Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Effects of dual-task interference on swallowing in healthy aging adults

Abstract

A wide body of literature has demonstrated that the neural representation of healthy swallowing is mostly bilateral, with one hemisphere dominant over the other. While several studies have demonstrated the presence of laterality for swallowing related functions among young adults, the data on older adults are still growing. The purpose of this paper is to investigate potential changes in hemispheric dominance in healthy aging adults for swallowing related tasks using a behavioral dual-task paradigm. A modified dual-task paradigm was designed to investigate the potential reduction in hemispherical specialization for swallowing function. Eighty healthy right-handed participants in the study were divided into two groups [Group 1: young adults (18–40 years) and Group 2: older adults (65 and above)]. All the participants performed a timed water swallow test at baseline and with two interference conditions (silent word repetition, and facial recognition). The results of the study revealed the following 1) a statistically significant effect of age on swallow performance; 2) statistically significant effect of each of the interference tasks on two of the swallow measures (VPS and VPT) in younger adults; and 3) no significant effect of the interference tasks on the swallowing performance of older adults. These findings suggest that aging substantially affects swallowing in older individuals, and this potentially accompanies a reduction in the hemispheric specialization for swallowing related tasks.

Citation: Krishnamurthy R, Philip R, Balasubramanium RK, Rangarathnam B (2021) Effects of dual-task interference on swallowing in healthy aging adults. PLoS ONE 16(6): e0253550. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253550

Editor: Giovanni Petri, ISI Foundation, ITALY

Received: January 14, 2021; Accepted: June 7, 2021; Published: June 24, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Krishnamurthy et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Research on neurological control of swallowing implicates numerous regions in the brain. These include, but are not limited to, the precentral gyrus, postcentral gyrus, premotor area, supplemental motor area, anterior cingulate cortex, operculum, insula, precuneus, cuneus, prefrontal area, temporal cortex, cerebellum, brainstem, frontal cortex, internal capsule, association areas, thalamus, and the basal ganglia [1–10]. In addition to the involvement of these neural structures and pathways, hemispheric dominance is a feature of swallowing, as in many other physiological functions [11,12].

Hemispherical specialization for swallowing

Functional imaging and behavioral methods have been utilized to understand neural mapping/hemispheric specialization for swallowing. Research utilizing functional imaging methods such as functional magnetic resonance imaging [fMRI] [1,2,13–15], Positron emission tomography [PET] [3], magnetoencephalography [MEG] [16] has informed that the neural representation of swallowing is largely asymmetric and bilateral. That is, swallowing may not be localized to one specific hemisphere (right or left) across subjects, but within each subject one hemisphere appears to be more dominant than the other [2–5,11]. These findings are also supported by clinical reports which have demonstrated that unilateral ischemic strokes of either cerebral hemisphere can result in distinct patterns of swallowing impairments [17–20]. Specifically, left hemisphere damage may be associated with an impairment of the oral stage of swallowing, whereas right hemisphere impairments may be associated with pharyngeal stage dysmotility, aspiration, and persistent dysphagia [21]. Several other studies [22–26] report no such hemispheric differences in swallowing behavior due to brain injury.

Behaviorally, dual-task paradigms have been used to study lateralization for swallowing [27–29]. The dual-task paradigm is a neuropsychological method that indirectly investigates lateralized cortical systems by comparing baseline task performance with competing/interference conditions. Cerebral underpinnings of a dual-task interference have been explained using several theories. Among existing theories, the functional cerebral space model [30] states that the coactivation of functionally overlapping neural substrates will result in a performance decline of one of the two concurrent activities. Others have speculated that "hemispheric overload" [31] or "competition of resources" [32] results in the decrement of response. That is, if two tasks are sharing resources within the same hemisphere, there would be a compromised allocation of attentional or processing resources. Due to the limited functional capabilities of the neural system, there would be a decrement in at least one concurrent behavioral response from baseline performance.

Using the dual-task paradigm, Daniels et al. [27] offer partial support for the bilateral representation of swallowing in younger adults. Daniels et al. [28] further expanded on their earlier study to report that the hemispheric dominance for swallowing might be inconsistently lateralized, with the two hemispheres playing different roles in the control of swallowing. The authors reported a significant reduction in the measure of volume per swallow during a silent word repetition (left hemisphere activating task), and a significant reduction number of swallows during a line orientation task (right hemisphere activating task), thereby proposing that the left hemisphere regulates volume-related parameters of swallowing and that the right hemisphere regulates time-related parameters. Similar findings have also been reported by Balasubramanium et al. [29] in younger adults.

