Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Inline calibration of spatial light modulators in nonlinear microscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents an inline calibration method that recovers a phase-only spatial light modulator's phase and amplitude response inside a multi-photon excitation fluorescence microscope, using only the microscope itself, with a phase…

desk verdict Useful inline SLM calibration for nonlinear microscopy with real code and data; the untested spatial-uniformity assumption is the main caveat, not a fatal flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22482 v1 pith:DBKPMCG4 submitted 2025-05-28 physics.optics

Daniël W.S. Cox , Harish Sasikumar , Ivo M. Vellekoop This is my paper
classification physics.optics
keywords spatiallightmodulatorphasecalibrationinlinemultiphotonmicroscopytwo-photonexcitationfluorescencewavefrontshapingphotobleachinginterferencefitting
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

Multi-photon fluorescence microscopes rely on spatial light modulators (SLMs) to shape the excitation wavefront, but the modulator's phase and amplitude response drifts with wavelength, temperature, and age. Standard calibration requires a separate interferometer and a signal that is linear in intensity, which a two-photon microscope does not provide. This paper claims that the SLM response can instead be calibrated inside the microscope itself: split the SLM into two large pixel groups, vary their gray values, and record how the nonlinear fluorescence signal changes as the two fields interfere. By fitting a model that includes shot and read noise, photobleaching, a power-law signal dependence, and the two-beam interference, the method recovers the complex field response $E(g)$ with about 0.03 rad phase precision and 2% amplitude precision, under the low-signal, photobleaching-heavy conditions typical of multi-PEF imaging. If this holds, SLM calibration becomes a routine pre-experiment step rather than a separate offline procedure.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-group interference signal model: after splitting the SLM into pixel groups A and B, the focal intensity is modeled as $I(t)=|a E(g_A(t))+b E(g_B(t))|^2$, and the detected fluorescence as $\hat S(t)=\eta(t) I(t)^N + \hat S_{\rm bg}$. Here $E(g)$ is the unknown complex field response of the SLM as a function of gray value $g$, $\eta(t)$ is a photobleaching efficiency factor, and $N$ is the nonlinear order. A weighted least-squares fit of this model to measurements taken over many $(g_A,g_B)$ pairs recovers $E(g)$ in both phase and amplitude, without any external interferometer.

What would settle it

Repeat the calibration with the two pixel groups placed at different, non-overlapping locations on the SLM, such as left-versus-right and top-versus-bottom; if the recovered response $E(g)$ changes with location by more than the quoted 0.03 rad in phase or 2% in amplitude, the uniformity assumption that the method relies on is violated and the recovered curve does not represent the SLM as a whole.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the phase and amplitude response of a phase-only spatial light modulator can be fully recovered from the nonlinear fluorescence signal of the microscope itself, with no additional hardware. The detected signal is modeled as $\hat S(t)=\eta(t)\,|aE(g_A(t))+bE(g_B(t))|^{2N}+\hat S_{\rm bg}$, where $E(g)$ is the unknown SLM response, $a$ and $b$ are complex transmission coefficients from the two pixel groups to the focus, $\eta(t)$ is a photobleaching efficiency factor, and $N$ is the effective nonlinear order. After fitting the noise, photobleaching, and prefactors with a weighted least-squares loss and the AMSGrad optimizer, the single complex curve $E(g)$ emerges, carrying both phase and amplitude. Repeated runs on different sample locations give an average phase precision of 0.03 rad and amplitude precision of 2%; comparison with a Twyman-Green interferometer shows the same response shape, with differences up to 0.4 rad that the authors attribute to the higher laser power and pulsed-mode operation used during the inline measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the SLM's phase and amplitude response is identical across the whole chip; if different regions of the SLM respond differently, the single measured response curve will be a blend and the calibration will be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-photon microscopes can recalibrate their SLM at operational laser power and wavelength, without moving to a separate interferometer.
  • A full calibration uses only the microscope's own fluorescence signal and takes about 17 minutes of measurement plus under a minute of computation, making routine recalibration practical.
  • The recovered complex field response includes amplitude information and any unmodulated bias (for example a front-surface reflection), giving a diagnostic of the SLM as a byproduct.
  • Because the model explicitly fits the nonlinear order $N$, the approach applies to multi-PEF signals generally, not only to the two-photon case demonstrated here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not pursue is to run the same fit on endogenous or structural fluorescence already present in the sample, eliminating the need for a dedicated calibration bead.
  • Because the method records the response under the exact laser settings of the experiment, it could be used to track thermal drift of the SLM over time and to separate that drift from permanent aging.
  • The two-group interference idea should transfer to other nonlinear contrast mechanisms (e.g. second- or third-harmonic generation) whenever the detected signal is a known power of the focal intensity, though the paper only demonstrates two-photon fluorescence.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an inline method for calibrating the phase and amplitude response E(g) of a phase-only SLM in a multi-photon excitation fluorescence microscope. The SLM is split into two pixel groups A and B; the two-photon fluorescence signal from a bead is recorded for combinations of gray values g_A and g_B. A weighted least-squares fit of a model S(t)=η(t)|aE(g_A)+bE(g_B)|^{2N}+S_bg recovers E(g), the complex transmission coefficients a,b, the background, and the nonlinear order N. Noise is characterized from the pixel-to-pixel variance of each image, and photobleaching is modeled by an empirical efficiency factor η(t)=exp(-P∫S dt) whose rate P is fit from flat-wavefront measurements. The method is demonstrated on a 2PEF microscope with a Meadowlark SLM; repeated runs give phase standard deviations of 0.03 rad and amplitude uncertainties of 2%. A comparison with a Twyman-Green interferometer shows a similar phase-response shape with differences up to 0.4 rad, which the authors attribute to differing laser operating conditions.

