Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.53 1263-1267 October 2010. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0241)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mehta, D. D.
Right arrow Articles by Hillman, R. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mehta, D. D.
Right arrow Articles by Hillman, R. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Letter to the Editor

Commentary on Why Laryngeal Stroboscopy Really Works: Clarifying Misconceptions Surrounding Talbot's Law and the Persistence of Vision

Daryush D. Mehta
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

Dimitar D. Deliyski
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC

Robert E. Hillman
Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Contact author: Daryush D. Mehta, Massachusetts General Hospital, Center for Laryngeal Surgery and Voice Rehabilitation, 1 Bowdoin Square 11th Floor, Boston, MA 02114. E-mail: daryush.mehta{at}alum.mit.edu.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to clear up misconceptions that have propagated in the clinical voice literature that inappropriately cite Talbot's law (1834) and the theory of persistence of vision as the scientific principles that underlie laryngeal stroboscopy.

Method: After initial research into Talbot's (1834) original studies, it became clear that his experiments were not designed to explain why stroboscopy works. Subsequently, a comprehensive literature search was conducted for the purpose of investigating the general principles of stroboscopic imaging from primary sources.

Results: Talbot made no reference to stroboscopy in designing his experiments, and the notion of persistence of vision is not applicable to stroboscopic motion. Instead, two visual phenomena play critical roles: (a) the flicker-free perception of light and (b) the perception of apparent motion. In addition, the integration of stroboscopy with video-based technology in today's voice clinic requires additional complexities to include synchronization with camera frame rates.

Conclusions: References to Talbot's law and the persistence of vision are not relevant to the generation of stroboscopic images. The critical visual phenomena are the flicker-free perception of light intensity and the perception of apparent motion from sampled images. A complete understanding of how laryngeal stroboscopy works will aid in better interpreting clinical findings during voice assessment.

KEY WORDS: stroboscopy, endoscopy, vocal fold, voice, assessment


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Speech Science and Orofacial DisordersHome page
D. D. Mehta and R. E. Hillman
The Evolution of Methods for Imaging Vocal Fold Phonatory Function
Speech Science and Orofacial Disorders, July 1, 2012; 22(1): 5 - 13.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]