Aging effects on swallowing and swallowing related laterality

Extant research [33–35] suggests that the swallowing function declines with age and a majority of age-related changes in swallowing occur after the age of 60 years [36]. Understanding age-related change in swallowing is important for several reasons. Firstly, there is a global rise in the population of older adults. In 2019, it was estimated that one in 11 people would be aged 60 years or above in the world. Currently, it is projected that the number of older adults in the world would be 1.4 billion in 2030 and 2.1 billion by 2050 and could rise to 3.1 billion in 2100 [37]. Secondly, as aging advances, the propensity to develop swallowing difficulties increases as a result of frequent neurologic damage or disorders, such as stroke [38], Alzheimer’s disease [39], and Parkinson’s disease [40]. Thus, there are substantial socio-economic implications related to age-related disease. Due to these reasons, it is crucial to recognize the impact of aging on normal swallow so that its negative consequences on nutrition, hydration, pulmonary function, and overall quality of life can be prevented or addressed appropriately.

A few studies have addressed laterality aspects of swallowing in healthy older adults. Malandraki et al. [14] utilized functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and demonstrated such differences in healthy aging adults. The authors compared nine healthy aging adults to ten younger adults on voluntary swallowing of 3 ml of room temperature water, planning of a swallow without execution, tapping of the tip of the tongue against the alveolar ridge, and throat clearing tasks. The results of their study revealed a reduced lateralization for swallowing in the older adult group as compared to the younger adults. These findings are suggestive of a swallowing related hemispheric specialization preference in younger adults, and a potential reduction in hemispheric specialization for swallowing in older adults.

Martin et al. [41] also reported fMRI data that potentially suggest the recruitment of additional areas for swallowing in older adults. Although laterality was not directly addressed, the authors reported that the volume of brain areas involved in water swallow for older adults was substantially higher compared to younger adults suggesting that older adults tend to compensate for increased task demands by recruiting additional areas. Teismann et al. [15] reported similar results. These results are suggestive of a possible reduction/change in hemispheric specialization as a function of age.

Changes that occur to the aging brain with respect to hemispheric specialization of different cognitive and behavioral tasks have been explained by two predominant views, the right hemi-aging model [42], and the hemispheric asymmetry reduction in older adults (HAROLD) model [43]. The right hemi- aging model suggests that the right hemisphere shows more age-related decline, while the HAROLD model proposes that hemispheric specialization steadily decreases with age and that the brain recruits additional areas for functions that are specialized to be performed by one of the hemispheres in younger healthy adults.

Theoretical constructs of the present study

Earlier studies [27–29] related to swallowing laterality have established the following constructs. 1) Swallowing is, to some extent, bilaterally controlled. 2) There is a differential hemispherical control for specific aspects of swallowing. That is, the left hemisphere demonstrates a preferential control for volume of swallow, while the right hemisphere is responsible for timing-related aspects. In continuation with earlier studies by Daniels et al. [28], and Balasubramanium et al [29], we aim to investigate potential reduction/changes in hemispheric specialization in healthy aging adults for swallowing related tasks using a behavioral dual-task paradigm.

We began by carefully selecting tasks, which would potentially draw neural resources for swallowing and a competing task. For the left hemisphere, a silent word repetition was considered as it has been reported that the neural regions activated for swallowing and motor speech are anatomically close and functionally overlapping [44,45]. Warburton et al., [46] have reported an activation of the left primary motor cortex during silent word repetition, and similar areas are reported to be involved during swallowing [2,3,9]. For the right hemisphere, facial recognition task was selected, as several imaging studies [47,48] have attributed the right fusiform face area in the occipitotemporal lobe to be responsible for visual facial recognition. Similar areas within the right hemisphere, especially the sensorimotor integration networks have been reported to contribute to swallowing [49]. These evidences from functional imaging studies support the premise that swallowing, motor speech, and visual facial recognition centres functionally overlap.

