Talk:Pharyngeal reflex

Medical

Medical suppressing op the gag reflex is done by consuming Cyclizine. Mion 19:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a verifiable source for that? --Verithrax 23:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Also re: medical treatment, I added a citation needed tag for the treatment via pressure , since I couldn't find any scholarly articles about this. I did find this reference however: http://www.newcastle-hospitals.org.uk/services/dental_treamtment_and_medication_hypersensitive-gag-reflex.aspx, but I wasn't certain whether or not this was valid enough for the articular --Anon User 20:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.201.200 (talk)

+

• Buclizine (BYOO-kli-zeen) * †
• Cyclizine (SYE-kli-zeen)
• Meclizine (MEK-li-zeen) ?

gratuitous references to sexual acts

Should a person want to use wikipedia to explain to their child why they sometimes gag when they're at the doctor's or dentist's office, it would be nice if they didn't run across a reference to a sexual act which adds nothing to the article. If you would like to add that reference back in, please make a case for it in the talk page before doing so. Charles (Kznf) 15:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for minors, so that point is entirely moot. The gag reflex figures quite prominently in any activity that involves inserting something far into the mouth, or down the throat, such as deep throating or sword swallowing. The latter is mentioned, so there is precedence for the former. Hence, I vote for the reintroduction of that link. It would also be helpful, both to the practicioners of the two mentioned activities, and to the hypothetical parent, to include information about how to desensitize this response, or how to learn to control it. Note that I'm not saying one should use a penis as a point of reference for that, so don't read too much into it. Zuiram 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you, what you're arguing is WP:NOT#CENSOR and I'm rebutting with WP:Profanity:

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."

It's my contention that in this particular case the omission of deep throating does *not* cause the article to be less informative, relevant or accurate, and that alternatives are available. With regard to your points about including information about how a person might desensitize the gag reflex response for the purpose of improving their fellatio or sword-swallowing keep in mind wp is not an instruction manual (WP:NOT#IINFO). That being said, I'm all for this article containing information about gag reflex suppressants, but it can certainly do so without talking about bjs. Charles (Kznf) 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems totally out of place to me. Sticking anything down a person's throat can trigger the gag reflex. It's unnecessary to cite the penis as a specific example. If people wanted to know about deep throating, they would have searched deep throating.76.237.216.133 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the reference to vomiting I saw before? Could we mention it in relation to bulimia for instance? (not as an instructional tool of course) cyclosarin 06:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable person would argue that the normal act of vomiting is offensive, profane or obscene. Charles (Kznf) 14:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, vomiting and oral sex are about at the same level of offensiveness and obscenity - a level that is well below the requirements of WP:Profanity. I would argue that simply mentioning oral sex is not obscene or offensive to most people. Including a photograph or a very graphic description of it, on the other hand, would be (this is why, despite lengthy and ongoing discussions, articles like Oral sex, Masturbation, etc, don't currently include photographs). Basic, non-descriptive mention of common activities that result in pharyngeal reflex is certainly informative, relevant, and accurate. The old wording "the act of swallowing penis" was silly though and should be changed to something more technical like "the sexual act of fellatio". If there is no objection, I'll add something to this effect:

Sword swallowing and the sexual act of fellatio may cause pharyngeal reflex, and practitioners of these activities may train themselves to suppress it. In contrast, touching the soft palette is sometimes done intentionally to trigger the reflex and induce vomiting, for example among sufferers of bulimia nervosa.

-kotra (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that "Basic, non-descriptive mention of common activities that result in pharyngeal reflex is certainly informative, relevant, and accurate." My primary problem with including fellatio as an example is that it tends to invite vandalism. My objection based on profanity is only secondary to that. I also think that there are even better examples, and in thinking about the issue, it occurred to me that probably the most widespread cause of the gag reflex is during the course of dental x-rays. This is something that anyone who's had a regular check-up with a dentist can relate to, including children and non-fellatio performing men (which undoubtedly includes most of them). Wouldn't you agree that dental x-rays are a better example even ignoring the profanity and vandalism cases against using bj's as an example? -- Charles (Kznf) (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall ever gagging from dental x-ray exams, but if you say it happens, I see no reason to disbelieve you. I would support including it (I was trying to think of a third cause myself), making it instead:

Oral or throat examinations, sword swallowing, and the sexual act of fellatio may cause pharyngeal reflex, and those who practice some of these activities, particularly sword swallowing, will train themselves to suppress the reflex. In contrast, touching the soft palette is sometimes done intentionally to trigger the reflex and induce vomiting, for example by those who suffer from bulimia nervosa.

