Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Guidelines for Fast and Nondestructive Imaging in AM-AFM

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a formula for the maximum force applied to a molecule during AM-AFM scanning and shows that exciting the cantilever at the lower resonance-slope frequency minimizes it, enabling faster nondestructive imaging of fragile…

desk verdict A useful, mostly solid framework for minimizing feedback-error forces in AM-AFM, whose headline scan-velocity formula needs calibration before it becomes a quantitative guideline. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16317 v1 pith:6PB6ANTV submitted 2024-11-25 physics.app-ph

Kenichi Umeda , Noriyuki Kodera This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-ph PACS 07.79.Lh
keywords amplitude-modulationatomicforcemicroscopyhigh-speedAFMfeedbackerrornondestructiveimagingMinfrequencytip-sampleinteractionscanvelocitylimitbiomolecular
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish why fragile biomolecules are damaged during fast amplitude-modulation atomic force microscopy (AM-AFM) and how to image them faster without breaking them. It argues that the force applied to a molecule when the feedback loop lags behind the scan has two parts: a steady setpoint force and an impulsive feedback-error force, and that both have the same mathematical form, growing linearly with scan speed and inversely with feedback bandwidth. The central practical claim is that driving the cantilever at the lower resonance-slope frequency, called the MinForce frequency, minimizes the feedback-error contribution, reducing the force to about one-third of the static-mode value when the cantilever quality factor is 1.5. From this the paper derives a simple upper bound on scan velocity based on the molecule's binding force, giving experimentalists a concrete way to choose safe frame rates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the conversion coefficient $\alpha_{\Delta z\to F}$, which converts the tip-molecule interaction depth $\Delta z_{\rm int}$ into the average tip-sample force $F_{\rm ts}$. The paper derives it as the product of two frequency-dependent factors, $\alpha_{\Delta A\to F}$ (amplitude change to force) and $\alpha_{\Delta z\to\Delta A}$ (depth to amplitude change), and shows analytically that the product is smallest at the lower MinForce frequency, the resonance-slope drive frequency where force sensitivity is maximal. Supporting this is a geometric model in which the molecule is a quadratic bump of height $h_{\rm mol}$ and width $w_{\rm mol}$, and feedback lag appears as a constant positional shift $\Delta x_{\rm FB}=v_{\rm scan}/(8B_{\rm FB45^\circ})$; this turns the feedback error into the same linear-in-$v_{\rm scan}$ force form as the steady setpoint force.