Significance. If the method is accepted, it provides a hardware-free calibration route for SLMs in multi-PEF microscopes, directly in operating conditions, and it explicitly addresses low SNR and photobleaching. The manuscript is unusually complete in data availability: code is on GitHub and raw data on 4TU.ResearchData; the photobleaching correction is derived from a fluorophore-population model in the supplement; the weighted-residual analysis is careful; repeated runs demonstrate high precision. These strengths make the work a useful contribution to the SLM-calibration literature, provided the uniformity and validation concerns are resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2] The assumption that E(g) is uniform over the SLM is load-bearing but untested. The method fits a single complex response per gray value from the interference of two large pixel groups, so any spatial variation of the phase or amplitude response across the SLM—a known effect for LCoS devices (refs. [10,23,24])—will bias the recovered E(g) and also the flat-wavefront photobleaching calibration in Section 2.3. Please add a uniformity test, for example by repeating the calibration with different spatial partitions or with small regions of the SLM, and quantify how much spatial variation would be needed to affect the stated 0.03 rad and 2% precision.
  2. [Section 3 / Fig. 5] The Twyman-Green comparison is not a same-condition accuracy validation: the interferometer measurements were taken in CW mode at 0.14 W while the inline measurements used pulsed mode at 2.6 W, and the 0.4 rad difference is attributed to this difference. This supports consistency of shape but not that the inline method is accurate to 0.03 rad. Please validate against a reference measurement under identical laser settings and SLM temperature, or, if that is impossible, explicitly label the comparison as an environmental-dependence check and provide another accuracy benchmark such as a known phase pattern or a second inline method.
  3. [Section 2.3 / Eq. (6)] The photobleaching-rate fit assumes that all flat-wavefront measurements (g_A=g_B) have the same excitation intensity because a phase-only SLM 'does not significantly modulate the amplitude.' However, the method simultaneously fits an amplitude response |E(g)|, and if |E(g)| varies with gray value, the flat-wavefront points at different gray values have different intensities, biasing P and S_0. Please test this assumption using the fitted |E(g)|, for example by including only flat points with similar fitted |E(g)| and checking the stability of P, or replace the assumption by an explicit intensity correction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The summation symbol renders as '/summationdisplay.' with a stray dot; please fix the LaTeX so the loss function is typeset correctly.
  2. [Reference [1]] Reference [1] lists affiliations as if they were author names ('Department of Precision Instruments, Tsinghua University...' and 'School of Physics, University of the Witwatersrand'); reformat the reference to separate authors and affiliations.
  3. [Section 2.4 / Fig. 5] The model has a global phase and scale gauge invariance (E(g) -> λE(g), a -> a/λ, b -> b/λ), so the absolute phase of E(g) is arbitrary; state how the curves in Fig. 5(a) were aligned (for example, by removing a constant phase offset) so the comparison is reproducible.
  4. [Sections 1 and 3] The spelling 'Twymann-Green' should be 'Twyman-Green' for consistency with the literature and with Ref. [16].
  5. [Section 2.4] Please specify the initialization distribution for the random complex E(g) (for example, uniform phase with unit amplitude) and state whether multiple random starts were used to assess convergence of the AMSGrad fit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the response E(g) is the fitted target, benchmarked against an independent Twyman-Green interferometer; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The target quantity E(g) is estimated by weighted least-squares minimization of the loss (Eq. 1) against the measured multi-PEF signal, using the forward model S(t)=eta(t)|aE(g_A)+bE(g_B)|^{2N}+S_bg (Eq. 8). E(g) is the fitted quantity, not an input derived from itself, so no prediction is being claimed from a quantity that was defined in terms of it. The photobleaching factor eta(t) is estimated from the g_A=g_B subset (flat-wavefront measurements, Eq. 6) and then applied as a nuisance correction; although Eq. 5 uses the measured signal integral, this does not define E(g) in terms of itself. The noise model (Eq. 3) and nonlinear order N are also fitted nuisance parameters rather than predictions. The external Twyman-Green interferometer comparison is independent of the inline fit, and the agreement in response shape is genuine supporting evidence. Self-citations (OpenWFS, the prior setup schematic) are used for software and experimental details, not as load-bearing justification. The uniformity assumption E(g) uniform over the SLM is an untested limitation, and the absolute phase and overall amplitude of E(g) are gauge-ambiguous, but these are identifiability and accuracy concerns, not circularity. No circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a power-law signal model, a spatially uniform SLM response, and an empirical photobleaching correction, with several fitted nuisance parameters. These are stated in the text but not independently verified.

