Temporal measures of oropharyngeal swallowing events identified using ultrasound imaging in healthy young adults.

Swallowing is a complex process that involves precise coordination among oral and pharyngeal structures, which is essential to smooth transition of bolus and adequate airway protection. Tongue base retraction and hyolaryngeal excursion are two significant swallowing movements, and their related events can be examined using ultrasound imaging, which is physically and radioactively non-invasive. The present study aimed to 1) establish the temporal sequences and timing of swallowing events identified using ultrasound imaging, and 2) investigate the variability of the above temporal sequences and 3) investigate the effect of bolus type on the variability of temporal sequences in non-dysphagic individuals. Forty-one non-dysphagic young adults of both genders (19 males and 22 females) participated in the study. Ultrasound images were acquired mid-saggitally at their submental region during swallowing of boluses with different volume (i.e. 5mL or 10mL) and consistencies (i.e. IDDSI Levels 0 and 4). Timing and sequence of six events 1) displacement onset (TBOn), 2) maximum displacement (TBMax) and 3) displacement offset of tongue base retraction (TBOff); and, 4) displacement onset (HBOn), 5) maximum displacement (HBMax) and 6) displacement offset of the hyoid bone excursion (HBOff) were extracted from the ultrasound images. Out of the 161 swallows, 85.7% follow a general sequence of HBOn < TBOn < HBMax < TBMax < HBOff < TBOff. Percentage adherence to six anticipated paired-event sequences was studied. Results suggested the presence of individual variability as adherence ranged from 75.8% to 98.1% in four of the anticipated sequences, leaving only two sequences (HBOn < TBMax and TBMax < HBOff) obligatory (i.e. 100% adherence). For non-obligatory sequences, it was found that bolus type may have an effect on the level of adherence. Findings of the present study lay the groundwork for future studies on swallowing using ultrasound imaging and also the clinical application of ultrasonography.

Introduction

Swallowing is a complex process that involves coordination among over 30 muscles and their respective cranial nerves to achieve transition of bolus as well as airway protection at the same time [1]. Precise coordination is essential to safe swallows and disruptions to it may result in dysphagia or swallowing disorders, which may in turn lead to major health conditions like aspiration pneumonia, dehydration, and malnutrition.

The process of swallowing is commonly divided into four stages; namely, 1) the oral preparatory state which involves mostly mastication, 2) the oral stage which involves propulsion of the processed bolus towards the oropharynx, 3) the pharyngeal stage which starts when the bolus reaches the anterior faucial arch and ends when the bolus has entirely passed the upper esophageal sphincter (UES), and 4) the esophageal stage in which the bolus travels along the esophagus before reaching the lower esophageal sphincter [2, 3]. While traditionally swallowing was perceived as a process with temporal stages demarcated by the four stages, evidence has shown that there is temporal overlapping of the physiological events categorized in these stages [4]. A sequential pattern, however, can be observed by examining the details of the events. McConnel and his colleagues’ study [5] using synchronized fluoroscopy and manometry investigated the sequential pattern of the laryngeal movement preceding the tongue base movements. In Mendell and Logemann’s study [6], the onset of laryngeal movement and hyoid movement was also observed to precede the onset of tongue base movement consistently. Disruptions of the timing of these swallowing events were found to be related to the dysfunctions of swallowing mechanisms. In Lee and his colleagues’ study [7] with a group of patients with dysphagia, it was observed that patients who aspirate on thin liquid showed significant delay in rising time and peak of laryngeal movement relative to the start of pharyngeal swallow. Head and neck cancer patients who had undergone radiotherapy were observed to have delayed hyoid bone movement relative to pharyngeal bolus transit, yet it was compensated by an earlier arrival of maximum hyoid bone movement [8].

To date, most of the studies on the temporal aspects of swallowing events adopt videofluoroscopy (e.g. [8, 9]), while others adopt manometry or both (e.g. [10, 11]). Videofluoroscopy and manometry are, nevertheless, either physically or radioactively invasive; thus the number of trials on subjects should be kept minimal. Ultrasonography, on the other hand, has the advantages of being non-invasive and radiation-free. Previous studies showed that ultrasound imaging allows the observation of oropharyngeal movements when the transducer is placed at the submental position [12, 13]. This technique was also found to have higher sensitivity in assessing the oral phase of patients with degenerative diseases as compared to videofluoroscopy [14]. Hyoid bone movement was found to be reliably observed using ultrasound imaging [13, 15, 16]. In contrast to most of the abovementioned studies, which acquired ultrasound images with a convex-shaped transducer placed on the midsagittal plane of the submental region, Matsuo and colleagues used a linear-shaped transducer that placed on a plane slightly deviated from the midsagittal one. In addition to measuring the displacements of the hyoid bone and larynx, they also tried to compute the ratio between the two displacements to give an index of coordination between the geniohyoid and thyrohyoid muscles [17]. In relation to the temporal aspects of swallowing, Stone and Shawker [18] investigated the timing relationship between posterior tongue movement and hyoid bone movement. The adoption of ultrasonography over videofluoroscopy or manometry is hence promising.

