4.2 Article

Tongue acceleration in humans evoked with intramuscular electrical stimulation of genioglossus

Journal

RESPIRATORY PHYSIOLOGY & NEUROBIOLOGY
Volume 295, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resp.2021.103786

Keywords

Upper airway; Movement; Breathing; Ultrasonography

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia
  2. NHMRC [1116942, 1196261, 1077934, 1172988]
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1077934, 1172988, 1196261, 1116942] Funding Source: NHMRC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study conducted on healthy adults found differential responses to stimulation in the anterior and posterior regions of genioglossus, which may contribute to differences in collapsibility of the upper airway.
Genioglossus was stimulated intramuscularly to determine the effect of regional activation of the muscle on tongue movement in eight healthy adults. Stimulation at motor threshold was delivered with a needle electrode inserted to different depths in the anterior and posterior regions of genioglossus. The current amplitude that induced muscle contraction was -80% higher for anterior than posterior sites. Evoked tongue movements were determined from stimulus-triggered averages (150 pulses) of the outputs from an accelerometer fixed to the postemsuperior surface of the tongue. The median amplitude [95% confidence intervals] for the resultant acceleration was 0.0 m/s(2) [0.0, 0.2] for anterior and 0.6 m/s(2) [0.1, 2.8] for posterior sites. There was a positive relationship between acceleration amplitude and stimulation depth in the posterior of genioglossus (p < 0.001), but acceleration amplitude did not vary with stimulation depth in the anterior region (p = 0.83). This heterogeneity in acceleration responses between muscle regions may contribute to differences in collapsibility of the upper airway.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available