Based on what is already known in the areas of dual-tasking, hemispherical laterality/specialization for swallowing, and swallowing related neurological changes in healthy aging, the following was hypothesized. 1) Performing concurrent cognitive and swallowing tasks (via a dual-task paradigm) would result in decrements to clinical swallowing performance in younger and older adults; with greater decrements in the former. This hypothesis was based on the notion that older adults experience constrained resource allocation while performing a dual-task. In other words, we hypothesized that younger adults would demonstrate a substantial attenuation in their performance of the swallowing task during interference conditions compared to baseline performance due to the interfering task demands. Older adults, because of the effects of healthy aging, may already demonstrate reduced specialization. Therefore, performance attenuation due to dual-task demands was hypothesized to be modest.

Method

Human participants: The study was conducted after approval from the Research Ethics Committee at Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, India.

Eighty healthy right-handed participants recruited from the community participated in the study. Participants were divided into two groups: Group 1 consisting of young adults (18–40 years) and Group 2 consisting of community-dwelling healthy aging adults (65 years and older). The handedness of the participants was confirmed using the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory [50]. Participants were recruited based on sample size calculations for a cross-sectional study, with an equal number of males and females. Exclusion criteria were a history of dysphagia, head, and neck structural damage, and neurological disorders. Inclusion criterion included a score of < 3 on the Kannada version of Eating Assessment Tool 10 (EAT 10 K) [51]. Cognitive dysfunction was ruled out using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [52]. All participants had an MMSE score of 24 and above. Participants were included in the study after obtaining their written informed consent.

Each participant performed baseline and interference tasks. Baseline condition included continuous swallowing using the timed test of swallowing (TTS) [53]. The interference conditions with swallowing included a silent word repetition task for the left hemisphere [49] and a facial recognition task for the right hemisphere involvement [54,55]. For all the trials, the order of tasks was randomized and counterbalanced to prevent practice effect.

Baseline swallowing task

Baseline swallow performance was assessed using two trials of TTS. Participants continually ingested 100 ml of water from a cup. They were instructed to swallow at a comfortable rate without spillage or pausing until asked to stop. Number of swallows (NS) during continuous cup drinking was measured using video recordings of the task and was averaged across two trials. Volume per swallow (VPS) was calculated by dividing the total amount ingested during each trial by the number of swallows and was averaged across two trials. Volume per time (VPT) was calculated by dividing total volume (100 ml) by total time and was averaged across two trials. Time per swallow (TPS) was calculated by dividing the total time taken to ingest 100 ml of water by NS and was averaged across two trials.

Interference tasks

The interference tasks consisted of a right hemisphere task (facial recognition) and a left hemisphere task (silent word repetition). For the facial recognition task, participants were presented with images of eminent personalities that were available in public databases and were instructed to think of the answer but not vocalize it. The images were first presented to fifteen healthy individuals (who did not participate in the study) across the lifespan for item agreement. The images were validated for accuracy and clarity. Images were included only when they were agreed by 100% of these individuals to be representative of the personality concerned and were of high resolution. Each of the stimuli was presented using Microsoft PowerPoint for a total of three seconds.

For the left hemisphere task, participants silently repeated stimuli from a word set namely, wolf, butterfly, and duck [27,28] as they continuously swallowed. Participants did not vocalize the word set during this task; rather they were instructed to rapidly and repeatedly think of the stimuli in word set. After each trial, confirmation of silent repetition was obtained. For each of the baseline and competing tasks, the swallow performance was measured on VPS, VPT, and TPS.

Statistical analysis

Mixed model Analysis of variance with appropriate Bonferroni corrections was performed, with the group (young vs. older adults) as the between-subject variable and interference tasks as the within-subject variable. The independent variables (IV) were age and interference conditions; dependent variables (DV) were VPS, VPT, and TPS.

Results

Descriptive data for swallowing performance of two groups with and without interference conditions are presented in Figs 1–3. A single mixed model analysis of variance, with appropriate Bonferroni corrections was performed with the group (young vs. older adults) as the between-subject variable, and interference tasks as the within-subject variable. Results are discussed below under the following headings.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Volume per swallow comparisons of younger and older adults during conditions of interference represented as mean (standard deviation).

Error bars indicate standard error (SE).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253550.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Volume per time comparisons of younger and older adults during conditions of interference represented as mean (standard deviation).

Error bars indicate standard error (SE). * Indicates statistical significance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253550.g002

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Time per swallow comparisons of younger and older adults during conditions of interference represented as mean (standard deviation).

Error bars indicate standard error (SE).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253550.g003

Effect of age on swallow performance

Means for swallow performance between the age groups are presented in Figs 1–3.

