A comparison between swallowing sounds and vibrations in patients with dysphagia

Abstract

The cervical auscultation refers to the observation and analysis of sounds or vibrations captured during swallowing using either a stethoscope or acoustic/vibratory detectors. Microphones and accelerometers have recently become two common sensors used in modern cervical auscultation methods. There are open questions about whether swallowing signals recorded by these two sensors provide unique or complementary information about swallowing function; or whether they present interchangeable information. This study aims to compare of swallowing signals recorded by a microphone and a tri-axial accelerometer from 72 patients (mean age 63.94 ± 12.58 years, 42 male, 30 female), who had videofluoroscopic examination. The participants swallowed one or more boluses of thickened liquids of different consistencies, including thin liquids, nectar-thick liquids, and pudding. A comfortable self-selected volume from a cup or a controlled volume by the examiner from a 5 ml spoon was given to the participants. A broad feature set was extracted in time, information-theoretic, and frequency domains from each of 881 swallows presented in this study. The swallowing sounds exhibited significantly higher frequency content and kurtosis values than the swallowing vibrations. In addition, the Lempel-Ziv complexity was lower for swallowing sounds than those for swallowing vibrations. To conclude, information provided by microphones and accelerometers about swallowing function are unique and these two transducers are not interchangeable. Consequently, the selection of transducer would be a vital step in future studies.

Keywords: Cervical auscultation; Microphone; Signal processing; Swallowing difficulties; Tri-axial accelerometry.

Figure 1

Location of the microphone and the accelerometer on a participant's neck and orientation of the three anatomical axes relative to the sensor.

Figure 2

Flowchart outlining the preprocessing and features extraction steps. * This stage of preprocessing was not applied for the swallowing signals recorded by the microphone

Figure 3

Percentages of dissimilarities between computed features from swallowing signals recorded by the tri-axial accelerometer and microphone