Two specific swallowing movements, namely, tongue base retraction and hyoid bone excursion were of interest in this study. Besides being readily identifiable, precise temporal coordination of these movements are significant in swallowing safety in the pharyngeal stage based on the traditional Four-stage model. Tongue base retraction is an important action for the delivery of bolus to the pharynx. Hyoid bone excursion 1) denotes the superior-anterior movement of the larynx and facilitates the posterior tilting of the epiglottis, 2) widens the pharyngeal area and creates a suction force for the bolus towards the esophagus, and 3) promotes the opening of the UES and entrance of bolus into the esophagus [2]. Further, it was shown that patients with swallowing dysfunction may have compensatory mechanisms that safeguard airway protection, for instance, reaching the maximum displacement point earlier [8]. The present study did not only measure the onset time of tongue base retraction and hyoid bone excursion, but also the time at which maximum displacements are reached and the offset time of the two movements are also measured and compared. It was hoped that a comprehensive temporal profile of swallowing events related to the two movements would be established.

With respect to the temporal aspect of swallowing events, variability has been reported in the literature. Kendall and colleagues [19] identified variability in event sequences and found only four obligatory sequences in paired-events out of the 12 paired-events studied. Molfenter and colleagues [20] failed to replicate the obligatory sequences and found even greater extent of variability in the healthy subjects. A review by Molfenter and Steele [21] on 46 published studies suggested different sources of variability, with bolus property being one of them, in the temporal measures of swallowing. Studies by Nagy et al. [22] and Nagy et al. [23] found that bolus volume and bolus consistency respectively may alter velocity and displacement of hyoid bone movement, resulting in difference in timing of swallowing events. These further suggest that variability in the events associated with tongue base retraction and hyoid bone excursion, as well as the effects of bolus types on such variability shall be investigated.

The present study aimed to 1) establish the temporal sequences and timing of swallowing events identified using ultrasound imaging, 2) investigate the variability of the above temporal sequences in non-dysphagic individuals, and 3) investigate the effect of bolus type on the variability of temporal sequences in non-dysphagic individuals. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to investigate swallowing events, and also their variability, related to tongue base retraction and hyoid bone excursion collectively using ultrasonography. Effects of bolus property on swallowing events captured on ultrasound images had not been previously reported in the literature. Further, this study did not only focus on the onset of the two swallowing movements, but also their maximum displacement and offset as swallowing events. Findings of this study would lay the foundation for future studies on swallowing kinematics using ultrasound imaging. The normative temporal data obtained would also allow future comparisons with dysphagic individuals.

Materials and methods

Participants

The present study was approved by the Human Subject Ethics Sub-committee, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Ref. HSEARS20190521007). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Forty-one adults (19 males and 22 females) who aged from 20 to 30 years participated in the present study. All participants should have no structural malformation of the oral cavity, history of dysphagia and have not received any surgery and/or medication that may have an effect on swallowing functions.

Materials and equipment

Ultrasound images were acquired using the Aixplorer® MultiwaveTM Ultrasound System with a XC6-1 convex transducer. Action® BOL-X-I gel pads with film (dimension: 10 cm x 10 cm x 1 cm) were used to ensure proper fitting of the transducer to the submental area of subjects. Some subjects required an additional strip of gel pad (dimension: 10 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm) to eliminate air gaps. Gum-based thickener (Neo-High Toromeal III, FoodCare) was used to produce water boluses at the desired consistency levels.

Procedures

Ultrasound image acquisition

Subjects sat comfortably in an upright position with their head supported against a wall or with manual support by the examiner throughout the image acquisition process. The ultrasound transducer was placed on the mid-sagittal plane in the submental area of subjects. Readers may refer to figures of a previous study [24] for the placement and fixation of gel pads and the transducer. All ultrasound images were acquired by two final-year Master of Speech Therapy students who were trained to manage dysphagia (one of them is the second author P.S.). Before the commencement of image acquisition, both examiners were trained by a research personnel, who had at least three years of experience in conducting ultrasonographic data collection, on the operation of the ultrasound system and had gone through at least ten hours of practice on a number of individuals. Water boluses of different volumes and at different consistencies based on the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) framework [25] were prepared. Ultrasound images were recorded at a fixed frame rate of 32 frames per second when subjects were instructed to swallow the following bolus types in random orders:

5mL x thin: 5mL water bolus at IDDSI Level 0;

5mL x thick: 5mL water bolus at IDDSI Level 4;

10mL x thin: 10mL water bolus at IDDSI Level 0; and,

10mL x thick: 10mL water bolus at IDDSI Level 4.

