The goals for today’s talk with by to understand the basic physiology of swallowing by using fluoroscopy as a guide. Fluoroscopy is consider an instrumental diagnostic tool in assessing swallowing safety and planning surgical intervention in the aerodigestive tract. Currently, fluoroscopy is interpreted by a frame by frame analysis of the study and in some high quality centers formal protocols are used to quantify physiologic deviations in the swallow.
Bio: Dr. Shumon Dhar, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery in the Division of Laryngology has expertise in the comprehensive management of voice, upper airway and swallowing disorders. Dr. Dhar is passionate about treating a variety of patients including professional voice users, patients with upper airway stenosis, and those suffering from early cancer of the vocal cords. Dr. Dhar has unique training in bronchoesophagology, which positions him to treat patients with profound swallowing, reflux and motility problems from a holistic perspective. He uses the latest in diagnostic modalities within a multidisciplinary care model. He also offers minimally invasive endoscopic options for the treatment of GERD and Barrett’s esophagus. Advanced interventions performed by Dr. Dhar include endoscopic and open treatment of cricopharyngeus muscle dysfunction and Zenker’s diverticulum, complete pharyngoesophageal stenosis, vocal fold paralysis, and severe dysphagia in head and neck cancer survivors and patients with neuromuscular disease-related swallowing dysfunction.
Many airplanes can, or nearly can, glide stably without control. So, it seems natural that the first successful powered flight followed from mastery of gliding. Many bicycles can, or nearly can, balance themselves when in motion. Bicycle design seems to have evolved to gain this feature. Also, we can make toys and ‘robots’ that, like a stable glider or coasting bicycle, stably walk without motors or control in a remarkably human-like way. Again, it seems to make sense to use `passive-dynamics’ as a core for developing the control of walking robots and to gain understanding of the control of walking people. That’s what I used to think. But, so far, this passive approach has not led to robust walking robots. What about human evolution? We didn’t evolve dynamic bodies and then learn to control them. Rather, people had elaborate control systems way back when we were fish and even worms. However: if control is paramount, why is it that uncontrolled passive-dynamic walkers walk so much like humans? It seems that energy optimal, yet robust, control, perhaps a proxy for evolutionary development, arrives at solutions that have some features in common with passive-dynamics. Instead of thinking of good powered walking as passive walking with a small amount of control added, I now think of good powered walking, human or robotic, as highly controlled, while optimized mostly for avoiding falls and, secondarily, for minimal actuator use. When well done, much of the motor effort, always at the ready, is usually titrated out. Thus, deceptively looking, “passive”.
Andy Ruina, Mechanical Engineering, Cornell University
My graduate education was mostly in solid mechanics. That morphed into biomechanics, dynamics and robotics. Recently, I am primarily interested in the mechanics of underactuated motion and locomotion