What would settle it

Measure the average tip–sample force on a single surface-bound molecule at fixed setpoint while sweeping the drive frequency across the resonance; if the force minimum does not occur at the predicted lower MinForce frequency, or if at $Q_{\rm cl}\approx 1.5$ the measured $F_{\rm ts}$ is not close to $-0.308\,k_{\rm cl}\Delta z_{\rm int}$, the central claim collapses. A simpler proxy is to check whether the force gradient at $\Delta z_{\rm int}=0$ follows the analytical $\alpha_{\Delta z\to F}$ curve of Eq. (51) rather than the observed factor-of-two offset.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in AM-AFM the maximum average force exerted on a molecule during scanning can be written as $F^{\rm MaxMol} = -(h_{\rm mol} v_{\rm scan}/(2 w_{\rm mol} B_{\rm FB45^\circ}))(\xi_{\rm mol}+\chi_{\rm ES})\,\alpha_{\Delta z\to F}$ (Eq. 33), where $h_{\rm mol}$ and $w_{\rm mol}$ are the molecule's height and apparent width, $v_{\rm scan}$ is the scan velocity, $B_{\rm FB45^\circ}$ is the feedback bandwidth, and $\alpha_{\Delta z\to F}$ is the conversion coefficient from tip-sample distance change to average force. The paper derives $\alpha_{\Delta z\to F}$ analytically and shows it is minimized when the cantilever is excited at the lower MinForce frequency on the resonance slope rather than at the resonance frequency; for $Q_{\rm cl}=1.5$ this gives $F_{\rm ts}\approx -0.308\,k_{\rm cl}\Delta z_{\rm int}$ (Eq. 53), one-third of the static-mode force. Equation (34) then turns the molecular binding force into a maximum scan velocity, with the implication that feedback bandwidth improvements translate directly into faster nondestructive imaging.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the lumped coefficient $\xi_{\rm mol}+\chi_{\rm ES}$ in Eq. (33) is known: $\xi_{\rm mol}$ is a phenomenological factor for weakly adsorbed molecules that is not measured, and $\chi_{\rm ES}$ is assumed to sit in a 'typical allowable range' of 0.5–0.7, yet the predicted maximum scan velocity scales linearly with this sum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a fragile molecule, the maximum safe scan velocity can be estimated from its binding force using Eq. (34), so users no longer need to rely only on feedback-bandwidth arguments.
  • Exciting at the lower MinForce frequency instead of $f_0$ lowers the feedback-error force to roughly one-third of the static-mode value at $Q_{\rm cl}=1.5$.
  • Suppressing downhill error saturation requires a larger steady force, which increases sample damage; the $\chi_{\rm ES}$ parameter quantifies how much saturation is acceptable.
  • Because the force scales as $v_{\rm scan}/B_{\rm FB45^\circ}$, increasing the feedback bandwidth directly increases the frame rate that can be reached without exceeding a given molecular force.
  • Near the resonance slope the analytical force estimate is accurate enough for practical use, within roughly 60%, which matters because molecular breakage is stochastic.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test would be to scan the same fragile molecule at a fixed setpoint and vary only the drive frequency; the theory predicts the damage rate should follow the $F^{\rm MaxMol}$ curve with its minimum at the lower MinForce frequency.
  • If dissipation or non-contact forces explain the factor-of-two discrepancy seen in the force-gradient experiments, then raising the cantilever resonance frequency should reduce the gap; this is a testable extension the paper leaves implicit.
  • The coefficient $\xi_{\rm mol}$ could be turned from a fitted constant into a measured quantity by tracking molecule displacement during scanning, which would remove the main free parameter from Eq. (33).
  • The same framework suggests a specification for instrument design: for a target molecular force, required frame rate fixes a minimum feedback bandwidth $B_{\rm FB45^\circ}$, connecting the force-limit argument to detector and Z-scanner engineering.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a theoretical framework for feedback-induced tip–sample forces in amplitude-modulation atomic force microscopy (AM-AFM). It decomposes the force applied to a molecule into a steady component set by the amplitude setpoint and an impulsive component arising from feedback lag, models the molecular cross-section as a parabola, and derives approximate formulas for these forces in terms of scan velocity, feedback bandwidth, and a conversion coefficient αΔz→F (Eqs. (19)-(20), (31)-(33)). It then derives an analytical expression for αΔz→F and shows that it is minimized at the lower MinForce resonance-slope frequency (Eqs. (51)-(53)), validating the frequency dependence with Hertzian simulations and force-curve experiments on mica. Finally, it uses Eq. (34) to estimate the maximum scan velocity for nondestructive imaging of myosin-V on F-actin.

Significance. The central qualitative result—that exciting at the lower MinForce frequency minimizes feedback-error forces—is physically plausible and is supported by the simulations and by the experimental trend in Fig. 6. The paper provides explicit analytical expressions that are potentially useful to the HS-AFM community, and it attempts a direct experimental falsification of the predicted frequency dependence. The derivation is largely transparent, and the simulations cover realistic cantilever parameters. However, the quantitative maximum-velocity guideline in Eq. (34) depends on an uncalibrated lumped coefficient ξ_mol+χ_ES, and the experimental validation in Fig. 6 shows a factor-of-order-2.5 discrepancy at one setpoint. The paper is therefore stronger as a design principle—choose the resonance slope to minimize feedback damage—than as a self-contained quantitative predictor of maximum scan velocity.