free parameters (7)
  • E(g) complex response (256 gray values) = 256 complex values, normalized to mean amplitude 1
    The target response function recovered by fitting Eq. (8). Its identifiability is up to a global complex factor.
  • a, b (complex transmission coefficients) = two complex numbers
    Coupling from each SLM group to the focus; fitted together with E(g).
  • S_bg (background signal) = scalar (not specified)
    Background offset in Eq. (8), fitted to data.
  • N (nonlinear order) = near 2, slightly lower
    Power-law exponent in Eq. (8); expected 2 for ideal 2PEF but fitted.
  • S0 (unbleached peak signal) = scalar
    Prefactor in Eq. (6), fit to flat-wavefront points.
  • P (photobleaching rate) = scalar
    Rate in Eq. (5), fit to flat-wavefront points.
  • Noise model coefficients (sigma_r^2, c_s, c_t) = sigma_r^2=0.27, c_s=0.52, c_t=0.35
    Fit to image variance vs mean (Eq. 3); used for weighting only.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SLM field response E(g) is uniform across the SLM
    Section 2: 'We assume that the response E(g) is uniform over the SLM'. If false, the two-group model averages spatial variations.
  • domain assumption SLM is conjugated to the back pupil of the objective
    Section 2 and Fig. 1; needed for the interference model in the focus.
  • domain assumption Two-photon signal is modeled as S = eta(t) |a E_A + b E_B|^(2N) + S_bg
    Eq. (8); an approximation for multi-PEF signals (refs 36-39).
  • domain assumption Photobleaching efficiency factor eta(t) = exp(-P ∫ S dt)
    Eq. (5), derived in the supplement from a Gamma distribution of bleaching rates with alpha=1, beta=N; empirical.
  • domain assumption Phase-only SLM has negligible amplitude modulation for flat-wavefront points
    Section 2.3: 'We assume that the phase-only SLM does not significantly modulate the amplitude'; used to fit S0 and P.
  • domain assumption Noise variance is the sum of read noise and shot noise
    Eq. (3), standard detector model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inline calibration of spatial light modulators in nonlinear microscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DBKPMCG4

@misc{pith2026250522482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inline calibration of spatial light modulators in nonlinear microscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DBKPMCG4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22482}
}
read the original abstract