To investigate the overall effects of aging on swallowing performance, a mixed model ANOVA with group (young vs. older adults) as between subject factor was performed. Results demonstrate a significant effect of age for all three measures of swallow performance. The measures of VPS (F(1,78) = 5.362, p = 0.05 d = 0.29), and VPT (F(1,78) = 17.34, p = 0.05 d = 1.03) were found to be significantly lower in older adults compared to young adults. The measure of TPS (F(1,78) = 4.097 p = 0.05 d = 0.6) was significantly higher in older adults compared to younger adults.

Effect of interference conditions on swallow performance

Means for swallow performance during each of the interference conditions is represented in Figs 1–3. To investigate how the two interference conditions (facial recognition and silent word repetition) influenced the swallowing performance (measured in terms of VPS, VPT, and TPS) in the two groups (young vs. older adults), mixed model ANOVA was performed with the group as the between-subject variable and interference tasks as the within-subject variable. The results are presented with respect to each dependent variable (VPS, VPT, and TPS) below.

Volume per swallow.

The results demonstrate a significant main effect of interference (F(1.572,122) = 6.198, p = 0.03). However, there was no significant interaction between age and the interference tasks (F(1.577,122) = 1.508, p = 0.05). Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons further demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in both the interference conditions baseline–left hemisphere task (silent word repetition) (p = 0.01), and baseline–right hemisphere task (facial recognition) (p = 0.01).

Volume per time.

Results demonstrate a statistically significant main effect of interference (F(2.84,221.5) = 15.330, p = 0.05), and also an interaction between age and the interference conditions (F(2.81,221) = 3.646, p = 0.05). Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons further demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in baseline–left hemisphere task (silent word repetition) (p = 0.01), and baseline–right hemisphere task (facial recognition) (p = 0.01).

Since there was a significant interaction between age and the interference condition, repeated measures ANOVA was performed separately for young adult and older adult groups. For the young adults group, one-way repeated measures of ANOVA was performed with the interference tasks as the within group variable. A significant main effect of the interference tasks (F(3.087,120.3) = 16.544, p = 0.05) was observed. Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons showed a statistically significant decrease in baseline–left hemisphere task (silent word repetition) (p = 0.01), and baseline–right hemisphere task (facial recognition) (p = 0.01).

For the older adults group, the results of one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a statistically significant main effect of the interference (F(2.443,94.894) = 3.844, p = 0.05). Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons did not reveal any significance between baseline–left hemisphere task (silent word repetition) (p = 0.92), or baseline–right hemisphere task (facial recognition) (p = 0.9) conditions.

Time per swallow.

Results did not reveal a significant main effect of the interference (F(1.598,124.6) = 1.01, p = 0.09), nor any interaction between age and interference (F(1.598,124.6) = 1.931, p = 0.13) was found. In summary, the interference of silent word repetition (left hemisphere task) yielded a statistically significant effect on volume per swallow and volume per time for the younger adults and only on volume per swallow for the older adults. No statistically significant differences were observed for time per swallow for either of the groups and volume per time for the older adults group. The interference of facial recognition (right hemisphere task) demonstrated a similar pattern as the left hemisphere interference. That is, there was a statistically significant decrement in volume per swallow and volume per time for the younger adults and only volume per swallow for the older adults. In other words, younger adults swallowed lesser volumes of boluses (VPS and VPT) during the interference conditions compared to baseline. While statistical significance was not observed for the TPS parameter, performance tended to deteriorate in the interference conditions characterized by the increased time to swallow for younger adults, as can be seen in Fig 3. In addition, older adults did not show a statistically significant effect of the conditions of interference on two of the three swallowing parameters that we investigated.

Discussion

The study investigated potential changes in hemispheric laterality with respect to swallowing in healthy aging adults. The results are suggestive of 1) a statistically significant effect of age on swallow performance; 2) statistically significant effect of each of the interference tasks on two of the swallow measures (VPS and VPT) in younger adults and trends toward decrement for the TPS parameter, and; 3) No significant effect of either of the interference tasks on two parameters (VPT and TPS) for older adults.

