Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Oral and Oropharyngeal Perceptions of Fluid Viscosity Across the Age Span

  • Published:
Dysphagia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research demonstrates that varying sensory input, including the characteristics of a bolus, changes swallow physiology. Altering the consistency of fluids is a common compensatory technique used in dysphagia management to facilitate change. However, it is not known what variations in viscosity can be perceived in the oral cavity or oropharynx or if age affects oral and oropharyngeal perceptions of fluid viscosity. This study aims to establish the ability of normal adults to perceive fluid viscosity in the oral cavity and oropharynx and to determine if, within this population, there are age-related changes in oral and oropharyngeal perceptions. Sensitivity was established by deriving the exponent for the psychophysical law for fluid viscosity in both the oral cavity and the oropharynx, using modulus-free magnitude estimation with Newtonian fluids of corn syrup and water. Sixty normal volunteers, aged 21–84 years, participated. Results indicate that the exponent for oral perception of fluid viscosity was 0.3298, while for oropharyngeal perception it was 0.3148. Viscosity perception deteriorates with increasing age. Men exhibited a more marked deterioration in sensitivity than women. This study contributes to the literature on oral and oropharyngeal perceptions and on aging. The results provide a basis for work with individuals with dysphagia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Logemann JA: Evaluation and Treatment of Swallowing Disorders, 2nd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  2. Miller AJ: The Neuroscientific Principles of Swallowing and Dysphagia. San Diego, CA: Singular, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  3. Crary MA, Groher ME: Introduction to Adult Swallowing Disorders. St Louis, MO: Elsevier Science, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  4. Logemann JA, Pauloski BR, Rademaker AW, Colangelo LA, Kahrilas PJ, Smith CH: Oropharyngeal swallow in younger and older men: temporal and biomechanical characteristics of oropharyngeal swallow in younger and older men. J Speech Lang Hear Res 43:1264–1274, 2000

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Logemann JA: Effects of aging on the swallowing mechanism. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 23:1045–1056, 1990

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Robbins JA, Hamilton JW, Lof GL, Kempster GB: Oropharyngeal swallowing in normal adults of different ages. Gastroenterology 103:823–829, 1992

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Logemann JA, Pauloski BR, Colangelo L, Lazarus C, Fujiu M, Kahrilas PJ: Effects of a sour bolus on oropharyngeal swallowing measures in patients with neurogenic dysphagia. J Speech Hear Res 38:556–563, 1995

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kagel MC, Leopold NA: Dysphagia in Huntington’s Disease: a 16-year retrospective. Dysphagia 7:106–114, 1992

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pelletier CA, Lawless HT: Effect of citrus acid and citric acid-sucrose mixtures on swallowing in neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia. Dysphagia 18:231–241, 2003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chi-Fishman G, Sonies BC: Effects of systematic bolus viscosity and volume changes on hyoid movement kinematics. Dysphagia 17:278–287, 2002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kahrilas PJ, Logemann JA: Volume accommodation during swallowing. Dysphagia 8:259–265, 1993

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lazarus CL, Logemann JA, Rademaker AW, Kahrilas PJ, Pajak T, Lazar R. Halper A: Effects of bolus volume, viscosity, and repeated swallows in nonstroke subjects and stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74:1066–1070, 1993

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Logemann JA, Kahrilas PJ, Cheng J, Pauloski BR, Gibbons PJ, Rademaker AW, Lin S: Closure mechanisms of laryngeal vestibule during swallow. Am J Physiol 262(2 Pt 1):G338–G344, 1992

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bisch EM, Logemann JA, Rademaker AW, Kahrilas PJ, Lazarus CL: Pharyngeal effects of bolus volume, viscosity, and temperature in patients with dysphagia resulting from neurologic impairment and in normal subjects. J Speech Hear Res 37:1041–1049, 1994