Possibility for vandalism is not a valid reason to exclude useful information. If it was, we wouldn't have articles like Breast or George W. Bush, which attract tons of vandalism. Besides, I don't see how just mentioning fellatio would attract vandalism anyway.

For the above reasons, to me it seems that perceived profanity and potential vandalism are non-issues here. So I see no reason to leave it out, especially since people will come to this article to find out information on it (as I did). -kotra (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For me, it's the part where they stick that thing in that you have to bite down on. I guess it's to block the x-ray so that it only takes a picture of the part of your mouth they need. Anyway, it should be pointed out that fellatio doesn't necessarily result in the gag reflex either. In fact, the article originally referred to deep-throating, which at least does necessarily involve contact with the soft-palate. I agree that possibility of vandalism isn't a valid reason to exclude useful information. That said, I think that it makes sense to present useful information in such a way as to not detract from the original point. To me it would be like trying to describe a bird's daily diet to sixth-graders and using the titmouse as a bird example. Needlessly provocative where many other equally good or better examples exist. -- Charles (Kznf) (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. The more specific "deep-throating" could be used, but I prefer to keep the term as scientific as possible. "...the sexual act of fellatio may cause pharyngeal reflex" (emphasis added) does say it only may cause the reflex, not that it does or will, so I don't think it needs to be that specific anyway (admittedly, this is a pretty weak argument, my main reason is just that I don't like the term "deep-throating"). As for your analogy, the difference exists in the "many other equally good or better examples". I can't think of any other reasonably common activities besides these three (four if you count the bulimia example). And that's not for lack of trying. Well, ok, I can think of one more: Swallowing six pills at once sometimes makes me gag if I do it too slowly. But I don't know how common an activity that is, or how common that reaction is with people who do it.

Anyway, after coming back to this after a week, it doesn't seem as big a deal to me. I'd be ok with the following instead: "Swallowing unusually large objects or placing objects in the back of the mouth may cause pharyngeal reflex, and those who frequently experience the reflex will often train themselves to suppress it. In contrast, triggering the reflex is sometimes done intentionally to induce vomiting, for example by those who suffer from bulimia nervosa." I'd rather have examples, but it's not that important. -kotra (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been any response, I went ahead and added the latter version, which doesn't reference any of the specific activities. -kotra (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me! - Charles (Kznf) (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If the activity of deep throating is not mentioned anywhere in the article, why is there still a link to it? It seems totally out of place to me. Either cite it in the article and provide a link, or don't, and remove the link. I'm not talking about whether this is profanity or not here (I think it's not), just about the consistency of the article. -Daniele 69.105.98.126 (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Misleading/Wrong Nucleus

The afferent limb IS CN IX, which DOES synapse on the Solitary nucleus, but this is misleading. In the case of the gag reflex, CNIX is carrying visceral sensory (afferent) information , which is received by the Spinal Trigeminal nucleus (cranial nerves often synapse on more than one nucleus). I just learned this today in med school, but I don't have a solid reference...anyone who does should make this change b/c it's quite misleading as it stands. Thanks.

Answers.com?

How can you cite answers.com, another site with user-generated content. That's like citing wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unquenchablefire (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wikpedia probably shouldn't site tertiary sources, so I've used the citation tool that answers.com provides which provided both WordNet (from Princeton) and answers.com in the citation. -- Charles (Kznf) (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Symptom of death?

"Absence of the gag reflex is a symptom of a number of severe medical conditions, such as damage to the glossopharyngeal nerve, the vagus nerve, or death." -- I suppose whoever wrote this meant that absence of the gag reflex can lead to death, but I don't have the knowledge to edit this myself. As it is, it says that its absence is a symptom of death. It's ultimately correct, but obvious! Plus, I don't think death qualifies as a severe medical condition ;-) -- ironcito (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

   I noticed and thought the same. However, there would be an absence of the gag reflex if you were to shove something in the dead person's mouth, therefore, one could say that a sympton of death is the lack of a gag reflex. Also, I believe that death could be considered a medical conditon, however, I'm not qualified to change anything here. 206.116.184.155 (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I read it and laughed too, but I think it's probably a reference to brain death? The gag reflex is one of the cranial nerve tests that a comatose patient must fail in order to qualify as fully brain dead, which is a legitimate definition of death. Also means the patient can be taken off life support. I'll change the death to brain death; anyone feel free to reword it in a better fashion if they deem fit. Nitroshockwave (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's most likely a reference to checking for a gag reflex to determine if a person is dead. Without modern medical equipment, it could be fairly difficult to tell the difference between dead and comatose, so after feeling for a pulse and holding a mirror under the nostrils to check for fogging, checking for a gag reflex seems like a reasonable precaution. The wording _is_ a bit odd, though. Elmo iscariot (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone use an indicator that is absent in a full 1/3 of living people as an indicator of brain death?? This proposition is absurd. If this statement is by extension of testing reflexes in general, see my comments about how "reflex" is a misnomer anyway Faladora (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Always a symptom of death?