The first key finding of an effect of age on swallowing performance was on expected lines. Aging substantially impacts both neurological functions and peripheral musculature interfering with the ability to swallow safely and efficiently [56–61] and the results from our data are consistent with what is already known. The second key finding of an effect of the interference tasks on swallowing performance also makes sense and is consistent with our hypothesis. Competing tasks that utilize similar neurological structures require differential allocation of neural resources. In the present study, silent word repetition and facial recognition were adopted as interfering tasks and these tasks utilize areas in the left and right hemispheres respectively, that overlap with swallowing related functions. Whereas our understanding of laterality related to swallowing continues to grow, several accounts report preferential laterality for specific components related to swallow (e.g. Malandraki and colleagues [14]). So, it does make clinical sense to observe the impact of interference tasks on swallowing measures. Interestingly, this impact of the interference tasks on swallowing performance was significantly evident in younger adults compared to older adults and is partly consistent with our hypothesis. Specifically, the parameter–VPS–did not demonstrate statistically significant interference effects in the older adult group. One possible explanation for this finding is that the dual-task paradigm is perhaps not sensitive to address volume-related aspects of swallowing. The results of the interference tasks should also be interpreted with caution because both the interference tasks did not require an overt response.

The findings of the study appear to shed light on the patterns of laterality changes in older patients. Regardless of conditions that are known to interfere with swallowing performance warranting division of neural resources [28], the performance of older adults on two of the three swallowing related parameters we investigated, tended to be rather similar to that when the interference conditions were not present. While it is premature to attribute all these findings to a reduced asymmetry in aging, it does appear that one possible reason for the differences in performance could be age-related changes in the brain. This study did not measure neural activation, however; the findings are supported by earlier reports on the HAROLD model on aging that suggests that the activity of the prefrontal cortex tends to be less lateralized in older than in younger adults [46]. Data from behavioral experiments investigating age-related neuropsychological and cognitive functions of memory, perception, inhibition, etc. have demonstrated a reduction in hemispheric specialization in older adults [46] and our data are consistent with these findings. With respect to swallowing, studies that have utilized functional imaging to investigate neural control of swallowing [14,41] have all suggested changes in brain activation and potentially increased activation suggesting compensatory utilization of neural resources.

Making over-reaching conclusions based on behavioral data is rash. Nevertheless, the findings add support to the growing evidence for a possible reduction in the specialization of hemispheres in healthy aging and yet demonstrating behavioral performance at below optimum levels. This reduction in hemispheric specialization could be due to several reasons including a compensatory mechanism where the reduced asymmetries could help with the deficits that occur with aging [62] or a de-differentiation mechanism which suggests that reduction in asymmetries are simple by-products of aging [63]. Other proposals such as a change in the cognitive architecture [64] or the general neural networks [65] with aging have found evidence as well. Considering all the findings together, older individuals appear to demonstrate poorer swallowing outcomes in spite of a possible change in their hemispheric laterality. In other words, the reduction in the asymmetries does not appear to offer a compensatory preservation of swallowing measures in healthy aging individuals.

Conclusions

In conclusion, aging substantially impacts swallowing in older individuals and this potentially accompanies a reduction in the hemispheric specialization for swallowing-related tasks among other possible changes. Future research should objectively substantiate these possible age related hemispheric changes and investigate if these changes help reduce the negative impacts of aging on the swallowing musculature and function combining multimodal outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset. Swallow laterality data sheet.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253550.s001

(XLSX)