major comments (4)
  1. [§8, Eq. (34)] The maximum scan velocity in Eq. (34) is inversely proportional to ξ_mol + χ_ES, but neither factor is independently measured. Section 3 states that ξ_mol 'may depend on vscan as well as the substrate interaction', and Section 4 assigns χ_ES a 'typical allowable range' of 0.5–0.7; the myosin-V example simply sets the sum to 1.7. Since v_scan,max scales linearly with this sum, the advertised quantitative guideline has a factor-of-several uncertainty and could even become nonlinear if ξ_mol depends on v_scan. This does not affect the frequency-minimization conclusion, but it does affect the headline scan-velocity formula. Please calibrate the coefficient, give a predicted range over the plausible span of ξ_mol+χ_ES, or explicitly label Eq. (34) as an order-of-magnitude guideline.
  2. [§7, Fig. 6] The experimental validation shows the predicted minimum near the resonance slope, but at SPR = 0.9 the measured force gradients are 'about 60% lower' than the analytical values. That is a measured-to-analytical ratio of roughly 0.4, i.e., a factor-of-2.5 discrepancy, and the trend reverses at SPR = 0.7. Because Eq. (33) uses αΔz→F linearly, this discrepancy directly propagates into the numerics of Eq. (34). Please state the accuracy metric explicitly, report the implied uncertainty in F_MaxMol and v_scan,max, and discuss whether the SPR dependence can be attributed to dissipation or non-contact forces in a way that can be bounded.
  3. [§§3–4, 8; Eqs. (14), (33), (34)] Eq. (33) is a linear approximation that should be saturated by F_limit = −αΔz→F h_mol (Eq. (14)). The text mentions this only in passing, and Eq. (34) is written without the saturation constraint. For parameter ranges in which the molecular binding force exceeds F_limit, the linear expression in Eq. (10)-(11) is outside its validity limit, so Eq. (34) would overestimate the permissible scan velocity. Please make the saturation condition explicit in the maximum-velocity formula or give the range of v_scan and B_FB45 for which Eq. (34) is valid.
  4. [§6, Fig. 4] The numerical validation is presented for sample moduli E* = 100 MPa and above, while the text acknowledges that for E* = 10 MPa or lower the analytical solution overestimates the simulated force. Fragile biomolecular samples in liquid can have effective moduli in this softer range. Please state explicitly the sample-stiffness range for which Eqs. (33)-(34) are intended, or provide a correction factor or bound for softer samples.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2 and figure captions] The text contains apparent typographical artifacts such as '2.8 nm p−0' and 'nmp–0'; please replace these with the intended units, for example 'nm' or 'nm p-p'.
  2. [Eqs. (2)–(4)] The averaging notation is inconsistent: Eq. (2) defines an overline for the average force, but later equations such as (3), (4), and (10) frequently omit the overline. Please standardize the notation throughout.
  3. [Eq. (34)] Equation (34) is not legibly typeset in the submitted text; the formula should be clearly displayed and should be the algebraic inverse of Eq. (33) with the same sign conventions.
  4. [References] Equation (45) is taken from the authors' preprint reference [33]. If the present manuscript relies on this result, please update to a published version or include a short derivation in an appendix so that the paper is self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central frequency-dependence result is derived analytically and validated by independent simulations and force-curve experiments; the scan-velocity example uses an explicitly acknowledged phenomenological coefficient, not a fitted parameter.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The frequency-dependent force-sensitivity formulas (Eqs. (45)-(53)) are imported from the authors' prior work [33], but [33] is a parameter-free analytical derivation and the present paper independently tests the resulting αΔz→F against new numerical simulations (Section 6 and Fig. 4) and against force-curve experiments on mica (Section 7 and Figs. 5-6), including a comparison of force gradients versus driving frequency whose minimum appears at the resonance slope. These validations make the self-citation real evidence rather than a circular load-bearing premise. The feedback-error model (Eqs. (3)-(20)) follows geometrically from the quadratic molecule shape and the feedback phase delay, with no quantity defined in terms of the output it is used to predict. The error-saturation treatment introduces χES as a normalized height of the saturation point (Eq. (28)) and then algebraically relates it to Fsteady (Eqs. (30)-(32)); this is a change of variable, not a result assumed into existence. Finally, Eq. (34) is only the algebraic rearrangement of Eq. (33) for vscan, and the illustrative myosin-V calculation (Section 8) uses an explicitly stated assumption ξmol+χES=1.7 rather than a value fitted to the same 70 μm/s scan speed it purports to bound. The paper itself flags the phenomenological nature of ξmol ('may depend on vscan as well as the substrate interaction') and the stochastic nature of molecular disruption, which are limitations on quantitative precision but not evidence of circularity. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theory depends on one strong linear-feedback assumption, a stiffness-limited depth-to-amplitude approximation, and a repulsive-only force model. The quantitative scan-velocity guidelines additionally depend on two lumped coefficients, xi_mol and chi_ES, neither of which is independently measured in this paper. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • xi_mol (molecular displacement coefficient) = not measured; xi_mol + chi_ES assumed 1.7
    Introduced ad hoc in Eq. (20) to suppress F_impulse for weakly adsorbed molecules; no independent measurement or derivation is given, and the maximum-scan-velocity prediction scales linearly with it.
  • chi_ES (error saturation normalized height coefficient) = assumed 0.5-0.7; combined with xi_mol set to 1.7
    Defined via h_ES/h_mol in Eq. (28) and in principle measurable, but no measurement is reported. It is used as a scaling factor in Eqs. (31)-(34) and set to an assumed 'typical allowable range'.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The amplitude feedback loop in the low-frequency region behaves as a linear phase-shift system, so the tip trajectory is z_traj(x) = z_surf(x - Delta_x_FB).
    Used to derive F_impulse in Eqs. (6)-(19); requires no gain reduction and a well-behaved phase response up to the scan frequency.
  • domain assumption For samples with Young's modulus of about 100 MPa or more, Delta_A_bot approximately equals Delta_z_int (Eq. 41), and the linear amplitude-force relation Eq. (35) holds.
    This is the bridge between interaction depth and force. The paper's own simulations show the approximation overestimates force for E* = 10 MPa, so the quantitative formulas are not valid for the softest samples.
  • domain assumption Only repulsive tip-sample forces need to be considered for molecular disruption; attractive-regime forces are neglected.
    Section 5 states the analysis focuses on the repulsive regime F_ts > 0. Eqs. (51)-(53) are not derived or tested for attractive-regime imaging.
  • domain assumption Hertzian contact and the absence of long-range or dissipative forces describe the tip-sample interaction in the validation simulations.
    Used in the simulations in Eq. (54); experimental discrepancies near Delta_z_int = 0 are attributed to DLVO, hydration, and dissipation effects not included in the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Guidelines for Fast and Nondestructive Imaging in AM-AFM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6PB6ANTV