"Absence of the gag reflex is a symptom of a number of severe medical conditions..." We don't want people thinking that they need to see their doctor if they have no gag reflex, as many normal people don't have one. e.g.:

Up to 1/3rd of healthy people do not have a gag reflex. Davies AE, Kidd D, Stone SP, MacMahon J (1995). Pharyngeal sensation and gag reflex in healthy subjects. Lancet 345:487–488

can we put something in along these lines?

58.168.142.207 (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statement about suppressing gag reflex

I removed this unsourced statement:

Holding the thumb of either hand in a fist of the same hand suppresses the gag reflex, allowing the other hand to touch the soft palate and uvula without stimulation of the reflex.

—Christian Campbell 17:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried it and it's correct. Does anyone have an idea of how to source something can be so easily verified? —Dromioofephesus (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bulimia Nervosa

"Some of these practices include with the tongue sticking forward brushing the back of the tongue with a toothbrush, which simulates the act." The poor wording aside, are we really here to provide tips on how to stimulate the gag reflex?. I'm all for the reference to bulimia as it's relevant but i don't see how telling people how to do it adds to the article. I'm gonna go ahead and remove the specific sentence (quoted above) and if anyone can give a good reason why it should be there please do. In any case it needs to be re-worded because that is just a horrible standard of english.

SLP's editing this article? Major concerns on accuracy, including premise that this is a reflex in the first place

This topic falls in the professional scope of medical speech-language pathology, and I am looking to see if experts in the field have contributed to this article. As a recent master's graduate in that field, I am concerned about the content, especially since a professor of mine taught us information contrary to the entire premise of this article (gag "reflex" is a misnomer, since it's actually a gag "response" that is not a true reflex, whereas the automatic triggering of a swallow is a true physiologic reflex). He pointed out to us that in a true reflex, there would be no way for the system to "know" what stimulus at the back of the tongue was food vs. non-food attached to some item that couldn't feasibly be swallowed. That makes sense to me logically based on what I know about reflexes, and leads me to believe there is a psychologic process (albeit subconscious) participating in this "reflex," discrediting its nature as a reflex, but that's just my own speculation/curiosity and I wouldn't include it here. Beyond that, I don't have anything to contribute to describing the actual process of the gag response, since it is not particularly related to the natural swallowing process and all I've learned about it formally is that remark from the professor (a voice specialist) and his recommendations for simple approaches to reducing a hypersensitive one for patients requiring frequent oral rigid laryngoscopy (relaxation, gentle stimulation with a toothbrush progressing backward over time).

I think this article would more appropriately be contained as a stub/description of the misnomer followed by descriptive characteristics of the response and function thereof (I do not claim it's not useful, just that the information on it is inaccurate) with a "see-also" to information on the swallow itself as well as the nature of reflexes themselves. For anyone not convinced by the professor's statement or my speculation (great to question individual opinions!), some evidence weakening the argument that this process is a "reflex" is that it is certainly not robust or consistent across individuals: according the article here, with a literature source supporting the claim, a third of people don't show it. That also brings me to another key problem with the article here: sources here are quite limited and of questionable relevance, relating mostly to the swallow itself and to obscure aspects of it at that. I would suggest delving into sources cited by the study that showed 1/3 of people don't show a gag response to find more relevant information with any scientific basis, and leaving the info on swallowing to the articles concerning that process.

I had written another detailed paragraph on why the info here on swallowing itself and airway protection is problematic, but realized that's not relevant to this discussion when I'm suggesting that section to be removed from here and reduced to a concise statement within a main paragraph with a hot link and a "see also". My comments on that available on request. Again, I do not represent myself as an expert in comparison to anyone who has been practicing for some time, but if anybody more expert in swallowing or voice is participating in the content, I would like to hear their take on it, since a major overhaul is not something I would do without consulting others who may have other information. Either way, I will also follow up with that professor, and take a peek at relevant sources, though I'm not committing to writing up a new article. Faladora (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Title

Why aren’t we calling this article “Gag reflex” per WP:Common names?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)