References

  1. 1. Hamdy S, Aziz Q, Rothwell JC, Singh KD, Barlow J, Hughes DG, et al. The cortical topography of human swallowing musculature in health and disease. Nature Medicine. 1996 Nov 1;2(11):1217–24. pmid:8898748
  2. 2. Hamdy S, Mikulis DJ, Crawley A, Xue S, Lau H, Henry S, et al. Cortical activation during human volitional swallowing: an event-related fMRI study. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 1999 Jul 1;277(1):G219–25. pmid:10409170
  3. 3. Hamdy S, Rothwell JC, Brooks DJ, Bailey D, Aziz Q, Thompson DG. Identification of the cerebral loci processing human swallowing with H2 15O PET activation. J Neurophysiol. 1999 Apr 1;81(4):1917–26. pmid:10200226
  4. 4. Martin RE, MacIntosh BJ, Smith RC, Barr AM, Stevens TK, Gati JS, et al. Cerebral areas processing swallowing and tongue movement are overlapping but distinct: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurophysiol. 2004 Oct;92(4):2428–43. pmid:15163677
  5. 5. Mosier KM, Liu WC, Maldjian JA, Shah R, Modi B. Lateralization of cortical function in swallowing: a functional MR imaging study. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 1999 Sep 1;20(8):1520–6. pmid:10512240
  6. 6. Mosier K, Bereznaya I. Parallel cortical networks for volitional control of swallowing in humans. Experimental brain research. 2001 Oct 1;140(3):280–9. pmid:11681303
  7. 7. Suzuki M, Asada Y, Ito J, Hayashi K, Inoue H, Kitano H. Activation of cerebellum and basal ganglia on volitional swallowing detected by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Dysphagia. 2003 May 1;18(2):71–7. pmid:12825899
  8. 8. Toogood JA, Barr AM, Stevens TK, Gati JS, Menon RS, Martin RE. Discrete functional contributions of cerebral cortical foci in voluntary swallowing: a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)“Go, No-Go” study. Experimental brain research. 2005 Feb 1;161(1):81–90. pmid:15536553
  9. 9. Zald DH, Pardo JV. The functional neuroanatomy of voluntary swallowing. Ann Neurol: Official J the Am Neurolo Ass and the Child Neurolo Society. 1999 Sep;46(3):281–6. pmid:10482257
  10. 10. Rangarathnam B, Kamarunas E, McCullough GH. Role of cerebellum in deglutition and deglutition disorders. The Cerebellum. 2014 Dec 1;13(6):767–76. pmid:25047686
  11. 11. Mosier K, Patel R, Liu WC, Kalnin A, Maldjian J, Baredes S. Cortical representation of swallowing in normal adults: functional implications. The Laryngoscope. 1999 Sep;109(9):1417–23. pmid:10499047
  12. 12. Lowell SY, Reynolds RC, Chen G, Horwitz B, Ludlow CL. Functional connectivity and laterality of the motor and sensory components in the volitional swallowing network. Experimental brain research. 2012 May 1;219(1):85–96. pmid:22441258
  13. 13. Martin RE, Goodyear BG, Gati JS, Menon RS. Cerebral cortical representation of automatic and volitional swallowing in humans. J. Neurophysiol. 2001 Feb 1;85(2):938–50. pmid:11160524
  14. 14. Malandraki GA, Sutton BP, Perlman AL, Karampinos DC. Age-related differences in laterality of cortical activations in swallowing. Dysphagia. 2010 Sep 1;25(3):238–49. pmid:19760457
  15. 15. Teismann IK, Steinstraeter O, Schwindt W, Ringelstein EB, Pantev C, Dziewas R. Age-related changes in cortical swallowing processing. Neurobiology of aging. 2010 Jun 1;31(6):1044–50. pmid:18715676
  16. 16. Dziewas R, Sörös P, Ishii R, Chau W, Henningsen H, Ringelstein EB, et al. Neuroimaging evidence for cortical involvement in the preparation and in the act of swallowing. Neuroimage. 2003 Sep 1;20(1):135–44. pmid:14527576
  17. 17. Robbins J, Levine RL, Maser A, Rosenbek JC, Kempster GB. Swallowing after unilateral stroke of the cerebral cortex. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 1993 Dec 1;74(12):1295–300. pmid:8259895
  18. 18. Hamdy S, Aziz Q, Rothwell JC, Crone R, Hughes D, Tallis RC, et al. Explaining oropharyngeal dysphagia after unilateral hemispheric stroke. The Lancet. 1997 Sep 6;350(9079):686–92. pmid:9291902
  19. 19. Robbins J, Levine RL. Swallowing after unilateral stroke of the cerebral cortex: preliminary experience. Dysphagia. 1988 Mar 1;3(1):11–7. pmid:3248391
  20. 20. Daniels SK, Foundas AL, Iglesia GC, Sullivan MA. Lesion site in unilateral stroke patients with dysphagia. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 1996 Sep 1;6(1):30–4. pmid:17894962
