» Articles » PMID: 37190620

What Do Differences Between Alternating and Sequential Diadochokinetic Tasks Tell Us About the Development of Oromotor Skills? An Insight from Childhood to Adulthood

Overview
Journal Brain Sci
Publisher MDPI
Date 2023 May 16
PMID 37190620
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Oral diadochokinetic (DDK) tasks are common research and clinical tools used to test oromotor skills across different age groups. They include alternating motion rate (AMR) and sequential motion rate (SMR) tasks. AMR tasks involve repeating a single syllable, whereas SMR tasks involve repeating varying syllables. DDK performance is mostly discussed regarding the increasing rates of AMR and SMR tasks from childhood to adulthood, although less attention is given to the performance differences between SMR and AMR tasks across age groups. Here, AMR and SMR syllabic rates were contrasted in three populations: 7-9-year-old children, 14-16-year-old adolescents and 20-30-year-old adults. The results revealed similar syllabic rates for the two DDK tasks in children, whereas adolescents and adults achieved faster SMR rates. Acoustic analyses showed similarities in prosodic features between AMR and SMR sequences and in anticipatory coarticulation in the SMR sequences in all age groups. However, a lower degree of coarticulation was observed in children relative to adults. Adolescents, on the contrary, showed an adult-like pattern. These findings suggest that SMR tasks may be more sensitive to age-related changes in oromotor skills than AMR tasks and that greater gestural overlap across varying syllables may be a factor in achieving higher rates in SMR tasks.

Citing Articles

Multiple evolutionary pressures shape identical consonant avoidance in the world's languages.

Cathcart C Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024; 121(27):e2316677121.

PMID: 38917001 PMC: 11228491. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2316677121.


Development of a smartphone screening test for preclinical Alzheimer's disease and validation across the dementia continuum.

Alty J, Goldberg L, Roccati E, Lawler K, Bai Q, Huang G BMC Neurol. 2024; 24(1):127.

PMID: 38627686 PMC: 11020184. DOI: 10.1186/s12883-024-03609-z.


Detection of Subclinical Motor Speech Deficits after Presumed Low-Grade Glioma Surgery.

Mirkoska V, Antonsson M, Hartelius L, Nylen F Brain Sci. 2023; 13(12).

PMID: 38137079 PMC: 10741922. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13121631.

References
1.
Wong A, Allegro J, Tirado Y, Chadha N, Campisi P . Objective measurement of motor speech characteristics in the healthy pediatric population. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2011; 75(12):1604-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.09.023. View

2.
BLOMQUIST B . Diadochokinetic movements of nine-, ten-, and eleven-year old children. J Speech Disord. 1950; 15(2):159-64. DOI: 10.1044/jshd.1502.159. View

3.
Bohland J, Bullock D, Guenther F . Neural representations and mechanisms for the performance of simple speech sequences. J Cogn Neurosci. 2009; 22(7):1504-29. PMC: 2937837. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21306. View

4.
Smith A, Zelaznik H . Development of functional synergies for speech motor coordination in childhood and adolescence. Dev Psychobiol. 2004; 45(1):22-33. DOI: 10.1002/dev.20009. View

5.
Cheng H, Murdoch B, Goozee J . Temporal features of articulation from childhood to adolescence: an electropalatographic investigation. Clin Linguist Phon. 2007; 21(6):481-99. DOI: 10.1080/02699200701325043. View