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ren J, Shaker R, Zamir Z, Dodds WJ, Hogan WJ, Hoffmann RG: Effect of age and bolus variables on the coordination of the glottis and upper esophageal sphincter during swallowing. Am J Gastroenterol 88:665–669, 1993

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ali GN, Laundl TM, Wallace KL, deCarle DJ, Cook IJ: Influence of cold stimulation on the normal pharyngeal swallow response. Dysphagia 11:2–8, 1996

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Miller JL, Watkin KL: The influence of bolus volume and viscosity on anterior lingual force during the oral stage of swallowing. Dysphagia 11:117–124, 1996

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dantas RO, Dodds WJ: Effect of bolus volume and consistency on swallow-induced submental and infrahyoid electromyographic activity. Braz J Med Biol Res 23:37–44, 1990

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Dantas RO, Kern MK, Massey BT, Dodds WJ, Kahrilas PJ, Brasseur JG, Cook IJ: Effect of swallowed bolus variables on the oral and pharyngeal phases of swallowing. Am J Physiol 258:G675–G681, 1990

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ekberg O, Liedberg B, Öwall B: Barium and meat – a comparison between pharyngeal swallow of fluid and solid boluses. Acta Radiol Diagn 27:701–704, 1986

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Reimers-Neils L, Logemann JA, Larson C: Viscosity effects on EMG activity in normal swallow. Dysphagia 9:101–106, 1994

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gescheider GA: Psychophysics: The Fundamentals, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  23. Stevens SS: Psychophysics, rev ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  24. Christensen CM, Casper LM: Oral and nonoral perception of solution viscosity. J Food Sci 52:445–447, 1987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rao MA: Rheology of liquid foods – a review. J Texture Stud 8:135–168, 1977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith CH, Logemann JA, Burghardt WR, Carrell TD, Zecker SG: Oral sensory discrimination of fluid viscosity. Dysphagia 12:68–73, 1997

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cichero JAY, Jackson O, Halley PJ, Murdoch BE: How thick is thick? Multicenter study of the rheological and material property characteristics of mealtime fluids and videofluoroscopy fluids. Dysphagia 15:188–200, 2000

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Steele CM, Van Lieshout PHHM, Goff HD: The rheology of liquids: A comparison of clinicians’ subjective impressions and objective measurement. Dysphagia 18:182–195, 2003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hanger LY, Penfield MP: Sample/rinse temperature effects on discrimination of sweet and salty differences in a food system. J Sens Stud 8:1–11, 1993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Marks LE: Sensory Processes: The New Psychophysics. New York: Academic Press, 1974

    Google Scholar 

  31. Stevens SS: Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychol Rev 78:426–450, 1971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wilkinson L: Systat: the System for Statistics. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT, Inc, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  33. Stevens SS, Guirao M: Scaling of apparent viscosity. Science 144:1157–1158, 1964

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Moskowitz HR: Scales of subjective viscosity and fluidity of gum solutions. J Texture Stud 3:89–100, 1972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Calhoun KH, Gibson B, Hartley L, Minton J, Hokanson J: Age-related changes in oral sensation. Laryngoscope 102:109–116, 1992

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Green BG: Oral perception of the temperature of liquids. Percept Psychophys 39:19–24, 1986

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Green BG, Gelhard B: Perception of temperature on oral and facial skin. Somatosens Res 4:191–200, 1987

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Grover C, Craske B: Perceiving tongue position. Perception 21:661–670, 1992

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. McDonald ET, Aungst LF: Studies in oral sensorimotor function. In: Bosma JF (ed.): Symposium on Oral Sensation and Perception. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1967, pp 202–220

    Google Scholar 

  40. Williams WN, La Pointe L: Intra-oral recognition of geometric forms by normal subjects. Percept Motor Skills 32:419–426, 1971

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Fucci D, Petrosino L: Lingual vibrotactile sensation magnitudes: Comparison of suprathreshold responses in men and women. Percept Psychophys 33:93–95, 1983