  21. 21. Smithard DG, O’Neill PA, Martin DF, England R. Aspiration following stroke: is it related to the side of the stroke?. Clinical rehabilitation. 1997 Feb;11(1):73–6. pmid:9065363
  22. 22. Alberts MJ, Horner J, Gray L, Brazer SR. Aspiration after stroke: lesion analysis by brain MRI. Dysphagia. 1992 Sep 1;7(3):170–3. pmid:1499361
  23. 23. Chen MY, Ott DJ, Peele VN, Gelfand DW. Oropharynx in patients with cerebrovascular disease: evaluation with videofluoroscopy. Radiology. 1990 Sep;176(3):641–3. pmid:2389021
  24. 24. Daniels S.K. and Foundas A.L., 1999. Lesion localization in acute stroke. JON; 9(2): 91–98.
  25. 25. Perlman AL, Booth BM, Grayhack JP. Videofluoroscopic predictors of aspiration in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. Dysphagia. 1994 Mar 1;9(2):90–5. pmid:8005013
  26. 26. Johnson ER, McKenzie SW, Rosenquist CJ, Lieberman JS, Sievers AE. Dysphagia following stroke: quantitative evaluation of pharyngeal transit times. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 1992 May 1;73(5):419–23. pmid:1580767
  27. 27. Daniels SK, Corey DM, Barnes CL, Faucheaux NM, Priestly DH, Foundas AL. Cortical representation of swallowing: a modified dual task paradigm. Perceptual and motor skills. 2002 Jun;94(3):1029–40. pmid:12081263
  28. 28. Daniels SK, Corey DM, Fraychinaud A, DePolo A, Foundas AL. Swallowing lateralization: the effects of modified dual-task interference. Dysphagia. 2006 Jan 1;21(1):21–7. pmid:16544089
  29. 29. Balasubramanium RK, Dodderi T, Bhat JS. Does Cerebral Hemispheric Laterality Control Swallow Performance?. Neurology Research International. 2017 Jan 1;2017. pmid:29318044
  30. 30. Kinsbourne M, Hicks RE. Functional cerebral space: A model for overflow, transfer and interference effects in human performance. Attention and performance VII. 1978:345–62.
  31. 31. Dalby JT. Hemispheric timesharing: Verbal and spatial loading with concurrent unimanual activity. Cortex. 1980 Dec 1;16(4):553–67. pmid:7226854
  32. 32. Kee DW, Bathurst K, Hellige JB. Lateralized interference in finger tapping: assessment of block design activities. Neuropsychologia. 1984 Jan 1;22(2):197–203. pmid:6728183
  33. 33. Baijens LW, Clavé P, Cras P, Ekberg O, Forster A, Kolb GF, et al. European Society for Swallowing Disorders–European Union Geriatric Medicine Society white paper: oropharyngeal dysphagia as a geriatric syndrome. Clinical interventions in aging. 2016;11:1403. pmid:27785002
  34. 34. Molfenter SM, Brates D, Herzberg E, Noorani M, Lazarus C. The swallowing profile of healthy aging adults: comparing noninvasive swallow tests to videofluoroscopic measures of safety and efficiency. JSHLR. 2018 Jul 13;61(7):1603–12.
  35. 35. Namasivayam-MacDonald AM, Barbon CE, Steele CM. A review of swallow timing in the elderly. Physiology & behavior. 2018 Feb 1;184:12–26. pmid:29101012
  36. 36. Robbins JA, Levine R, Wood J, Roecker EB, Luschei E. Age effects on lingual pressure generation as a risk factor for dysphagia. J. Gerontol. A Bio. Sci. Med. Sci. 1995 Sep 1;50(5):M257–62. pmid:7671027
  37. 37. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2017). World population prospects: The 2017 revision, key findings and advance tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248.
  38. 38. Robbins J, Levine RL, Maser A, Rosenbek JC, Kempster GB. Swallowing after unilateral stroke of the cerebral cortex. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1993;74(12):1295–300. pmid:8259895
  39. 39. Priefer BA, Robbins J. Eating Changes in Mild-Stage Alzheimer’s Disease: A Pilot Study. Dysphagia. 1997;12(4):212–21. pmid:9294942
  40. 40. Robbins JA, Logemann JA, Kirshner HS. Swallowing and speech production in Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol. 1986;19(3):283–7. pmid:3963773
  41. 41. Martin R, Barr A, MacIntosh B, Smith R, Stevens T, Taves D, et al. Cerebral cortical processing of swallowing in older adults. Experimental brain research. 2007 Jan 1;176(1):12–22. pmid:16896984
  42. 42. Dolcos F, Rice HJ, Cabeza R. Hemispheric asymmetry and aging: right hemisphere decline or asymmetry reduction. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2002 Nov 1;26(7):819–25. pmid:12470693