These bolus types were selected as exemplars of small and large boluses with thin and thick consistencies and to elicit possible variabilities in swallowing kinematics, if any. For each bolus type, three trials were undergone by each subject and ultrasound images of the respective trial were recorded. In each trial, subjects were fed the designated bolus using a syringe. They were required to hold the bolus in the anterior part of the tongue surface before being instructed to swallow by the examiners. All recorded trials were reviewed by the second author P.S. on image quality based on clarity and artifacts. Out of the three recorded trials, only the one with the best image quality would be selected for the subsequent image processing and data extraction. One female subject and two female subjects failed to swallow the 5mL x thick and 10mL x thick boluses respectively. Data sets of these bolus types, therefore, only consisted of data from 40 and 39 subjects respectively. A sample ultrasound image of the relevant structures is shown in Fig 1. The contour of the tongue surface and tongue base are pointed by green arrows (A), the position of hyoid bone is annotated as the red dot with the red line indicating the acoustic shadow margin of the hyoid bone (B), and the geniohyoid muscle is segmented as the yellow polygon (C).

Fig 1

Sample ultrasound image showing the tongue surface and tongue base (A), hyoid bone (B), and geniohyoid muscle (C).

Data extraction

Ultrasound images acquired were examined frame-by-frame by the second author P.S. The frames at which the following swallowing events had occurred were extracted:

displacement onset, maximum displacement and displacement offset of tongue base retraction (i.e. TBOn, TBMax and TBOff respectively. See Fig 2 for illustration.); and,

Fig 2

(a) Numbered sequential juxtaposition of sample tongue base retraction frames (from left to right, top to bottom); (b) corresponding superimpositions of TBOn/TBMax (left) and TBMax/TBOff (right). Note: Magenta frame = TBOn, Yellow frame = TBMax, Cyan frame = TBOff.

displacement onset, maximum displacement and displacement offset of the hyoid bone excursion (i.e. HBOn, HBMax and HBOff respectively. See Fig 3 for illustration).

Fig 3

(a) Numbered sequential juxtaposition of sample hyoid bone excursion frames (from left to right, top to bottom); (b) corresponding superimpositions of HBOn/HBMax (left) and HBMax/HBOff (right). Note: Magenta frame = HBOn, Yellow frame = HBMax, Cyan frame = HBOff.

“Displacement onset” was defined as the point at which the corresponding structure started to leave its at-rest position and commence movement. “Maximum displacement” was defined as the point at which the corresponding structure reached the position farthest away from its at-rest position. “Displacement offset” was defined as the point at which the corresponding structure started to return to its at-rest position from the maximally displaced position. The timing data of events were extracted by converting the differences in frame number to the time differences (in ms) between the reference event, HBOn, and the corresponding event. Fifteen percent of the ultrasound images were selected randomly and data extraction was repeated by the examiner for intra-examiner reliability. Another 30% of all the acquired images were selected randomly and data were extracted from them by an independent examiner (also a final-year Master of Speech Therapy students who were trained to manage dysphagia) for inter-examiner reliability.

Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics 25 software. Intra-examiner reliability was analyzed using Intra-class Correlations Coefficient (ICC) based on a single measure, absolute agreement, two-way mixed-effects model Inter-examiner reliability was analyzed using ICC based on a single rater, absolute agreement, two-way mixed-effects model. The effects of bolus volume and consistency on the timing of swallowing events, as measured by the time differences between the reference event and the corresponding events, were analysed using two-way ANOVAs. The differences in level of adherence between different bolus types were analysed using Pearson’s Chi-squared tests or Fisher’s exact tests, depending on whether the condition of having an expected count of five or more in all cells was met [26]. The association between bolus type and adherence to anticipated sequences of paired-events was analyzed using Fisher’s exact tests.

Results

Table 1 summarizes the results of intra- and inter-examiner reliabilities in swallowing event identification. Excellent intra-examiner reliability and moderate inter-examiner reliability were noted for all swallowing events identified [27].

Table 1

Intra- and inter-examiner reliabilities in swallowing event identification.