We present a method for calibrating the response of a phase-only spatial light modulator in nonlinear microscopy. Our method uses the microscope image itself as calibration measurement and requires no additional hardware components. Our method is adapted to the nonlinear signals encountered in multi-photon excitation fluorescence microscopes, and works well even under low light conditions and with strong photobleaching.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22482 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Principle of our measurement. SLM: Spatial Light Modulator. OBJ: Objective. The light reflects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Image variance 𝜎 2 img(𝑡) vs. image mean 𝑆(𝑡) for all images in the measurement sequence. Blue plusses: measurements. Black dashed curve: fitted variance model (Eq. (3)). Red dotted curve: estimated contribution of noise to the total variance. To estimate the relative contributions for the read noise and the shot noise, we consider the pixel-to-pixel variance 𝜎 2 img(𝑡) of each of the small images recorded in the ex… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Solid blue line: all measured signals plotted over time (measurement index). The signal varies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Signal for various combinations of gray values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The error bars indicate standard deviation over the 10 results for each gray value. The error bars of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the experimental setup. M: mirror, BE: beam expander, GM: galvo mirror, L: lenses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A review of liquid crystal spatial light modulators: Devices and applications

    Yiqian Yang, Andrew Forbes, Liangcai Cao, Department of Precision Instruments, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China , and School of Physics, University of the Witwatersrand, Wits, South Africa . A review of liquid crystal spatial light modulators: Devices and applications. Opto-Electronic Science , 2(8):230026--230026, 2023. http://www.oejournal.org...

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Maurer, A

    C. Maurer, A. Jesacher, S. Bernet, and M. Ritsch-Marte . What spatial light modulators can do for optical microscopy. Laser & Photonics Reviews , 5(1):81--101, 2011. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/lpor.200900047

    doi:10.1002/lpor.200900047 2011

  3. [3]

    Wavefront Shaping for Biomedical Imaging

    Joel Kubby, Sylvain Gigan, and Meng Cui. Wavefront Shaping for Biomedical Imaging . Cambridge University Press, June 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Cox, Valeria Rodr \'i guez-Fajardo , and Andrew Forbes

    Jonathan Pinnell, Isaac Nape, Bereneice Sephton, Mitchell A. Cox, Valeria Rodr \'i guez-Fajardo , and Andrew Forbes. Modal analysis of structured light with spatial light modulators: A practical tutorial. JOSA A , 37(11):C146--C160, November 2020. https://opg.optica.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-37-11-C146

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Applications of Spatial Light Modulators in Raman Spectroscopy

    Faris Sinjab, Zhiyu Liao, and Ioan Notingher. Applications of Spatial Light Modulators in Raman Spectroscopy . Applied Spectroscopy , 73(7):727--746, July 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003702819834575

    work page doi:10.1177/0003702819834575 2019

  6. [6]

    Advanced optical trapping by complex beam shaping

    Mike Woerdemann, Christina Alpmann, Michael Esseling, and Cornelia Denz. Advanced optical trapping by complex beam shaping. Laser & Photonics Reviews , 7(6):839--854, 2013. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/lpor.201200058

    work page doi:10.1002/lpor.201200058 2013

  7. [7]

    Ooi, and Mohamed-Slim Alouini

    Abderrahmen Trichili, Ki-Hong Park, Mourad Zghal, Boon S. Ooi, and Mohamed-Slim Alouini. Communicating Using Spatial Mode Multiplexing : Potentials , Challenges , and Perspectives . IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , 21(4):3175--3203, 2019. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8710274

    work page arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Focusing and compression of ultrashort pulses through scattering media

    Ori Katz, Eran Small, Yaron Bromberg, and Yaron Silberberg. Focusing and compression of ultrashort pulses through scattering media. Nature Photonics , 5(6):372--377, June 2011. https://www.nature.com/articles/nphoton.2011.72

    work page 2011

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Germain, and Meng Cui

    Jianyong Tang, Ronald N. Germain, and Meng Cui. Superpenetration optical microscopy by iterative multiphoton adaptive compensation technique. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 109(22):8434--8439, May 2012. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1119590109

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    Progress in Phase Calibration for Liquid Crystal Spatial Light Modulators

    Rujia Li and Liangcai Cao. Progress in Phase Calibration for Liquid Crystal Spatial Light Modulators . Applied Sciences , 9(10):2012, January 2019. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/10/2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    High- Precision Calibration of Phase-Only Spatial Light Modulators

    Yicheng Zhao, Wenxiang Yan, Yuan Gao, Zheng Yuan, Zhi-Cheng Ren, Xi-Lin Wang, Jianping Ding, and Hui-Tian Wang. High- Precision Calibration of Phase-Only Spatial Light Modulators . IEEE Photonics Journal , 14(1):1--8, February 2022. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9623471