  43. 43. Cabeza R. Hemispheric asymmetry reduction in older adults: the HAROLD model. Psychology and aging. 2002 Mar;17(1):85. pmid:11931290
  44. 44. Carpenter MB. Core text of neuroanatomy. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1985.
    • 45. Brewster K, Miller AJ. The Neuroscientific Principles of Swallowing and Dysphagia. Perspectives on Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia). 1999;8(2).
    • 46. Warburton E, Wise RJ, Price CJ, Weiller C, Hadar U, Ramsay S, et al. Noun and verb retrieval by normal subjects studies with PET. Brain. 1996 Feb 1;119(1):159–79. pmid:8624678
    • 47. de Souza W. C., Feitosa M. Â. G., Eifuku S., Tamura R., et al. (2008). Face perception in its neurobiological and social context. Psychol. Neurosci. 1, 15–20.
    • 48. Tsao DY, Livingstone MS. Mechanisms of Face Perception. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2008;31(1):411–37. pmid:18558862
    • 49. Wilmskoetter J, Bonilha L, Martin-Harris B, Elm JJ, Horn J, Bonilha HS. Mapping acute lesion locations to physiological swallow impairments after stroke. NeuroImage: Clinical. 2019 Jan 1;22:101685. pmid:30711683
    • 50. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar 1;9(1):97–113. pmid:5146491
    • 51. Krishnamurthy R, Balasubramanium RK, Hegde PS. Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the Kannada Version of EAT 10. Dysphagia. 2020 Feb 8:1–6. pmid:32036548
    • 52. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, Mchugh PR. “Mini-mental state.” J. Psychiatr. Res. 1975;12(3):189–98. pmid:1202204
    • 53. Hughes T, Wiles C. Clinical measurement of swallowing in health and in neurogenic dysphagia. Qjm. 1996;89(2):109–16. pmid:8729551
    • 54. Uddin LQ, Kaplan JT, Molnar-Szakacs I, Zaidel E, Iacoboni M. Self-face recognition activates a frontoparietal “mirror” network in the right hemisphere: an event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage. 2005;25(3):926–35. pmid:15808992
    • 55. Júnior RDM, Sousa BMD, Fukusima S. Hemispheric specialization in face recognition: From spatial frequencies to holistic/analytic cognitive processing. Psychology & Neuroscience. 2014;7(4):503–11.
    • 56. Altman KW, Yu G-P, Schaefer SD. Consequence of Dysphagia in the Hospitalized Patient. AOHNS. 2010;136(8):784. pmid:20713754
    • 57. Chen P-H, Golub JS, Hapner ER, Johns MM. Prevalence of Perceived Dysphagia and Quality-of-Life Impairment in a Geriatric Population. Dysphagia. 2008;24(1):1–6. pmid:18368451
    • 58. Ekberg O, Hamdy S, Woisard V, Wuttge-Hannig A, Ortega P. Social and Psychological Burden of Dysphagia: Its Impact on Diagnosis and Treatment. Dysphagia. 2002;17(2):139–46. pmid:11956839
    • 59. Holas MA, Depippo KL, Reding MJ. Aspiration and Relative Risk of Medical Complications Following Stroke. Arch Neurol. 1994;51(10):1051–3. pmid:7945003
    • 60. Schmidt J, Holas M, Halvorson K, Reding M. Videofluoroscopic evidence of aspiration predicts pneumonia and death but not dehydration following stroke. Dysphagia. 1994;9(1).
    • 61. White GN, O’Rourke F, Ong BS, Cordato DJ, Chan DK. Dysphagia: causes, assessment, treatment, and management. Geriatrics. 2008 May;63(5):15–20. pmid:18447407
    • 62. Cabeza R, Albert M, Belleville S, Craik FIM, Duarte A, Grady CL, et al. Maintenance, reserve and compensation: the cognitive neuroscience of healthy ageing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2018;19(11):701–10. pmid:30305711
    • 63. Goh JO. Functional dedifferentiation and altered connectivity in older adults: neural accounts of cognitive aging. Aging and disease. 2011 Feb;2(1):30. pmid:21461180
    • 64. Fechner HB, Pachur T, Schooler LJ. How does aging impact decision making? The contribution of cognitive decline and strategic compensation revealed in a cognitive architecture. Journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory, and cognition. 2019 Sep;45(9):1634. pmid:30829515
    • 65. Marstaller L, Williams M, Rich A, Savage G, Burianová H. Aging and large-scale functional networks: white matter integrity, gray matter volume, and functional connectivity in the resting state. Neuroscience. 2015 Apr 2;290:369–78. pmid:25644420