Effect of bimodal signal biofeedback on the supraglottic swallowing maneuver in patients with post-stroke dysphagia: A randomised controlled trial

Published October 22, 2026. Adding movement and airflow feedback to two weeks of swallowing training improved oral-intake scores and reduced the proportion of severe airway-penetration or aspiration ratings compared with the same rehabilitation alone. The trial was small and conducted at one hospital, so larger studies are needed before assuming the result will generalize.

Wang L, Wei X, Wei Z, Wu Y, Dou Z.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · Publication date: 2026-10-22
Added to site: 2026-10-24
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2026.09.023

Published October 22, 2026. Added to Neurofeedback.com October 24, 2026.

Modalities

Biofeedback, Accelerometry, Respiratory sensing

Clinical focus

Post-stroke dysphagia, Swallowing rehabilitation, Supraglottic swallowing

Population

Patients with post-stroke dysphagia at a single rehabilitation hospital

Sample

30 participants randomized 15 to bimodal biofeedback and 15 to control, with no attrition reported

Intervention / method

Both groups received conventional swallowing rehabilitation and supraglottic swallowing training for 30 minutes per day, six days per week for two weeks; the experimental group also received real-time feedback from an accelerometer and nasal airflow sensor

Comparator

The same conventional rehabilitation and supraglottic swallowing training without bimodal signal feedback

Clinician summary

At post-treatment and one-month follow-up, Functional Oral Intake Scale scores were higher in the biofeedback group than control, with p less than .001. After intervention, the proportion of Penetration-Aspiration Scale scores of 6 or higher was lower with biofeedback, p=.026. The abstract does not provide effect sizes, confidence intervals or complete arm-level outcome counts.

How to interpret the findings

The trial enrolled only 30 participants at one rehabilitation hospital and followed outcomes for one month. The abstract does not report allocation concealment, assessor masking, effect sizes, confidence intervals, baseline severity balance, adverse events or complete arm-level denominators for each outcome. Both groups received active rehabilitation, so the result addresses the added value of this feedback approach rather than rehabilitation versus no treatment.

Equipment and disclosures

The intervention combined an accelerometer and nasal airflow sensor. The checked abstract does not name manufacturers or support a superior commercial system; no equipment is attributed to BrainMaster.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Funding information and adverse-event reporting were not available in the checked abstract. No indexed correction, retraction or expression-of-concern relation appeared in the retained PubMed or Crossref records; this is a bounded check. AI-assisted source review.

Related evidence

Compare findings from the same clinical area, including mixed results.