@misc{pith2026241116317,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Guidelines for Fast and Nondestructive Imaging in AM-AFM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6PB6ANTV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16317}
}
read the original abstract

Amplitude-modulation atomic force microscopy enables observation of fragile molecules at the nanometer scale. To shorten measurement times and capture dynamic molecules, increasing the frame rate is essential. Traditionally, maximum frame rates were thought to be limited by device bandwidth. However, for fragile molecules, imaging speed is often constrained by disruption from tip-sample interaction forces. Despite its significance, no comprehensive theoretical study has addressed this limitation. Here, we establish guidelines for high-speed, nondestructive AM-AFM imaging of fragile molecules. Our analysis identifies two types of forces: an impulsive force on the molecule's uphill side and a steady force linked to error saturation on the downhill side. By examining the frequency dependence of the amplitude-distance curve, we demonstrate that exciting at the resonance slope minimizes feedback error forces and allows for their easy estimation using simple equations. These findings provide valuable insights for studying fragile materials, particularly biomolecules.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Martin, C

    Y. Martin, C. C. Williams, and H. K. Wickramasinghe, Atomic force microscope-force mapping and profiling on a sub 100-Å scale, J. Appl. Phys. 61, 4723 (1987)

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    G. M. McClelland, R. Erlandsson, and S. Chiang, in Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestruct. Eval. , edited by D. O. Thompson, and D. E. Chimenti (Springer, Boston, MA, 1987), pp. 1307

