The Effects of Using Augmented Reality (AR) System to Train Foreign Care Workers.

Tongue Coating Index(TCI)

The tongue-coating status of 9 areas of tongue surfaces was recorded using the tongue coating index, as follows: Score 0: Tongue coating not visible. Score 1: Tongue coating thin, papillae of tongue visible. Score 2: Tongue coating very thick, papillae of tongue not visible. Range= 0 to 18 Score

Time frame: Change from Baseline TCI at 1-month after intervention

Tongue Coating Index(TCI)

The tongue-coating status of 9 areas of tongue surfaces was recorded using the tongue coating index, as follows: Score 0: Tongue coating not visible. Score 1: Tongue coating thin, papillae of tongue visible. Score 2: Tongue coating very thick, papillae of tongue not visible. Range= 0 to 18 Score

Time frame: Change from Baseline TCI at 3-month after intervention

Tongue Coating Index(TCI)

The tongue-coating status of 9 areas of tongue surfaces was recorded using the tongue coating index, as follows: Score 0: Tongue coating not visible. Score 1: Tongue coating thin, papillae of tongue visible. Score 2: Tongue coating very thick, papillae of tongue not visible. Range= 0 to 18 Score

Time frame: Change from Baseline TCI at 6-month after intervention

Oral Dryness Status

The oral dryness status of saliva flow rate was recorded using the saxon test(Chew gauze sponge for 2 mins), as follows: Normal: 2.75 g/2min. Oral dryness: 2 g/2min.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Oral Dryness Status at 1-month after intervention

Oral Dryness Status

The oral dryness status of saliva flow rate was recorded using the saxon test(Chew gauze sponge for 2 mins), as follows: Normal: 2.75 g/2min. Oral dryness: 2 g/2min.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Oral Dryness Status at 3-month after intervention

Oral Dryness Status

The oral dryness status of saliva flow rate was recorded using the saxon test(Chew gauze sponge for 2 mins), as follows: Normal: 2.75 g/2min. Oral dryness: 2 g/2min.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Oral Dryness Status at 6-month after intervention

Lip-Tongue Motor Function

The lip-tongue motor function status of count-by-time was recorded using the Oral diadochokinesis rate (lip-tongue function (Pa/ Ta /Ka) in syllables or times per 15 seconds), as follows: Pa:times/ per 15 seconds Ta:times /per 15 seconds Ka:times /per 15 seconds

Time frame: Change from Baseline lip-tongue motor function Status at 1-month after intervention

Lip-Tongue Motor Function

The lip-tongue motor function status of count-by-time was recorded using the Oral diadochokinesis rate (lip-tongue function (Pa/ Ta /Ka) in syllables or times per 15 seconds), as follows: Pa:times/ per 15 seconds Ta:times /per 15 seconds Ka:times /per 15 seconds

Time frame: Change from Baseline lip-tongue motor function Status at 3-month after intervention

Lip-Tongue Motor Function

The lip-tongue motor function status of count-by-time was recorded using the Oral diadochokinesis rate (lip-tongue function (Pa/ Ta /Ka) in syllables or times per 15 seconds), as follows: Pa:times/ per 15 seconds Ta:times /per 15 seconds Ka:times /per 15 seconds

Time frame: Change from Baseline lip-tongue motor function Status at 6-month after intervention

Maximum tongue pressure (MTP)

The tongue pressure of 3 times pressure average was recorded using the Maximum tongue pressure test, as follows: 1. First times / Maximum Kpa value. 2. Second times / Maximum Kpa value. 3. Third times / Maximum Kpa value. Average of maximum tongue pressure in 3 times.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Maximum tongue pressure status at 1-month after intervention

Maximum tongue pressure (MTP)

The tongue pressure of 3 times pressure average was recorded using the Maximum tongue pressure test, as follows: 1. First times / Maximum Kpa value. 2. Second times / Maximum Kpa value. 3. Third times / Maximum Kpa value. Average of maximum tongue pressure in 3 times.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Maximum tongue pressure status at 2-month after intervention

Maximum tongue pressure (MTP)

The tongue pressure of 3 times pressure average was recorded using the Maximum tongue pressure test, as follows: 1. First times / Maximum Kpa value. 2. Second times / Maximum Kpa value. 3. Third times / Maximum Kpa value. Average of maximum tongue pressure in 3 times.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Maximum tongue pressure status at 3-month after intervention

Masticatory Function

The mixing ability was assessed using color-changeable chewing gum (Masticatory Performance Evaluating Gum XYLITOL, Lotte, Tokyo, Japan) , as follows: To chew as usual on the gum 120 seconds. The chewing rhythm was kept constant at once per second.color scale consisting of five intermediate colors . 1. light green: very poor chewing ability. 2. light yellow: poor chewing ability. 3. light pink: no good chewing ability. 4. pink: good chewing ability. 5. red: very good chewing ability.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Change from Baseline Maximum tongue pressure status at 1-month after intervention status at 3-month after intervention

Masticatory Function

The mixing ability was assessed using color-changeable chewing gum (Masticatory Performance Evaluating Gum XYLITOL, Lotte, Tokyo, Japan) , as follows: To chew as usual on the gum 120 seconds. The chewing rhythm was kept constant at once per second.color scale consisting of five intermediate colors . 1. light green: very poor chewing ability. 2. light yellow: poor chewing ability. 3. light pink: no good chewing ability. 4. pink: good chewing ability. 5. red: very good chewing ability.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Change from Baseline Maximum tongue pressure status at 3-month after intervention status at 3-month after intervention

Masticatory Function

The mixing ability was assessed using color-changeable chewing gum (Masticatory Performance Evaluating Gum XYLITOL, Lotte, Tokyo, Japan) , as follows: To chew as usual on the gum 120 seconds. The chewing rhythm was kept constant at once per second.color scale consisting of five intermediate colors . 1. light green: very poor chewing ability. 2. light yellow: poor chewing ability. 3. light pink: no good chewing ability. 4. pink: good chewing ability. 5. red: very good chewing ability.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Change from Baseline Maximum tongue pressure status at 6-month after intervention status at 3-month after intervention

Saliva Swallowing Test(RSST)

The swallowing function states of times complete swallowing within 30 seconds was recorded using the Saliva Swallowing Test(RSST), as follows: participation was asked to swallow saliva as many times as possible for 30 s, while deglutition is counted through palpation of the larynx.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Change from Baseline Maximum tongue pressure status at 1-month after intervention

Saliva Swallowing Test(RSST)

The swallowing function states of times complete swallowing within 30 seconds was recorded using the Saliva Swallowing Test(RSST), as follows: participation was asked to swallow saliva as many times as possible for 30 s, while deglutition is counted through palpation of the larynx.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Change from Baseline Maximum tongue pressure status at 3-month after intervention

Saliva Swallowing Test(RSST)

The swallowing function states of times complete swallowing within 30 seconds was recorded using the Saliva Swallowing Test(RSST), as follows: participation was asked to swallow saliva as many times as possible for 30 s, while deglutition is counted through palpation of the larynx.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Change from Baseline Maximum tongue pressure status at 6-month after intervention