International Journal of Phonosurgery & Laryngology

Register      Login

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Contribution of Different Tastes on 100 mL Water Swallow Test

D Thejaswi, Sukriti Kunwar, Biya Mathew

Citation Information : Thejaswi D, Kunwar S, Mathew B. Contribution of Different Tastes on 100 mL Water Swallow Test. Int J Phonosurg Laryngol 2016; 6 (1):27-31.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10023-1115

Published Online: 01-06-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

The complex sensory motor activity of swallow consists of transferring food from the mouth to the stomach. Several evidences on swallow biomechanics reveal different tastes leading to variations in swallow. However, there exists dearth of studies exploring this area using simple noninvasive effective procedure like 100 mL water swallow test.

Aims

The present study focused to observe swallow ability across 100 mL neutral, sweet, salt, sour, and bitter liquids in healthy young adults.

Materials and methods

A total of 30 healthy adults within the age of 18 to 23 years participated. All were given lukewarm neutral, sweet, sour, salt, and bitter tastes to swallow individually in a handheld 120 mL cup. Simultaneously, the clinician monitored total time taken to swallow and number of hyolaryngeal movements to calculate volume per swallow, time per swallow, and swallow capacity. Subjects also ingested 10 mL of each taste to estimate the taste threshold which were rated on a minima of 0- point to a maxima of 10-point visual analog scale.

Results

Statistical test and repeated measures of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed no significance at 95% confidence level. However, clinical difference was noted with neutral taste having highest volume per swallow, increased swallow capacity, and least time per swallow. Following this, sweet taste had higher volume per swallow and swallow capacity while sour taste had increased time per swallow.

Conclusion

The present study helps in understanding the wide dynamic nature of swallow which modulates the physiology as per the bolus ingested.

How to cite this article

Thejaswi D, Kunwar S, Mathew B. Contribution of Different Tastes on 100 mL Water Swallow Test. Int J Phonosurg Laryngol 2016;6(1):27-31.


PDF Share
  1. The impact of perceptual interactions on perceived flavor. Food Qual Pref 2004;15(2):137-146.
  2. Influence of mucosal receptors on deglutitive regulation of pharyngeal and upper esophageal sphincter function. Am J Physiol 1994 Oct;267(4 Pt 1):G644-G649.
  3. Effect of citric acid and citric acidsucrose mixtures on swallowing in neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia. Dysphagia 2003 Fall;18(4):231-241.
  4. Sensory input pathways and mechanisms in swallowing: a review. Dysphagia 2010 Dec;25(4):323-333.
  5. The influence of taste on swallowing apnea, oral preparation time, and duration and amplitude of submental muscle contraction. Chem Senses 2007 Feb;32(2):119-128.
  6. Sour taste stimulation facilitates reflex swallowing from the pharynx and larynx in the rat. Physiol Behav 2002 Nov;77(2-3):321-325.
  7. Effects of a sour bolus on oropharyngeal swallowing measures in patients with neurogenic dysphagia. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1995 Jun;38(3):556-563.
  8. The effects of taste and consistency on swallow physiology in younger and older healthy individuals: a surface electromyographic study. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2003 Aug;46(4):977-989.
  9. Modulation of human swallowing behavior by thermal and chemical stimulation in health and after brain injury. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2003 Feb;15(1):69-77.
  10. The influence of chemical gustatory stimuli and oral anaesthesia on healthy human pharyngeal swallowing. Chem Senses 2005 Jun;30(5):393-400.
  11. Is swallowing of all mixed consistencies dangerous for penetration-aspiration? Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2012 Mar;91(3):187-192.
  12. Environmental contributions to the obesity epidemic. Science 1998 May 29;280(5368):1371-1374.
  13. Manipal manual for swallowing assessment. Manipal: Manipal University Press; 2012.
  14. Differences in swallowing between high and low concentration taste stimuli. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:813084.
  15. Clinical measurement of swallowing in health and in neurogenic dysphagia. Q J Med 1996 Feb;89(2):109-116.
  16. Effects of sequential swallowing on drive to breathe in young, healthy adults. Dysphagia 2012 Jun;27(2):221-227.
  17. Comparison of sequential swallowing in patients with acute stroke and healthy adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009 Nov;90(11):1860-1865.
  18. The sweet and the bitter of mammalian taste. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2004 Aug;14(4):423-427.
  19. Taste suppression following capsaicin pretreatment in humans. Chem Senses 2002 May;27(4):353-365.
  20. Taste reception. Physiol Rev 1996 Jul;76(3):719-766.
  21. Effects of sour bolus on the intramuscular electromyographic (EMG) activity of muscles in the submental region. Dysphagia 2005 Summer;20(3):210-217.
  22. Genetics of human taste perception. J Dent Res 2004 Jun;83(6):448-453.
  23. Factors associated with the transition to oral feeding in infants fed by nasogastric tubes. Am J Occup Ther 1990 Dec;44(12):1070-1078.
  24. Sweet and sour preferences in young children and adults: role of repeated exposure. Physiol Behav 2004 Dec 15;83(3):421-429.
  25. Pharyngeal structure and function. Dysphagia 1993 Fall;8(4):303-307.
  26. Longterm reorganization of human motor cortex driven by short-term sensory stimulation. Nat Neurosci 1998 May;1(1):64-68.
  27. Complications and outcome after acute stroke: does dysphagia matter? Stroke 1996 Jul;27(7):1200-1204.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.