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Fucci D, Petrosino LA, Harris D, Randolph-Tyler E: Effects of aging on responses to suprathreshold lingual vibrotactile stimulation. Percept Motor Skills 64:683–694, 1987

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Fucci D, Harris D, Petrosino L: Sensation magnitude scales for vibrotactile stimulation of the tongue and thenar eminence. Percept Motor Skills 58:843–848, 1984

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kesarwani A, Antonyshyn O, Mackinnon SE, Gruss JS, Novak C, Kelly L: Facial sensibility testing in the normal and posttraumatic population. Ann Plast Surg 22:416–425, 1989

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Petrosino L, Fucci D, Robey RR: Changes in lingual sensitivity as a function of age and stimulus exposure time. Percept Motor Skills 55:1083–1090, 1982

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Smith CH, Logemann JA, Colangelo LA, Rademaker AW, Pauloski BR: Incidence and patient characteristics associated with silent aspiration in the acute care setting. Dysphagia 14:1–7, 1999

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Mu L, Sanders I: Sensory nerve supply of the human oro- and laryngopharynx: A preliminary study. Anat Rec 258:406–420, 2000

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Wood FW: Psychophysical studies on the consistency of liquid foods. Rheology and Texture of Foodstuffs, Society of Chemical Industry, Monogr No. 27

  49. Glassburn DL, Deem JF: Thickener viscosity in dysphagia management: variability among speech-language pathologists. Dysphagia 13:218–222, 1998

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Celia Berdes and the Beuhler Center on Aging, Northwestern University; the participants who took the time to participate in this study; and the two anonymous reviewers for this manuscript. Funding was provided by NIH/NCI grant #P01 CA 40007.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina H. Smith PhD.

Appendix: Description of the Exponent of the Psychophysical Law

Appendix: Description of the Exponent of the Psychophysical Law

When the psychophysical power law is described mathematically, it can be quantified and the power component is termed the exponent of the relation. This relation can be defined thus:

$$ {{\rm{\psi }} = k\phi ^{{\rm{\beta }}} } $$

where ψ is the psychological magnitude, φ is the intensity of the physical stimulus, k is a constant determined by the choice of unit selected for measurement, and β is the exponent. The exponent is the only part of this equation that changes depending on the sensory system being examined. The value of the exponent (β) serves as a kind of signature that may differ from one sensory continuum to another. (e.g., taste in the form of salt has an exponent of 1.4). When we plot the results of magnitude estimation experiments, the exponent of the psychophysical law is graphically displayed reflecting the rate at which a stimulus response grows in relation to the stimulus. The psychophysical law for electric shock, with an exponent of more than one (3.5), when displayed graphically on ordinary graph paper is a line that is concave upward, ascending in an ever-steepening slope. Length has an exponent of 1.1 and is almost a straight line, while brightness, with an exponent of less than one (0.33), has a curvature downward, with the line becoming ever more horizontal (Stevens 1986). Thus, the exponent of the psychophysical law determines, and reflects, the curvature of this type of line plot. An interesting feature of the power function is that, if it is plotted with logarithmic scales on both axes, all the lines become straight lines. The slope of the power function for electrical shock is steep, while that for brightness is shallow, and length is approximately 45° to the horizontal and vertical axes, but all are straight lines. In terms of logarithms, the power law equation becomes

$$ {{\rm{log\psi }} = {\rm{\beta }}\log \phi + \log k} $$

This formula describes a straight line in log-log coordinates, and the exponent (β) becomes the slope of the line. The exponent is directly displayed in the slope of the power function. Alternatively one can say that the slope of the line is a direct measure of the exponent (Fig. 1).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, C.H., Logemann, J.A., Burghardt, W.R. et al. Oral and Oropharyngeal Perceptions of Fluid Viscosity Across the Age Span. Dysphagia 21, 209–217 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-006-9045-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-006-9045-4

Keywords

Navigation