    2022

  4. [12]

    Xiaodong Xun and Robert W. Cohn. Phase calibration of spatially nonuniform spatial light modulators. Applied Optics , 43(35):6400--6406, December 2004. https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-43-35-6400

    2004

  5. [13]

    Evaluation of phase-only liquid crystal spatial light modulator for phase modulation performance using a Twyman -- Green interferometer

    Hongxin Zhang, Jian Zhang, and Liying Wu. Evaluation of phase-only liquid crystal spatial light modulator for phase modulation performance using a Twyman -- Green interferometer. Measurement Science and Technology , 18(6):1724, May 2007. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/18/6/S09

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    Polarization phase shifting interferometric technique for phase calibration of a reflective phase spatial light modulator

    Somparna Mukhopadhyay, Sanjukta Sarkar, Kallol Bhattacharya, and Lakshminarayan Hazra. Polarization phase shifting interferometric technique for phase calibration of a reflective phase spatial light modulator. Optical Engineering , 52(3):035602, March 2013. https://www.spiedig...

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    A compensation method for the full phase retardance nonuniformity in phase-only liquid crystal on silicon spatial light modulators

    Long Teng, Mike Pivnenko, Brian Robertson, Rong Zhang, and Daping Chu. A compensation method for the full phase retardance nonuniformity in phase-only liquid crystal on silicon spatial light modulators. Optics Express , 22(21):26392--26402, October 2014. https://opg.optica.org...

    2014

  8. [16]

    Yuanyuan Dai, Jacopo Antonello, and Martin J. Booth. Calibration of a phase-only spatial light modulator for both phase and retardance modulation. Optics Express , 27(13):17912--17926, June 2019. https://opg.optica.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-27-13-17912

    2019

  9. [17]

    Simple and fast calibration method for phase-only spatial light modulators

    Minchol Lee, Donghoon Koo, and Jeongmin Kim. Simple and fast calibration method for phase-only spatial light modulators. Optics Letters , 48(1):5--8, January 2023. https://opg.optica.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-48-1-5

    2023

  10. [18]

    Improved method to fully compensate the spatial phase nonuniformity of LCoS devices with a Fizeau interferometer

    Qiang Lu, Lei Sheng, Fei Zeng, Shijie Gao, and Yanfeng Qiao. Improved method to fully compensate the spatial phase nonuniformity of LCoS devices with a Fizeau interferometer. Applied Optics , 55(28):7796--7802, October 2016. https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-55-28-7796

    2016

  11. [19]

    Zheng Zhang, Guowen Lu, and Francis T. S. Yu. Simple method for measuring phase modulation in liquid crystal televisions. Optical Engineering , 33(9):3018--3022, September 1994. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/optical-engineering/volume-33/issue-9/0000/Simple-metho...

    1994 doi

  12. [20]

    Arsenault, and Michel Doucet

    Alain Bergeron, Jonny Gauvin, Fran c ois Gagnon, Denis Gingras, Henri H. Arsenault, and Michel Doucet. Phase calibration and applications of a liquid-crystal spatial light modulator. Applied Optics , 34(23):5133--5139, August 1995. https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao...

    1995

  13. [21]

    Alfonso Serrano-Heredia , Guowen Lu, Purwadi Purwosumarto, and Francis T. S. Yu. Measurement of the phase modulation in liquid crystal television based on the fractional- Talbot effect. Optical Engineering , 35(9):2680--2684, September 1996. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/...

    1996 doi

  14. [22]

    Crossland, and Daping Chu

    Zichen Zhang, Haining Yang, Brian Robertson, Maura Redmond, Mike Pivnenko, Neil Collings, William A. Crossland, and Daping Chu. Diffraction based phase compensation method for phase-only liquid crystal on silicon devices in operation. Applied Optics , 51(17):3837--3846, June 2...