Swallowing event	Intra-examiner reliability		Inter-examiner reliability
	ICC	p	ICC	p
HBOn	1.000	< 0.001	0.728	< 0.001
HBMax	1.000	< 0.001	0.727	< 0.001
HBOff	1.000	< 0.001	0.730	< 0.001
TBOn	1.000	< 0.001	0.714	< 0.001
TBMax	1.000	< 0.001	0.703	< 0.001
TBOff	1.000	< 0.001	0.721	< 0.001

Note

ICC = Intraclass Correlation Coefficients.

TBOn = Displacement onset of tongue base retraction.

TBMax = Maximum displacement of tongue base retraction.

TBOff = Displacement offset of tongue base retraction.

HBOn = Displacement onset of hyoid bone excursion.

HBMax = Maximum displacement of hyoid bone excursion.

HBOff = Displacement offset of hyoid bone excursion.

Temporal sequence of swallowing events related to tongue base retraction and hyoid bone excursion

The mean time differences between the reference event (i.e. HBOn) and other swallowing events are summarized in Table 2 and illustrated in Fig 4. Among all the events being studied, HBOn was consistently found to be the first swallowing event to occur, regardless of bolus volume and consistency. This finding was in line with the four-stage model of swallowing suggested by Pongpipatpaiboon and colleagues [2]. The sequence HBOn < TBOn < HBMax < TBMax < HBOff < TBOff is generally followed in swallows of all bolus types. The percentage of swallowing trials that adhered to the sequence above was found to be 85.7% (138/161). The percentage adherence when swallowing different bolus types ranged from 84.6% (33/39, for 10mL x thick boluses) to 87.5% (35/40, for 5mL x thick boluses) (See Fig 5).

Table 2

Mean time difference (in ms) between the onset of hyoid bone excursion (HBOn) and different events.

Bolus type	TBOn	HBMax	TBMax	HBOff	TBOff
All bolus types(n = 161)	115.88[60.07]	237.19[77.14]	300.85[65.53]	555.51[93.81]	621.89[117.04]
5mL x thin(n = 41)	118.90[60.60]	256.86[85.16]	310.21[72.75]	580.79[99.31]	626.52[91.36]
5mL x thick(n = 40)	96.88[44.65]	225.00[64.55]	285.16[46.51]	524.22[75.72]	587.50[100.13]
10mL x thin(n = 41)	128.05[71.54]	256.10[84.50]	313.26[77.34]	576.98[102.01]	658.54[162.14]
10mL x thick(n = 39)	119.39[57.74]	209.13[62.15]	294.07[58.56]	538.46[85.57]	613.78[90.25]

Note

TBOn = Displacement onset of tongue base retraction.

TBMax = Maximum displacement of tongue base retraction.

TBOff = Displacement offset of tongue base retraction.

HBOn = Displacement onset of hyoid bone excursion.

HBMax = Maximum displacement of hyoid bone excursion.

HBOff = Displacement offset of hyoid bone excursion.

[] = Standard deviation.

Fig 4

Graphical presentation of mean time difference (in ms) from the onset of hyoid bone excursion (HBOn) for different events when swallowing different bolus types.

Note: TBOn = Displacement onset of tongue base retraction, TBMax = Maximum displacement of tongue base retraction, TBOff = Displacement offset of tongue base retraction, HBOn = Displacement onset of hyoid bone excursion, HBMax = Maximum displacement of hyoid bone excursion, HBOff = Displacement offset of hyoid bone excursion, Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Fig 5

Percentage adherence of trials that follows the designated temporal sequence of swallowing events.

Table 3 shows the results of two-way ANOVAs on the time difference between HBOn and the corresponding events. All interaction effects and main effects of bolus volume were statistically non-significant. On the contrary, main effects of bolus consistency for all events were significant (p ≤ 0.033), with the exception of TBOn (F(1, 157) = 2.674, p = 0.104, η = 0.017). Effect sizes for the main effect of bolus consistency were small for TBMax (η = 0.029) and TBOff (η = 0.033) and medium for HBMax (η = 0.066) and HBOff (η = 0.065).

Table 3

Results of the two-way ANOVAs on the time difference between the onset of hyoid bone excursion (HBOn) and different events.

