4.5 Article

Using devices to upregulate nonnutritive swallowing in typically developing infants

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 121, 期 4, 页码 831-837

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00797.2015

关键词

nonnutritive swallowing; sensory stimulation; swallowing apnea; non-nutritive sucking; vibratory stimulation; pacifier

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of various sensory stimuli for stimulating swallowing in infants may be of importance for assisting infants to develop oral feeding. We evaluated the swallowing mechanism response to two devices for increasing the rate of nonnutritive swallowing in two typically developing infant age groups, ages 2-4 mo and 7-9 mo. One device was a pacifier familiar to the infant; the other was a small vibrator placed on the skin overlying the thyroid cartilage. The rate of nonnutritive swallowing while infants were awake was compared in three 10-min conditions: at rest without stimulation (spontaneous); during nonnutritive sucking with a pacifier; and over 10 min containing 18 epochs of vibratory stimulation for 10 s each. To assess whether vibration on the throat over the laryngeal area altered respiration, the mean cycle length was compared between 10-min intervals either containing vibratory stimulation or without stimulation at rest. Both the pacifier and laryngeal vibration stimulation doubled the rate of swallowing in the infants with a mean age of 3 mo 16 days and infants with a mean age of 8 mo 8 days. No differences occurred in the mean respiratory cycle length between intervals with and without vibration in either age group. Results suggest that nonnutritive sucking, vibration, or both might be beneficial in enhancing swallowing in young infants. Because vibration on the neck would not interfere with oral transfer of liquid, it might provide additional stimulation for swallowing during oral feeding. Both stimulation types should be evaluated for enhancing swallowing in infants with immature swallowing skills.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据