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    Garcia and R

    R. Garcia and R. Perez, Dynamic atomic force microscopy methods, Surf. Sci. Rep. 47, 197 (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Voigtländer, (Springer, Berlin, 2019), Atomic Force Microscopy 2nd ed

    B. Voigtländer, (Springer, Berlin, 2019), Atomic Force Microscopy 2nd ed

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Torre, M

    B. Torre, M. Basso, B. Tiribilli, P. Paoletti, and M. Vassalli, Disclosing and overcoming the trade-off between noise and scanning speed in atomic force microscopy, Nanotechnology 24, 325104 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Y. F. Dufrêne, T. Ando, R. Garcia, D. Alsteens, D. Martinez-Martin, A. Engel, C. Gerber, and D. J. Müller, Imaging modes of atomic force microscopy for application in molecular and cell biology, Nat. Nanotechnol. 12, 295 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    T. Ando, T. Uchihashi, and T. Fukuma, High-speed atomic force microscopy for nano-visualization of dynamic biomolecular processes, Prog. Surf. Sci. 83, 337 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Kodera, M

    N. Kodera, M. Sakashita, and T. Ando, Dynamic proportional-integral-differential controller for high-speed atomic force microscopy, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 77, 083704 (2006). 37 / 41

    work page 2006

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    S. Kubo, K. Umeda, N. Kodera, and S. Takada, Removing the parachuting artifact using two-way scanning data high-speed atomic force microscopy, Biophys. Physicobiology 20, e200006 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Umeda, S

    K. Umeda, S. J. McArthur, and N. Kodera, Spatiotemporal resolution in high-speed atomic force microscopy for studying biological macromolecules in action, Microscopy 72, 151 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Umeda, C

    K. Umeda, C. Okamoto, M. Shimizu, S. Watanabe, T. Ando, and N. Kodera, Architecture of zero-latency ultrafast amplitude detector for high-speed atomic force microscopy, Appl. Phys. Lett. 119, 181602 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Shimizu, C

    M. Shimizu, C. Okamoto, K. Umeda, S. Watanabe, T. Ando, and N. Kodera, An ultrafast piezoelectric Z-scanner with a resonance frequency above 1.1 MHz for high-speed atomic force microscopy, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 93, 013701 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    T. Ando, N. Kodera, E. Takai, D. Maruyama, K. Saito, and A. Toda, A high-speed atomic force microscope for studying biological macromolecules, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 12468 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    Kodera, D

    N. Kodera, D. Yamamoto, R. Ishikawa, and T. Ando, Video imaging of walking myosin V by high-speed atomic force microscopy, Nature 468, 72 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    T. Ando, T. Uchihashi, and S. Scheuring, Filming Biomolecular Processes by High-Speed Atomic Force Microscopy, Chem. Rev. 114, 3120 (2014). 38 / 41

    2014

  8. [16]

    H.-J. Butt, P. Siedle, K. Seifert, K. Fendler, T. Seeger, E. Bamberg, A. L. Weisenhorn, K. Goldie, and A. Engel, Scan Speed Limit in Atomic Force Microscopy, J. Microsc. 169, 75 (1993)

    1993

  9. [17]

    Sulchek, G

    T. Sulchek, G. G. Yaralioglu, C. F. Quate, and S. C. Minne, Characterization and optimization of scan speed for tapping-mode atomic force microscopy, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 73, 2928 (2002)

    2002

  10. [18]

    Kokavecz, O

    J. Kokavecz, O. Marti, P. Heszler, and A. Mechler, Imaging bandwidth of the tapping mode atomic force microscope probe, Phys. Rev. B 73, 155403 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    J. D. Adams, B. W. Erickson, J. Grossenbacher, J. Brugger, A. Nievergelt, and G. E. Fantner, Harnessing the damping properties of materials for high-speed atomic force microscopy, Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, 147 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    T. R. Albrecht, P. Grütter, D. Horne, and D. Rugar, Frequency modulation detection using high-Q cantilevers for enhanced force microscope sensitivity, J. Appl. Phys. 69, 668 (1991)

    1991

  13. [21]