Swallowing events and effects	df	F	p	η p 2
TBOn
Volume x Consistency#	1	0.508	0.477	0.003
Volume†	1	2.847	0.094	0.018
Consistency†	1	2.674	0.104	0.017
HBMax
Volume x Consistency#	1	0.407	0.524	0.003
Volume†	1	0.493	0.483	0.003
Consistency†	1	11.087	0.001*	0.066
TBMax
Volume x Consistency#	1	0.082	0.775	0.001
Volume†	1	0.340	0.561	0.002
Consistency†	1	4.645	0.033*	0.029
HBOff
Volume x Consistency#	1	0.392	0.532	0.002
Volume†	1	0.131	0.718	0.001
Consistency†	1	10.880	0.001*	0.065
TBOff
Volume x Consistency#	1	0.025	0.875	< 0.001
Volume†	1	2.573	0.111	0.016
Consistency†	1	5.313	0.022*	0.033

Note

#Interaction.

†Main effect.

*significant at 0.05 level.

TBOn = Displacement onset of tongue base retraction.

TBMax = Maximum displacement of tongue base retraction.

TBOff = Displacement offset of tongue base retraction.

HBOn = Displacement onset of hyoid bone excursion.

HBMax = Maximum displacement of hyoid bone excursion.

HBOff = Displacement offset of hyoid bone excursion.

Adherence of paired-events to anticipated sequences

The following paired-event sequences were selected to investigate for their adherence and/or variability in swallowing trials:

Displacement onset of hyoid bone excursion always precedes displacement onset of tongue base retraction (HBOn < TBOn);

Displacement onset of hyoid bone excursion always precedes maximum displacement of tongue base retraction (HBOn < TBMax);

Displacement onset of tongue base retraction always precedes maximum displacement of hyoid bone excursion (TBOn < HBMax);

Maximum displacement of hyoid bone excursion always precedes maximum displacement of tongue base retraction (HBMax < TBMax);

Maximum displacement of tongue base retraction always precedes displacement offset of hyoid bone excursion (TBMax < HBOff);

Displacement offset of hyoid bone excursion always precedes displacement offset of tongue base retraction (HBOff < TBOff).

Results on percentage adherence to the anticipated paired-event sequences are summarized in Table 4. Adherence was defined as the number of swallows that follow the anticipated sequence, with a frame difference of at least one, out of the total number of swallows. Among the six paired-event sequences studied; two obligatory sequences, namely, HBOn < TBMax and TBMax < HBOff were found. The sequence HBOn < TBOn exhibited a high degree of adherence when considering all bolus types (98.1%) and individual bolus types (range = 97.4% - 100.0%). The TBOn < HBMax sequence also showed a high degree of adherence (i.e. > 90%), except for swallows of 10mL x thick boluses. Nevertheless, noticeable variability was found in the HBMax < TBMax sequence (range of percentage adherence = 65.9% - 87.2%) and HBOff < TBOff sequence (range of percentage adherence = 75.6% - 82.9%). In all pairwise bolus type comparisons in level of adherence, the only significant difference was found between 5mL x thin and 10mL x thick boluses in the HBMax < TBMax sequence (χ2 = 5.020, df = 1, N = 80, p = 0.025; phi = -0.250).

Table 4

Percentage adherence to the anticipated sequence of paired-events.

Bolus type	HBOn < TBOn	HBOn < TBMax	TBOn < HBMax	HBMax < TBMax	TBMax < HBOff	HBOff < TBOff
All bolus types(n = 161)	98.1	100.0	90.7	75.8	100.0	78.8
5mL x thin(n = 41)	97.6	100.0	92.7	65.9	100.0	75.6
5mL x thick(n = 40)	97.5	100.0	92.5	77.5	100.0	77.5
10mL x thin(n = 41)	100.0	100.0	92.7	73.2	100.0	82.9
10mL x thick(n = 39)	97.4	100.0	84.6	87.2	100.0	79.5

Note

TBOn = Displacement onset of tongue base retraction.

TBMax = Maximum displacement of tongue base retraction.

TBOff = Displacement offset of tongue base retraction.

HBOn = Displacement onset of hyoid bone excursion.

HBMax = Maximum displacement of hyoid bone excursion.

HBOff = Displacement offset of hyoid bone excursion.

Fisher’s exact tests were conducted to examine the relationship between bolus type and adherence to the anticipated sequences of paired-event except for the sequences HBOn < TBMax and TBMax < HBOff, since these sequences showed 100% adherence for all bolus types (see Table 3). Statistically non-significant results (p ≥ 0.153) were found in all the remaining paired-event sequences. The correlations between bolus type and adherence were analysed using Cramer’s V statistics. The correlation coefficients and correlation strengths are also summarized in Table 5.

Table 5

Results of Fisher’s exact and Cramer’s V tests on the association between bolus type and adherence to the anticipated sequence of paired-events.