    2012

  15. [23]

    o m, Martin Persson, J \

    David Engstr \"o m, Martin Persson, J \"o rgen Bengtsson, and Mattias Goks \"o r. Calibration of spatial light modulators suffering from spatially varying phase response. Optics Express , 21(13):16086--16103, July 2013. https://opg.optica.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-21-13-16086

    2013

  16. [24]

    Spatially resolved phase-response calibration of liquid-crystal-based spatial light modulators

    Stephan Reichelt. Spatially resolved phase-response calibration of liquid-crystal-based spatial light modulators. Applied Optics , 52(12):2610--2618, April 2013. https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-52-12-2610

    2013

  17. [25]

    Fern \'a ndez, Pedro M

    Jos \'e Luis Mart \'i nez Fuentes, Enrique J. Fern \'a ndez, Pedro M. Prieto, and Pablo Artal. Interferometric method for phase calibration in liquid crystal spatial light modulators using a self-generated diffraction-grating. Optics Express , 24(13):14159--14171, June 2016. h...

    2016

  18. [26]

    An interferometric method for local phase modulation calibration of LC-SLM using self-generated phase grating

    Zixin Zhao, Zhaoxian Xiao, Yiying Zhuang, Hangying Zhang, and Hong Zhao. An interferometric method for local phase modulation calibration of LC-SLM using self-generated phase grating. Review of Scientific Instruments , 89(8):083116, August 2018. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5031938

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Self-referenced multiple-beam interferometric method for robust phase calibration of spatial light modulator

    Yunhui Gao, Rujia Li, and Liangcai Cao. Self-referenced multiple-beam interferometric method for robust phase calibration of spatial light modulator. Optics Express , 27(23):34463--34471, November 2019. https://opg.optica.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-27-23-34463

    2019

  20. [28]

    Remulla and Nathaniel Hermosa

    Katherine Isabel T. Remulla and Nathaniel Hermosa. Spatial light modulator phase calibration based on spatial mode projection. Applied Optics , 58(21):5624--5630, July 2019. https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-58-21-5624

    2019

  21. [29]

    Two- Shot Calibration Method for Phase-Only Spatial Light Modulators with Generalized Spatial Differentiator

    Junyi Huang, Tengfeng Zhu, and Zhichao Ruan. Two- Shot Calibration Method for Phase-Only Spatial Light Modulators with Generalized Spatial Differentiator . Physical Review Applied , 14(5):054040, November 2020. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.054040

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Absolutely interferometric calibration of phase liquid crystal spatial light modulators using honeycomb gratings composited with Billet-split Fresnel zone plates

    Chi Wang, Jian Shan, and Junyong Zhang. Absolutely interferometric calibration of phase liquid crystal spatial light modulators using honeycomb gratings composited with Billet-split Fresnel zone plates. Applied Optics , 63(4):1105--1109, February 2024. https://opg.optica.org/a...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Calibration of liquid crystal spatial light modulators by using the double-phase method

    Luis Ord \'o \ n ez, Erick Ipus, and Omel Mendoza-Yero . Calibration of liquid crystal spatial light modulators by using the double-phase method. Applied Optics , 63(36):9232, December 2024. https://opg.optica.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-63-36-9232

    2024

  24. [32]

    Data Fitting and Uncertainty: A Practical Introduction to Weighted Least Squares and Beyond

    Tilo Strutz. Data Fitting and Uncertainty: A Practical Introduction to Weighted Least Squares and Beyond . Vieweg + Teubner, Wiesbaden, 1. aufl edition, 2011

    2011

  25. [33]

    Janesick

    James R. Janesick. Photon Transfer: DN -- > [Lambda] . Number PM170 in SPIE Press Monograph. SPIE, Bellingham, Wash. < 1000 20th St. Bellingham WA 98225-6705 USA > , 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Martin McClain

    W. Martin McClain. Two-photon molecular spectroscopy. Accounts of Chemical Research , 7(5):129--135, May 1974. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar50077a001

    1974 doi

  27. [35]

    Reddi, Satyen Kale, and Sanjiv Kumar

    Sashank J. Reddi, Satyen Kale, and Sanjiv Kumar. On the Convergence of Adam and Beyond . In International Conference on Learning Representations , February 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Lakowicz

    Joseph R. Lakowicz. Nonlinear and Two-Photon-Induced Fluorescence . Number Volume 5 in Topics in Fluorescence Spectroscopy . Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 2002

    2002

  29. [37]

    Horton, Ke Wang, Shean-Jen Chen, and Chris Xu

    Li-Chung Cheng, Nicholas G. Horton, Ke Wang, Shean-Jen Chen, and Chris Xu. Measurements of multiphoton action cross sections for multiphoton microscopy. Biomedical Optics Express , 5(10):3427--3433, October 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Paudel, Dimitre G

    David Sinefeld, Hari P. Paudel, Dimitre G. Ouzounov, Thomas G. Bifano, and Chris Xu. Adaptive optics in multiphoton microscopy: Comparison of two, three and four photon fluorescence. Optics Express , 23(24):31472--31483, November 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...