    Kobayashi, Y

    N. Kobayashi, Y. J. Li, Y. Naitoh, M. Kageshima, and Y. Sugawara, High-sensitivity force detection by phase-modulation atomic force microscopy, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., Part 2 45, L793 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    Wutscher and F

    E. Wutscher and F. J. Giessibl, Atomic force microscopy at ambient and liquid conditions with stiff sensors and small amplitudes, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 82, 093703 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    Varol, I

    A. Varol, I. Gunev, B. Orun, and C. Basdogan, Numerical simulation of nano scanning in intermittent-contact mode AFM under Q control, Nanotechnology 19, 075503 (2008). 39 / 41

    2008

  16. [24]

    Balantekin and F

    M. Balantekin and F. L. Degertekin, Optimizing the driving scheme of a self-actuated atomic force microscope probe for high-speed applications, Ultramicroscopy 111, 1388 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    Ahmad, A

    A. Ahmad, A. Schuh, and I. W. Rangelow, Adaptive AFM scan speed control for high aspect ratio fast structure tracking, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85, 103706 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Ren and Q

    J. Ren and Q. Z. Zou, High-speed adaptive contact-mode atomic force microscopy imaging with near-minimum-force, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85, 073706 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Y. Y. Wang, J. H. Wan, X. D. Hu, L. Y. Xu, S. Wu, and X. T. Hu, A rate adaptive control method for Improving the imaging speed of atomic force microscopy, Ultramicroscopy 155, 49 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Y. X. Zhang, Y. Z. Li, G. Q. Shan, Y. F. Chen, Z. Y. Wang, and J. Q. Qian, Real-time scan speed control of the atomic force microscopy for reducing imaging time based on sample topography, Micron 106, 1 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Gunev, A

    I. Gunev, A. Varol, S. Karaman, and C. Basdogan, Adaptive Q control for tapping-mode nanoscanning using a piezoactuated bimorph probe, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 78, 043707 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Hölscher and U

    H. Hölscher and U. D. Schwarz, Theory of amplitude modulation atomic force microscopy with and without Q-Control, Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 42, 608 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    H. V. Guzman, P. D. Garcia, and R. Garcia, Dynamic force microscopy simulator (dForce): A tool for planning and understanding tapping and bimodal AFM experiments, Beilstein J. Nanotech. 6, 369 (2015). 40 / 41

    2015

  24. [32]

    V. G. Gisbert and R. Garcia, Insights and guidelines to interpret forces and deformations at the nanoscale by using a tapping mode AFM simulator: dForce 2.0, Soft Matter 19, 5857 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Umeda, K

    K. Umeda, K. Kamoshita, and N. Kodera, Quantitative Formulation of Average Force in Amplitude-Modulation Atomic Force Microscopy, arXiv, 2407.18748 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Raman, X

    A. Raman, X. Xu, C. Carrasco, P. J. de Pablo, and J. Gomez-Herrero, Unmasking imaging forces on soft biological samples in liquids when using dynamic atomic force microscopy: A case study on viral capsids, Biophys. J. 95, 2520 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    Vahdat and R

    V. Vahdat and R. W. Carpick, Practical Method to Limit Tip-Sample Contact Stress and Prevent Wear in Amplitude Modulation Atomic Force Microscopy, ACS Nano 7, 9836 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    A. F. Payam, D. Martin-Jimenez, and R. Garcia, Force reconstruction from tapping mode force microscopy experiments, Nanotechnology 26, 185706 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    A. J. Katan, M. H. van Es, and T. H. Oosterkamp, Quantitative force versus distance measurements in amplitude modulation AFM: a novel force inversion technique, Nanotechnology 20, 165703 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    A. P. Nievergelt, N. Banterle, S. H. Andany, P. Gonczy, and G. E. Fantner, High-speed photothermal off-resonance atomic force microscopy reveals assembly routes of centriolar scaffold protein SAS-6, Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 696 (2018). 41 / 41

    2018

  31. [39]

    B. J. Eves and R. G. Green, Limitations on accurate shape determination using amplitude modulation atomic force microscopy, Ultramicroscopy 115, 14 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.