Paired-events	p value of Fisher’s exact test	Cramer’s V	Strength2
HBOn < TBOn	0.805	0.081	Weak
HBOn < TBMax1	--	--	--
TBOn < HBMax	0.589	0.118	Moderate
HBMax < TBMax	0.153	0.179	Strong
TBMax < HBOff1	--	--	--
HBOff < TBOff	0.874	0.067	Weak

Note

TBOn = Displacement onset of tongue base retraction.

TBMax = Maximum displacement of tongue base retraction.

TBOff = Displacement offset of tongue base retraction.

HBOn = Displacement onset of hyoid bone excursion.

HBMax = Maximum displacement of hyoid bone excursion.

HBOff = Displacement offset of hyoid bone excursion.

1 Fisher’s exact test was not computed.

2 Association strength based on Akoglu [28].

Discussion

The present study aimed to establish temporal sequences followed by swallowing events and investigate the variability of these temporal sequences in non-dysphagic individuals. The oropharyngeal swallowing events were related to tongue base retraction and hyoid bone excursion and were identified using ultrasound imaging.

From the 161 swallows executed by 41 healthy young adults of both genders, the following sequence was established:

displacement onset of hyoid bone excursion (HBOn) occurs prior to

displacement onset of tongue base retraction (TBOn) occurs prior to

maximum displacement of hyoid bone excursion (HBMax) occurs prior to

maximum displacement of tongue base retraction (TBMax) occurs prior to

displacement offset of hyoid bone excursion (HBOff) occurs prior to

displacement offset of tongue base retraction (TBOff).

However, variability was noted in 14.3% of all swallows. Variability ranged from 12.5% to 15.4% when different bolus types were taken into account. This suggests that despite a designated sequence us generally followed, individual differences are expected in non-eventful swallows of healthy adults. Variability in temporal measures of swallowing had been well documented in the review on 46 studies conducted by Molfenter and Steele [21].

Displacement onset of hyoid bone excursion (HBOn) was found to be the first event occurring in the majority of swallows. When the paired-event “displacement onset of hyoid bone excursion (i.e. the first event of the general sequence) always precedes displacement onset of tongue base retraction (i.e. the second event of the general sequence)” (HBOn < TBOn) was investigated, a high percentage of swallows adhered to this anticipated sequence. This is in accordance with the findings by Mendell and Logemann–the onset of hyoid bone elevation would precede the onset of posterior tongue base movement in swallows captured using videofluoroscopy regardless of the volume and consistency of bolus being studied [6]. Hyoid bone excursion, together with laryngeal excursion, plays a crucial role in ensuring swallowing safety. During the excursion, the larynx is elevated such that the airway closed off by the epiglottis and bolus is diverted away from the airway [29]. The excursion also leads the UES to open [29]. It is not surprising to find HBOn occurs even before the commencement of tongue base retraction, the movement that is responsible for bolus delivery to the pharynx [2], in non-dysphagic subjects with every little variability.

Significant main effects from the ANOVAs suggested that the timing at which HBMax, TBMax, HBOff, and TBOff occur may be influenced by bolus consistencies, with thick boluses resulting in earlier occurrence of these events than thin boluses. A previous study by Nagy et al. stated that thicker boluses would result in faster hyoid bone movements [23]. In the present study, this may be reflected by arriving at the maximum hyoid bone displacement at an earlier time point. Since the timing of swallowing events was measured by the time difference from a reference event (i.e. HBOn, the first-occurring event), the significant difference in the timing of HBMax itself may account for differences in timing for any subsequent events. Despite the main effect of bolus consistency was found in TBMax, HBOff and TBOff, it is inconclusive to claim that the significant differences in timing of these events were resulted from thicker boluses. On the other hand, the non-significant volume effect on the timing of hyoid bone-related events echoes with another study by Nagy and colleagues, which also found that difference in bolus volume did not necessarily lead to difference in hyoid bone displacement velocity [22]. The timing of HBMax and any subsequent relevant events may, therefore, not differ with bolus volume.

Maximum displacement and displacement offset of swallowing movements are less discussed in the literature, including those related to tongue base retraction and hyoid bone excursion. Among all the paired-events being studied, two obligatory sequences were found in the present study, they are, the HBOn < TBMax and TBMax < HBOff. Although the percentage adherence was close to 100%, the sequence of the paired-event HBOn < TBOn was yet to be considered obligatory. The sequence related to hyoid bone displacement onset and maximum tongue base retraction was further examined to better understand the temporal relationship between the two movements. It was found that HBOn may not always precede TBOn but TBMax, indicating that airway protection and UES opening always commence before the maximum bolus propulsion towards the pharynx in healthy subjects. Another obligatory sequence was found in the paired-event TBMax < HBOff. The difference in time taken from HBOn to TBMax and to HBOff ranged from 239.06ms to 270.58ms in different bolus types (see Table 2 and Fig 4). On top of propelling the bolus towards the pharynx, tongue base retraction is considered to associate with valleculae clearance during swallows [30], especially when it is maximally retracted. Maintaining maximum airway protection and maximum UES opening until the tongue base is retracted maximally for at least 239.06ms may ensure swallowing safety to the greatest extent.

