Prolonged use of a soft diet during early growth and development alters feeding behavior and chewing kinematics in a young animal model

Abstract

AbstractIn infants and children with feeding and swallowing issues, modifying solid foods to form a liquid or puree is used to ensure adequate growth and nutrition. However, the behavioral and neurophysiological effects of prolonged use of this intervention during critical periods of postnatal oral skill development have not been systematically examined, although substantial anecdotal evidence suggests that it negatively impacts downstream feeding motor and coordination skills, possibly due to immature sensorimotor development. Using an established animal model for infant and juvenile feeding physiology, we leverage X‐ray reconstruction of moving morphology to compare feeding behavior and kinematics between 12‐week‐old pigs reared on solid chow (control) and an age‐ and sex‐matched cohort raised on the same chow softened to a liquid. When feeding on two novel foods, almond and apple, maintenance on a soft diet decreases gape cycle duration, resulting in a higher chewing frequency. When feeding on almonds, pigs in this group spent less time ingesting foods compared to controls, and chewing cycles were characterized by less jaw rotation about a dorsoventral axis (yaw) necessary for food reduction. There was also a reduced tendency to alternate chewing side with every chew during almond chewing, a behavioral pattern typical of pigs. These more pronounced impacts on behavior and kinematics during feeding on almonds, a tougher and stiffer food than apples, suggest that food properties mediate the behavioral and physiological impacts of early texture modification and that the ability to adapt to different food properties may be underdeveloped. In contrast, the limited effects of food texture modification on apple chewing indicate that such intervention/treatment does not alter feeding behavior of less challenging foods. Observed differences cannot be attributed to morphology because texture modification over the treatment period had limited impact on craniodental growth. Short‐term impacts of soft‐texture modification during postweaning development on feeding dynamics should be considered as potential negative outcomes of this treatment strategy.