the contact pressure at different locations on the palate for the same sound

PRESLA: An original device to measure the mechanical interaction between tongue and teeth or palate during speech production

An original experimental procedure is presented to measure the mechanical interaction between tongue and teeth and palate during speech production. It consists in using edentulous people as subjects and to insert pressure sensors in the structure of a replication of their dental prosthesis. This is assumed to induce no speech production perturbation for subjects who are used to speak with their prosthesis. Data collected from 4 subjects of French demonstrate the usability of the system

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Beyond language: The unspoken sensory-motor representation of the tongue in non-primates, non-human and human primates

The English idiom “on the tip of my tongue” commonly acknowledges that something is known, but it cannot be immediately brought to mind. This phrase accurately describes sensorimotor functions of the tongue, which are fundamental for many tongue-related behaviors (e.g., speech), but often neglected by scientific research. Here, we review a wide range of studies conducted on non-primates, non-human and human primates with the aim of providing a comprehensive description of the cortical representation of the tongue's somatosensory inputs and motor outputs across different phylogenetic domains. First, we summarize how the properties of passive non-noxious mechanical stimuli are encoded in the putative somatosensory tongue area, which has a conserved location in the ventral portion of the somatosensory cortex across mammals. Second, we review how complex self-generated actions involving the tongue are represented in more anterior regions of the putative somato-motor tongue area. Finally, we describe multisensory response properties of the primate and non-primate tongue area by also defining how the cytoarchitecture of this area is affected by experience and deafferentation

Evaluation of the clinical outcome of curvilinear transport distraction osteogenesis and revascularised fibula free flaps in the reconstruction of large post-maxillectomy defects

Background: Maxillary defects caused by trauma or tumour resection in the head and neck region can be devastating to the patient from a cosmetic and functional perspective. Patients who undergo maxillectomy procedures experience a substantial deterioration in their primary oral functions such as breathing, mastication, salivation, deglutition and phonation, which has a collective adverse influence on their quality of life (QOL). The revascularised free fibula flap (RFFF) has been demonstrated to be most reliable for the reconstruction of maxillary defects, and has been regarded as the 'gold standard.' A novel method of regenerating bone and soft tissue through the process of curvilinear transport distraction oseteogenesis (CTDO) has been developed and compared with the RFFF technique. Method: A prospective cohort study of 6 post-maxillectomy patients was compared regarding the clinical outcome of function and aesthetics with a group of 6 patients who had undergone RFFF reconstruction. The new bone (regenerate) was compared with the parent bone from which it had been generated. Objective measuring tools were employed to assess pre and post quality of life (QOL) aspects. The RFFF patients were not subjected to any invasive procedures save to undergo a clinical evaluation and undergo a CT scan of their maxillae. A cohort of 6 participants was treated prospectively using CTDO and the results were analysed within that cohort. These results were compared with a retrospective group of 6 participants of similar age and gender distribution who had undergone RFFF reconstruction as an external control. The patented Hendricks-Vicatos (H-V) maxillary transport distractor was applied to all selected participants by the primary investigator under general anaesthesia at Groote Schuur Hospital or a private clinic. The H-V maxillary transport distractor (5 prototypes) was pre-shaped and pre-fitted onto a 3-D model of the participant's maxilla, in a laboratory. This method reduced clinical installation time. If teeth were present in the area to be distracted, then at least 2 teeth were removed from the maxilla, preferably three months before the date of distraction. In the first few cases, this was the protocol for developing bone stock. This protocol was revised in the last 2 patients of the study, where no teeth were extracted at all. A linear fracture (bi-cortical) was created in the maxilla in a vertical direction (segmentally) to develop a mobile, well-vascularised transport disc. This carrier disc was attached to the metal plate of the 'crawler' via small titanium screws. The crawler was then moved on the reconstruction plate (BiometTM Zimmer Biomet

Tongue Pressure - A Key Limiting Aspect in Bolus Swallowing

Food oral processing is very basic activity of human life, providing individuals with pleasure, enjoyment and serving their needs for social interaction. Dysphagia describes a disorder affecting the safety and/or efficiency of swallowing. To manage this reduced ability, dysphagic individuals are often prescribed a diet having specific ranges of mechanical properties. As a result, a number of sectors such as food, pharmaceutical and health care industries are eagerly searching for fundamental knowledge in order to design food for vulnerable population. This thesis addresses this gap and aims to investigate the relationship between the mechanical properties of bolus swallowing (e.g. rheology, bolus manipulations, perceived ease / difficult of initiation swallowing and perceived bolus flow behaviour) along with oral pressures (i.e. generated by the tongue) recorded in healthy subjects. This area of oral processing is researched mostly from a clinical point of view and thus knowledge in oral processing from sensory view point is currently limited as shown in the literature review. In this study, some of existing clinical researches were extended using relevant techniques (such as maximum isometric tongue pressure, oral volume and oral residence time). Findings from this thesis demonstrated a strong correlation between sensory perception of bolus (e.g. ease / difficult of swallowing, ease of break-swallow, bolus flow) and subjective measurement of tongue pressure in context of ready-to-swallow food bolus with different rheological properties. Further experiments were conducted to mechanically characterise a range of viscoelastic and pastry food systems and measure the intra-oral pressures applied when breaking these foods. Data analysis showed that a positive correlation existed between tongue strength and oral food handling. From our results, we can conclude that individual’s capacity in tongue pressure generation needs to exceed a certain limit in order to perceive ease in swallowing bolus and also to perceive a bolus flow behaviour. However, such correlation was not seen for individuals with reduced capability in generating MITP. These results support the aim that both the oral physiological conditions (MITP) and the rheological properties of the food (bolus) are important factors that influence the bolus manipulations and comfortable oral handling as well as perceived ease of initiating bolus flow

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

Preventive dentistry: methodical guidance for dental students

УЧЕБНО-МЕТОДИЧЕСКИЕ ПОСОБИЯПРОФИЛАКТИЧЕСКАЯ СТОМАТОЛОГИЯСТОМАТОГНАТИЧЕСКИЕ БОЛЕЗНИ /ПРОФИЛАКТИКА И КОНТРОЛЬPREVENTIVE DENTISTRYИНОСТРАННЫЕ СТУДЕНТЫСУБОРДИНАТОРЫМАГИСТРАНТЫАСПИРАНТЫКЛИНИЧЕСКИЕ ОРДИНАТОРЫОсвещены ключевые разделы профилактической стоматологии о современных методах ранней диагностики и профилактики основных стоматологических заболеваний. Для студентов 2 курса, изучающих дисциплину на английском языке, студентов стоматологического факультета, субординаторов, магистрантов, аспирантов, клинических ординаторов, слушателей факультета повышения квалификации. The key sections of preventive dentistry about modern methods of early diagnosis and prevention of major dental diseases are highlighted