The paired-event TBOn < HBMax showed > 90% adherence for most bolus types. In general, tongue base retraction commences before maximum hyoid bone excursion is reached. However, for a challenging bolus type like 10mL x thick, maximum hyoid bone excursion may be achieved early in some subjects. This is in line with the findings suggested by Nagy and colleagues [23], which stated that velocity of hyoid bone movement increases with bolus consistency in non-dysphagic subjects. The paired-events HBMax < TBMax and HBOff < TBOff have relatively low levels of adherence. Individual variability is allowed in these event sequences without compromising swallowing safety.

It is interesting to note that from the largely non-significant pairwise comparisons, bolus type had little or no effect on the adherence to the anticipated sequences of paired-events. Statistical analyses on the relationship between bolus type and adherence suggested that the two variables are not associated with each other in all paired-events studied. Examinations on the strength of relationship, nevertheless, shows that bolus types might have moderate and strong associations with adherence for the paired-events TBOn < HBMax and HBMax < TBMax respectively in healthy adults. The level of adherence for TBOn < HBMax was noticeably lower when the subjects swallowed the 10mL x thick boluses (see Table 4). For HBMax < TBMax, the more challenging the bolus (i.e. 10mL x thick), the higher was the level of adherence. These findings suggest that besides individual variability, bolus property may also have an effect on adherence to anticipated sequence; especially when these two paired-events are taken into account. Two published systematic reviews also suggested that bolus properties like of volume and density could be potential sources of temporal [21] and spatial [31] variability of swallowing. Bolus types varying in different dimensions should be taken into consideration in future studies on swallowing kinematics.

Limitations and recommendations

Considering the substantial amount of time and labour intensiveness required for data extraction, data were extracted from only one trial for each bolus type in each subject. It is recommended that data may be obtained from more trials to eliminate possible measurement and/or extraction errors, and to examine the extent of possible within-subject between-trial variability. Inter-examiner reliability was moderate. Measures like consensus meeting between examiners may be taken to enhance reliability. It is also recommended to expand the investigations to swallowing movements other than tongue base retraction and hyoid bone excursion. Besides, on top of the temporal aspects; spatial aspects (e.g. displacement) of swallowing events may be investigated in future studies. Despite that duration of movements may be deduced from the differences in timing of events (e.g. the duration of maintaining maximum tongue base retraction may be deduced from the difference between TBMax and TBOff), analyses on movement duration and/or latency among events may be also be included in future studies.

Conclusion

Ultrasound imaging is a non-invasive technique, both physically and radioactively, that can be applied to individuals at different ages and with different backgrounds. It is also considered more accessible, as compared to traditional swallowing examination techniques like videofluoroscopy and FEES. The present study has further provided evidence of the utility of ultrasound imaging for the identification of swallowing related structures (i.e. tongue base and hyoid bone) and movements (tongue base retraction and hyoid bone excursion). Two obligatory sequences and the timing of swallowing events related to the essential movements were found and individual variability was also observed in the measurements of the movements among healthy adults. Further, it is found that bolus property may have an effect on the timing and sequence of swallowing events. Findings of the present study lay the groundwork for future studies that investigate and compare temporal swallowing data between healthy and dysphagic individuals sonographically, and provide further support for adopting ultrasound imaging in the examination and diagnosis of swallowing in clinical settings.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

11 Jan 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hyojung Choo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study is interesting as well as the well-executed statistical analysis. However, to improve the quality of the manuscript I recommend to insert these following references:

- In the introduction emphasizes the role of Patient-reported measures in dysphagia as illustrated in an interesting systematic review indicated: Patel DA, Sharda R, Hovis KL, Nichols EE, Sathe N, Penson DF, Feurer ID, McPheeters ML, Vaezi MF, Francis DO. Patient-reported outcome measures in dysphagia: a systematic review of instrument development and validation. Dis Esophagus. 2017 May 1;30(5):1-23. doi: 10.1093/dote/dow028.

