Document Type : Original Articles


1 Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran Rehabilitation Sciences Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

2 Department of Speech and Language Pathologist, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

3 PhD in Speech and Language Therapy, Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran


Background: Normal aging is associated with many changes in speech-producing elements that can influence the articulators' ability to produce sounds quickly and precisely. To diagnose any motor problems in the oral area, it is necessary to obtain numerical oral motor performance rates in normal individuals. According to previous studies, quantitative measures of Oral diadochokinesis (DDK) vary across different cultures, languages, and ages. However, little research has been conducted in Persian native speakers to evaluate normal DDK in different age groups. Therefore, this study aimed to determine and compare DDK indicators in healthy young and older Persian native speakers.
Methods: The participants were 105 healthy young and older individuals (56 women and 49 men) with the age range18-40, 60-80, and >80 years. Each subject was asked to repetitively express the syllables 15 times, and the sequence /pataka/ 10 times. Mann–Whitney and independent-sample t-tests were applied to show the differences, respectively between and within age groups.
Results: The significant difference was revealed between young and older groups in performance in all tasks (p=0.00). In younger participants, increasing age correlated significantly with increasing time needed to produce /ta/ (p=0.04) and /ka/ (p=0.01) syllables. Also, the rate variation decreased as the point of articulation moved backward in the vocal tract for /ta/ and /ka/ production in both the older (p=0.6) and younger group (p=0.4).
Conclusion: The results of this study can also help clinicians to document differences in the articulation rate between older and younger people and diagnose abnormal oral motor rates.


1. Ben‐David BM, Icht M. Oral‐diadochokinetic rates for Hebrewspeaking healthy ageing population: non‐word versus real‐word repetition. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2017;52(3):301-10.
2. Icht M , B en-David B M. O ral-diadochokinesis r ates a cross languages: English and Hebrew norms. J Commun Disord.2014;48:27-37.
3. Gadesmann M, Miller N. Reliability of speech diadochokinetic test measurement. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2008;43(1):41-54.
4. Renout KA, Leeper HA, Bandur DL, Hudson AJ. Vocal fold diadochokinetic function of individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1995;4(1):73-80.
5. Tjaden K, Watling E. Characteristics of diadochokinesis in multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. Folia Phoniatr Logop.2003;55(5):241-59.
6. Wang Yt, Kent RD, Duffy JR, Thomas JE, Weismer G. Alternating motion rate as an index of speech motor disorder in traumatic brain injury. Clin Linguist Phon. 2004;18(1):57-84.
7. Midi I, Dogan M, Koseoglu M, Can G, Sehitoglu M, Gunal D.Voice abnormalities and their relation with motor dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease. Acta Neurol Scand. 2008;117(1):26-34.
8. Wang Y-T, Kent RD, Duffy JR, Thomas JE. Analysis of diadochokinesis in ataxic dysarthria using the motor speech profile program™. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009;61(1):1-11.
9. Konstantopoulos K, Charalambous M, Verhoeven J, editors. Sequential Motion Rates in the Dysarthria of Multiple Sclerosis:A Temporal Analysis. ICPhS; 2011:1138-1141.
10. Van Brenk F, Terband H, Van Lieshout P, Lowit A, Maassen B. Rate-related kinematic changes in younger and older adults. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2013;65(5):239-47.
11. Padovani M, Gielow I, Behlau M. Phonarticulatory diadochokinesis in young and elderly individuals. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2009;67(1):58-61.
12. Zamani P, Rezai H, Garmatani NT. Meaningful words and nonwords repetitive articulatory rate (oral diadochokinesis) in Persian speaking children. J Psycholinguist Res. 2017;46(4):897-904.
13. Jothi S, Amritha M. Comparison of Diadochokinetic Rate between Malayalam and Tamil Native Speakers. International Journal of Research and Review. 2019;6(5):144-8.
14. Mousavi SZ, Mehri A, Nabavi D, Faraji M, Maroufizadeh S.Comparing the Diadochokinetic Rate in Farsi-Speaking Young and Older Adults. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal. 2020;18(1):
57-64. 15. Pierce JE, Cotton S, Perry A. Alternating and sequential motion rates in older adults. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2013;48(3):257-
64. 16. Kikutani T, Tamura F, Nishiwaki K, Kodama M, Suda M, Fukui T, et al. Oral motor function and masticatory performance in the community-dwelling elderly. Odontology. 2009;97(1):38-42.
17. Bednark JG, Campbell ME, Cunnington R. Basal ganglia and cortical networks for sequential ordering and rhythm of complex movements. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:421.
18. Kianfar F, Karimian F, Baktashian M. Alternating and Sequential Motion Rates for Normal Persian-Speaking People Aged 60-80 Years in Isfahan City, Iran. J Res Rehabil Sci. 2017;13(3):125-30.
19. Devadiga DN, Bhat JS. Oral diadokokinetic rate-An insight into speech motor control. International Journal of Advanced Speech and Hearing Research. 2012;1(1):10-4. :
20. Kreul EJ. Neuromuscular control examination (NMC) for Parkinsonism: Vowel prolongations and diadochokinetic and reading rates. J Speech Hear Res. 1972;15(1):72-83.
21. Ptacek PH, Sander EK, Maloney WH, Jackson CR. Phonatory and related changes with advanced age. J Speech Hear Res.1966;9(3):353-60.
22. 22. Shahbodaghi MR, Moradi A, Kiani S. Diadochokinetic syllable rates standardized among the elementary students. Journal of Audiology. 2005;14(23):1-11.