    2015

  31. [39]

    Noninvasive nonlinear focusing and imaging through strongly scattering turbid layers

    Ori Katz, Eran Small, Yefeng Guan, and Yaron Silberberg. Noninvasive nonlinear focusing and imaging through strongly scattering turbid layers. Optica , 1(3):170--174, September 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    Complex Quadratic Optimization and Semidefinite Programming

    Shuzhong Zhang and Yongwei Huang. Complex Quadratic Optimization and Semidefinite Programming . SIAM Journal on Optimization , 16(3):871--890, January 2006. https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/04061341X

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    Sidiropoulos, Xiao Fu, and Ananthram Swami

    John Tranter, Nicholas D. Sidiropoulos, Xiao Fu, and Ananthram Swami. Fast Unit-Modulus Least Squares With Applications in Beamforming . IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , 65(11):2875--2887, June 2017. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7849224/

    2017

  34. [42]

    OpenWFS on Github - A framework for conducting and simulating wavefront shaping experiments in Python , July 2023

    Ivo M Vellekoop. OpenWFS on Github - A framework for conducting and simulating wavefront shaping experiments in Python , July 2023. https://github.com/IvoVellekoop/openwfs. For this manuscript version 1.0.0 was used

    2023

  35. [43]

    OpenWFS ---a library for conducting and simulating wavefront shaping experiments

    Jeroen H Doornbos, Dani \"e l W S Cox, Tom Knop, Harish Sasikumar, and Ivo M Vellekoop. OpenWFS ---a library for conducting and simulating wavefront shaping experiments. Journal of Physics: Photonics , 7(1):015016, January 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Inline SLM Calibration - Self-referencing Phase-Response Calibration Method Using Non-Linear Feedback

    Daniel W S Cox and Ivo M Vellekoop. Inline SLM Calibration - Self-referencing Phase-Response Calibration Method Using Non-Linear Feedback . https://github.com/dedean16/inline_slm_calibration, February 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Dani \"e l Cox, Harish Sasikumar, and I. M. (Ivo) Vellekoop. Raw measurement data of SLM calibration: Inline calibration of spatial light modulators in nonlinear microscopy. https://data.4tu.nl/datasets/e06926cc-5f6e-4fc0-8170-16d71d5b1c1e, March 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    Dani \"e l W. S. Cox and Ivo M. Vellekoop. Orthonormalization of phase-only basis functions. Optics Express , 33(2):2427--2436, January 2025. https://opg.optica.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-33-2-2427

    2025

  39. [47]

    Koester, Dagmar Baur, Rainer Uhl, and Stefan W

    Helmut J. Koester, Dagmar Baur, Rainer Uhl, and Stefan W. Hell. Ca2+ Fluorescence Imaging with Pico- and Femtosecond Two-Photon Excitation : Signal and Photodamage . Biophysical Journal , 77(4):2226--2236, October 1999. https://www.cell.com/biophysj/abstract/S0006-3495(99)77063-3

    1999

  40. [48]

    Patterson and David W

    George H. Patterson and David W. Piston. Photobleaching in Two-Photon Excitation Microscopy . Biophysical Journal , 78(4):2159--2162, April 2000

    2000

  41. [49]

    Highly Nonlinear Photodamage in Two-Photon Fluorescence Microscopy

    Alexander Hopt and Erwin Neher. Highly Nonlinear Photodamage in Two-Photon Fluorescence Microscopy . Biophysical Journal , 80(4):2029--2036, April 2001. https://www.cell.com/biophysj/abstract/S0006-3495(01)76173-5

    2001

  42. [50]

    Cranfill, Brittney R

    Paula J. Cranfill, Brittney R. Sell, Michelle A. Baird, John R. Allen, Zeno Lavagnino, H. Martijn de Gruiter , Gert-Jan Kremers, Michael W. Davidson, Alessandro Ustione, and David W. Piston. Quantitative assessment of fluorescent proteins. Nature Methods , 13(7):557--562, July 2016

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.