- In the introduction to suggest other methods of evaluating swallowing movement using ultrasonography: Matsuo T, Mstsuyama M, Nakatani K, Naoe M. Evaluation of swallowing movement using ultrasonography. Radiological Physics and Technology .2019 May; 13(1):62-68. doi:10.1007/s12194-019-00547-1

- In the discussion add a systematic review of hyoid and laryngeal movements as indicated in the following reference:

Sonja M. Molfenter, Catriona M. Steele. Physiological variability in the deglutition literature: hyoid and laryngeal kinematics. Dysphagia. 2011 Mar;26(1):67-74. doi: 10.1007/s00455-010-9309-x.

Reviewer #2: The study invetigated the time sequence of hyoid bone and tongue base movement by ultrasound when swallowing different volume and consistency of bolus. Obligatory and non-obligator sequence was identified and variability of adherence to several sequence was reported.

The topic is of clinical significance. However, several issues should be addressed and clarified to validate the study.

My comments are as follows:

1. The procedure of ultrasound exam should be specified in detail, such as the head support, placement and fixation of gel pad, transducer holding, because the stabilization of transducer and image quality is critical for accurate analysis of hyoid and tongue movemnent.

2.US is highly operator dependent. Is the operator experienced with US exam? The inadequate reliability of US would make the results doutful.

3. Are the subjects holding the bolus at mouth floor or in front of the tongue? This may significantly alter the results.

4.The localization of hyoid and tongue base in sonographic view should be elaborated.

In figure 1, the B indicate the acoustic shadow but not hyoid bone. The presence of acoustic shadow is extremely variable depending on the placement position and angle of transducer, therefore, should not be used for quantitative analysis. The margin of hyoid bone or the interface between hyoid bone/geniohyoid bone should be used as a consistent marker.

5. A clear definition of event, such as onset and offset of their movement is required.

6. Several previous studies have investigated the time sequence of swallowing events in relation to bolus consistency and volume, including some ultrasound studies. The introduction should briefly review these studies and point out what is lacking.

7. As the authors pointed out in the limitations, only one trial of swallow is analysed. This would significantly affect the validity of the study as large between-trial variation exists even in the same individual.

8. Table 2 & 3: are there any differences betwen groups?

9. Table 4. The effect of bolus volume and consistency should be considered separately.

10. The discussion should include more comparison with previous studies, instead of repeat of results. For example, how bolus consistenct affect movement sequence of hyoid bone and tongue base.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

2 Feb 2022

Please refer to the point-by-point responses in the attachment.

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers_20200201.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 Feb 2022

PONE-D-21-34358R1

Temporal measures of oropharyngeal swallowing events identified using ultrasound imaging in healthy young adults

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kwong,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript does not meet our criteria for publication and must therefore be rejected.

Although we appreciate substantial improvement by revision, one of reviewers still found the fundamental issue of acquisition and analysis of ultrasonographic images that remained unsolved. The reviewer mentioned that "the presence of acoustic shadow is extremely variable depending on the placement position and angle of transducer, therefore, should not be used for quantitative analysis". This issues may reduce reproducibility of your research. Please consider to reanalyzing data with a reliable marker for ultrasound image analysis.

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you appreciate the reasons for this decision.

Yours sincerely,

Hyojung Choo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

We appreciate substantial improvement by revision. However, one of reviewers still found the fundamental issue of acquisition and analysis of ultrasonographic images that remained unsolved. The reviewer mentioned that "the presence of acoustic shadow is extremely variable depending on the placement position and angle of transducer, therefore, should not be used for quantitative analysis". This issues may reduce reproducibility of your research. Please consider to reanalyzing data with a reliable marker for ultrasound image analysis.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have well modify the manuscript. We encourage you to accept it in its current form, which is a very interesting study.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for taking into account the issues raised. The authors have made substantial revision, however, the foundamental issue of acuisition and analysis of ultrasonographic images remained unsolved. The figure is re-annotated according to suggestions but the analsis was based on previous anotation, using acoustic shadow of hyoid bone as marker. As mentioned in previous comments, the presence of acoustic shadow is extremely variable depending on the

placement position and angle of transducer, therefore, should not be used for quantitative analysis.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

- - - - -

For journal use only: PONEDEC3

11 Mar 2022

Please refer to the appeal letter (cover letter).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Apr 2022

21 May 2022

Please see the attached file.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_20220519.docx

Click here for additional data file.

16 Jun 2022

Temporal measures of oropharyngeal swallowing events identified using ultrasound imaging in healthy young adults

PONE-D-21-34358R3

Dear Dr. Kwong,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Hyojung Choo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: Yes: Makoto Inoue

**********

20 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-34358R3

Temporal measures of oropharyngeal swallowing events identified using ultrasound imaging in healthy young adults

Dear Dr. Kwong:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Hyojung Choo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE