Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Picometre-scale real-time drift correction in TEM and STEM by dynamic control of the specimen stage for atomic-resolution imaging

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A real-time feedback loop that moves the specimen stage cancels drift in electron microscopes and holds atomic-resolution images steady for minutes at a time.

desk verdict The picometre headline is not quantitatively nailed down, but the on/off control experiments show the method genuinely works and will be useful to a large part of the TEM/STEM community. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03344 v1 pith:TDJWAS34 submitted 2026-08-04 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-phphysics.ins-det

Christophe Gatel , Julien Dupuy , Teresa Hungria , Martin J. Hytch This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-phphysics.ins-det
keywords TEMSTEMdriftcorrectionreal-timefeedbackcontrolspecimenstabilizationpiezoelectricstageatomic-resolutionimaginginsitumicroscopy
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

This paper seeks to establish that specimen drift in transmission and scanning transmission electron microscopy can be removed at the source by feeding detector images back to the specimen stage in real time, instead of fixing drifted image series afterwards. The authors' dynamic control framework is claimed to hold a specimen still enough for atomic-resolution imaging: in a 540-second HAADF-STEM series with feedback active, residual drift averaged about 0.4 pixel (7 pm) with a standard deviation near 1 pixel (17 pm), while the same stage without feedback drifted about 35 pixels (0.6 nm) before reactivation. If true, this removes the need for large frame stacks and numerical alignment, preserves the field of view, suppresses scan distortions, and keeps optical conditions unchanged during long exposures and in situ experiments. The framework is implemented as a software plugin that reads the existing detector data stream and microscope control interface, requiring no hardware modification.

What carries the argument

The central object is the feedback unit: a sensor extracts a process variable from each detector frame, here specimen displacement measured by cross-correlating the latest frame with a reference frame, and a controller converts the measured error into stage motion. The conversion is encoded in a calibration matrix $\mathbf{C}_{\mathrm{stage}} = M\,\mathbf{R}_M\,\mathbf{P}_{\mathrm{stage}}$, mapping minimum digital stage steps to image displacements; the controller applies $-\mathbf{C}_{\mathrm{stage}}^{-1}(\Delta x,\Delta y)^T$ to the stage, whose finite minimum-step size bounds the residual correction. A parallel calibration unit automates round-trip measurements that fill this matrix. The

What would settle it

Record a stabilized 540 s HAADF-STEM series and track a second, physically stable fiducial that the feedback loop does not use (for example a stationary nanoparticle edge at the frame edge). If that independent fiducial's residual displacement exceeds the claimed roughly 17 pm scatter while the feedback reference reports a 7 pm mean, the picometre claim is an artefact of the chosen reference. Conversely, heating a specimen until its moiré contrast reorients while watching the stage commands follow the contrast change rather than a stable lattice position would falsify the rigid-translation sen

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that active control of the specimen stage can compensate drift during acquisition with picometre-scale precision, making the microscope hold the specimen still rather than correcting the images later. The paper demonstrates this on several microscopes with both mechanical and piezoelectric stages. Its key quantitative result is a 270-frame HAADF-STEM acquisition over 540 s: with feedback active, post-registration residual drift had a mean near 7 pm and a standard deviation near 17 pm; with feedback off, cumulative drift reached about 0.6 nm before the loop was reactivated and the position stabilized again. The paper also shows an in situ heating HR-TEM experiment in whic

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the latest image frame differs from the reference frame only by a rigid in-plane translation, that the tracked feature keeps its contrast during the whole acquisition, and that the pre-measured stage calibration stays valid at the working position; if any of these slip, the measured quantity is no longer true specimen position.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long-exposure TEM and STEM images can be built by summing frames in real time, without storing or numerically registering large image stacks.
  • In situ experiments can keep the same field of view and identical optical conditions across temperature ramps, allowing atomic-scale changes to be followed without manual tracking.
  • Scan distortions and slow-scan artefacts are suppressed because fast frames are averaged while the specimen is held still.
  • Because drift correction is mechanical rather than numerical, images avoid the sub-pixel interpolation that broadens atomic peaks and distorts counting statistics.
  • Drift measured on one detector stream (e.g. HAADF) can stabilize simultaneous lower-contrast acquisitions such as ABF, and the same architecture is compatible with EELS, EDS, 4D-STEM and ptychographic detectors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported residual is measured with the same type of post-processing registration that the feedback loop is meant to replace; an independent fiducial not used by the controller would separate true stage error from sensor-registration error at the 7-17 pm level.
  • The rigid-translation sensor assumption implies that in situ experiments should monitor whether the tracked feature's contrast is changing, since the paper's own heating data shows crystallographic reorientations and moiré contrast variations; refreshing the reference when contrast changes would extend picometre stability to reacting specimens.
  • The same feedback core could regulate other slowly varying microscope variables, such as defocus from z-drift or spectroscopic energy shifts, by swapping the cross-correlation sensor while leaving the calibration-and-control machinery untouched.
  • Because the paper shows that a mechanical stage's axis orientation varies with stage position, automated recalibration on position or magnification changes would likely be needed before the method performs as well on less ideal stages as it does on the calibrated piezoelectric ones.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper describes 'dynamic control', a software-based real-time feedback framework for (S)TEM that continuously measures specimen drift from the detector data stream and compensates it by moving the specimen stage. The framework includes automated stage calibration, a proportional/PID controller, and a cross-correlation sensor with sub-pixel estimation. It is implemented as a DigitalMicrograph plugin and demonstrated on a Hitachi HF3300 with a mechanical stage and on three JEOL piezo-stage instruments. Results are presented for long-exposure Lorentz TEM of a Ni nanowire, in situ heating HR-TEM of Ag nanoparticles, quantitative HAADF-STEM series with feedback on/off/on, and simultaneous HAADF/ABF acquisition. The central claim, stated in the abstract, is that with piezoelectric stages 'specimen stabilization down to the picometre scale was achieved', enabling drift-corrected atomic-resolution imaging without numerical alignment.

Significance. If the quantitative claim is established, this is a valuable contribution: it offers a generic, hardware-agnostic route to active stabilization that preserves the field of view and the optical alignment, and it removes the need for post-acquisition registration in long-duration atomic-resolution experiments. The paper has clear strengths: the feedback on/off/on control in §4b is a clean demonstration of cause and effect; the comparison with post-processing registration (Fig. 6) is direct; and the implementation across multiple microscopes and modes shows generality. The supplementary raw frames and videos are an asset. However, the headline picometre-scale claim rests on residual drift values that are self-measured and are explicitly admitted to include the unquantified uncertainty of the post-processing registration software. Without a calibration of that measurement noise floor, the quantitative conclusion is not supported. The in situ heating experiment also threatens the sensor's core assumption that reference features remain unchanged. The central idea is sound and the experimental demonstrations are compelling qualitatively, but the quantitative claim needs additional control

major comments (3)
  1. [§4b, Fig. 5b] The key quantitative evidence for picometre-scale stabilization is the residual drift of mean ≈0.4 pixel (7 pm) and standard deviation ≈1 pixel (17 pm). The text immediately states that this residual 'originates from both the accuracy of the feedback loop and the measurement uncertainty associated to the post-processing image registration software.' No characterization of the registration software's error is given. If that software has a bias or noise of the same order on this image series, the measured residual is indistinguishable from pure measurement noise, and the actual stage stabilization could be better or worse. A null test on a stationary specimen or a known-displacement recovery test is needed to separate the feedback performance from the measurement floor. Without this, the abstract's claim of 'specimen stabilization down to the picometre scale' is not quantitatively establis
  2. [§2a and §4a] The sensor assumes that 'the image features used for this comparison must of course remain unchanged between the two frames.' Section 4a reports that during the in situ heating experiment, crystallographic reorientations and moiré contrast variations occur as the temperature rises. The reference frame content therefore changes during the acquisition. Cross-correlation can track evolving contrast rather than rigid specimen displacement, so the 7–17 pm residual numbers measured in the static STEM series of §4b do not automatically transfer to the in situ atomic-resolution claim. The authors should either demonstrate that the sensor remains accurate on this evolving specimen (e.g., by comparing against a known stationary feature or by updating the reference appropriately) or explicitly limit the in situ claim to field-of-view preservation rather than picometre-level positioning.
  3. [§3a and §3c] Calibration constancy is load-bearing for the control law in Eq. (6), which uses a fixed matrix C_stage. Section 3a shows that for the mechanical stage, the axis orientation varies strongly with stage position (Fig. 2b). For the piezo stages, the paper states that calibration matrices were established for three microscopes and that calibrations can be reused if experimental conditions remain unchanged, but no position- or temperature-dependence check is reported for the piezo stages. If the stage response changes with position, temperature, or over time, the reused calibration would introduce a systematic bias in the compensation. A concise experiment demonstrating calibration stability across the relevant stage travel and temperature range would strengthen the central claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2b] The text says 'Eqs. (2) and (3) can be combined' but the relevant equations are numbered (3) and (4). Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [§2c] In the definition of the calibration coefficients, '𝑐𝑥,𝑌 et 𝑐𝑥,𝑌' should read '𝑐𝑥,𝑌 et 𝑐𝑦,𝑌'.
  3. [§4b] The text 'reaching approximately 35 pixels (0.6) nm' has an awkward parenthesis; should be '0.6 nm'.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] Typo: 'alignement' should be 'alignment'.
  5. [§4] The paragraph beginning 'The combination of dynamic control with multi-detector acquisition is not restricted...' appears twice, with slightly different wording. Please remove the duplicate.
  6. [§4b] The phrase 'see Supplementary date' should be 'see Supplementary data'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the drift-correction demonstration is an experimental A/B comparison, not a derivation from fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that real-time stage-based feedback stabilizes the specimen during TEM/STEM acquisition. The load-bearing evidence is an experimental comparison under identical conditions: with feedback deactivated, the specimen drifts by about 35 pixels (0.6 nm) over 90 frames, while with feedback active the residual drift is about 0.4 ± 1 pixel (7 ± 17 pm). This comparison does not reduce by construction to the fitted calibration matrix. The calibration coefficients in Eq. (8) are fit parameters used by the controller, but they are not renamed as predictions; the residual drift is measured post hoc by independent registration software, and the paper explicitly states that the residual includes the measurement uncertainty of that registration software. That is an uncertainty/validation caveat, not circular reasoning. The framework's feedback architecture is attributed to prior external work (Tejada et al., refs [24,25]), and previous demonstrations by the same group ([27,28]) are cited as background, not as the sole justification for the present quantitative results. No uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the choice of approach, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The in situ heating and multi-detector experiments are demonstrations rather than predictions derived from the model. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that the claimed stabilization is supported by a direct feedback-on/feedback-off experiment, so no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything the central claim rests on: a measured calibration matrix per microscope and magnification, unspecified controller gains and filter parameters, and a set of domain assumptions (pure in-plane translation, contrast-stable reference features, constant calibration, drift slower than the loop). The paper is explicit about several of these, which keeps the ledger informative rather than damning, but each uncharacterized term weakens the quantitative edge of the claim. The 'dynamic control' is a software feedback framework assembled from standard components and introduces no new physical entity, force, conserved quantity, dimension, or ledger item.

free parameters (4)
  • Stage calibration matrix C_stage per microscope and magnification = mechanical: sX = 0.12 +/- 0.01 nm, sY = 0.24 +/- 0.01 nm; piezo: sX = 15 +/- 1 pm, sY = 5 +/- 1 pm
    Measured by the automated round-trip calibration (Eqs. 8-9). The controller output equals C_stage^-1 times the measured drift, so all stabilization accuracy is bounded by this fitted matrix, and it is refitted per microscope and magnification.
  • Controller gains (proportional; PID variant allowed) = not reported
    Section 1a says gains must be calibrated and that proportional control suffices; no gain values are given, so loop dynamics for a given instrument cannot be reproduced or stability margins checked.
  • Digital filter settings for contrast enhancement = not reported
    Section 2a describes filters as 'easily adjustable' and essential for low-dose short-frame operation, but no kernels, thresholds, or parameter values are reported.
  • Sub-pixel correlation peak estimation method = not reported
    Section 2a mentions centre-of-mass, polynomial, and Gaussian fits as 'standard approaches' without stating which was used or its achieved precision at the working frame time and dose.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Specimen drift is a pure in-plane rigid translation that preserves image content between frames
    Invoked in Section 2a (the sensor compares the latest frame with a reference) and Section 3b ('only compensates specimen drift within the image plane'). Out-of-plane drift and focus changes are excluded, and Section 4a shows image content itself changes during heating.
  • domain assumption The calibration matrix C_stage measured before the experiment remains valid during the experiment
    Section 2c says calibration matrices can be reused 'if the experimental conditions remain unchanged', yet Section 3a documents that the mechanical stage's axis orientation varies strongly with stage position; no equivalent stability test is reported for piezoelectric stages, including under the temperature ramp.
  • standard math Cross-correlation peak position is an unbiased, sub-pixel-accurate estimator of specimen translation
    Section 2a. Standard signal-processing claim, but its validity at the short frame times, low doses, and evolving in situ contrast used here is not characterized with error bars.
  • standard math A proportional (or PID) controller with calibrated gain stabilizes the locally linear, low-inertia stage plant
    Section 1a and 1c, including the stated loop-period condition t_loop >= t_frame + t_compute + t_response. Standard control theory; the oscillation-failure modes are acknowledged by the authors.
  • standard math Stabilization error is bounded by half the minimum digital stage step plus sensor and calibration uncertainty
    Section 2b quantization argument (compensation error bounded by half the minimum step per axis). Mechanically sound but the sensor and calibration terms dominate in practice and are not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Picometre-scale real-time drift correction in TEM and STEM by dynamic control of the specimen stage for atomic-resolution imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDJWAS34

@misc{pith2026260803344,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Picometre-scale real-time drift correction in TEM and STEM by dynamic control of the specimen stage for atomic-resolution imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDJWAS34}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03344}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we show how the specimen drift can be actively compensated by controlling the stage with precision down to the picometre scale. We do this by dynamic control, a generic real-time feedback framework designed to actively stabilize electron microscopy experiments by continuously monitoring an experimental variable from the detector data stream and compensating its evolution during acquisition. The framework, applicable to a broad range of controllable experimental instabilities, includes automated calibration procedures, operates in parallel with image acquisition and is implemented as a software plugin without requiring any hardware modification of the microscope. Results for live drift correction are shown for a selection of TEM and STEM instruments using conventional mechanical stages as well as piezoelectric stages. Experimental results are presented for medium resolution TEM, high-resolution TEM, HR-STEM and in situ observations. With piezoelectric stages, specimen stabilization down to the picometre scale was achieved allowing drift-corrected atomic-resolution imaging. Specimen stage-based stabilization significantly improves long-exposure imaging and in situ experiments by increasing the effective exposure time, preserving the field of view, maintaining identical optical conditions and eliminating the need for numerical alignment of large datasets. Beyond the specific application presented here, dynamic control provides a versatile framework for real-time regulation of electron microscopy experiments and opens new perspectives for quantitative imaging, automated in situ studies and multimodal acquisitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03344 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Architecture of a feedback unit. The sensor extracts the process variable (PV) from the detector data stream and transmits it to the controller, which continuously compares it with the setpoint (SP) and generates the corresponding control output (CO). A synchronization signal (sync) is produced at the end of each iteration to initiate the next loop cycle. (b) Architecture of the calibration unit used to determin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Calibration curves obtained on a specimen stage of the I2TEM microscope (pure mechanical design). (b) Evolution of the orientation of the specimen stage axes as a function of the stage position, revealing the non￾orthogonality and position dependence of the mechanical stage geometry. The mean values of the repeated measurements provide the displacement vectors in the image associated with the minimum displacemen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Long-exposure image (300 s total acquisition time) of a Ni nanowire acquired (a) without specimen drift compensation and (b) with specimen drift compensation. (c) Intensity profiles extracted across the nanowire edge in (a) and (b) along the blue and orange lines, respectively. (d) Specimen drift trajectories measured during the acquisitions. The sensor remained active throughout the experiment in both configuration… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a presents a representative calibration on one of the microscopes. In contrast to the mechanical specimen stage of the I2TEM microscope, the calibration curves are considerably more stable and exhibit significantly smaller displacement amplitudes. The minimum displacem…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Acquisition sequence of 270 high-resolution HAADF-STEM frames (1024 × 1024 pixels) acquired over 540 s at the STO/LSMO interface. The specimen drift compensation was activated during the first and last thirds of the experiment and deactivated during the intermediat…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: c corresponds to a conventional single STEM acquisition performed over 40 s using a dwell time of 38 µs. Enlarged views of the interface are presented for each image. Figures 6a and 6b, displayed using identical contrast levels, exhibit very similar image quality. The …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Intensity profiles extracted from Figures 6a and 6b along the direction indicated by the white arrow in Figure 6a. (b) Illustration of the intensity smoothing induced by sub-pixel interpolation when a numerical drift is applied with non-integer pixel displacement. …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) HAADF-STEM images of a PbZr0.2Ti0.8O3 layer acquired using the dynamic control (120 s) and by conventional STEM acquisition (20 s). (b) Corresponding Fourier transforms highlighting the suppression of scan distortions when the dynamic control is used. (c) Geometric…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simultaneously acquired HAADF and ABF STEM images of an LSMO/BTO/LSMO trilayer obtained by real-time summation of 75 frames acquired over a total acquisition time of 150 s using the dynamic control. Specimen drift was measured exclusively from the HAADF data stream. En…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Haider, S

    M. Haider, S. Uhlemann, E. Schwan, H. Rose, B. Kabius, K. Urban, Electron microscopy image enhanced, Nature 392 (1998) 768–769. https://doi.org/10.1038/33823

    work page doi:10.1038/33823 1998

  2. [2]

    Batson, N

    P.E. Batson, N. Dellby, O.L. Krivanek, Sub -ångstrom resolution using aberration corrected electron optics, Nature 418 (2002) 617–620. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00972

    work page doi:10.1038/nature00972 2002

  3. [3]

    Levin, Direct detectors and their applications in electron microscopy for materials science, J

    B.D.A. Levin, Direct detectors and their applications in electron microscopy for materials science, J. Phys. Mater. 4 (2021) 042005. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7639/ac0ff9

    doi:10.1088/2515-7639/ac0ff9 2021

  4. [4]

    Peters, T

    J.J.P. Peters, T. Mullarkey, E. Hedley, K.H. Müller, A. Porter, A. Mostaed, L. Jones, Electron counting detectors in scanning transmission electron microscopy via hardware signal processing, Nat. Commun. 14 (2023) 5184. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40875-w

    doi:10.1038/s41467-023-40875-w 2023

  5. [5]

    Gubbens, M

    A. Gubbens, M. Barfels, C. Trevor, R. Twesten, P. Mooney, P. Thomas, N. Menon, B. Kraus, C. Mao, B. McGinn, The GIF Quantum, a next generation post-column imaging energy filter, Ultramicroscopy 110 (2010) 962–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2010.01.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2010.01.009 2010

  6. [6]

    Schlossmacher, D

    P. Schlossmacher, D. Klenov, B. Freitag, H. von Harrach, Enhanced Detection Sensitivity with a New Windowless XEDS System for AEM Based on Silicon Dr ift Detector Technology, Microsc. Today 18 (2010) 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1551929510000404

    work page doi:10.1017/s1551929510000404 2010

  7. [7]

    Uhlemann, M

    S. Uhlemann, M. Haider, Residual wave aberrations in the first spherical aberration corrected transmission electron microscope, Ultramicroscopy 72 (1998) 109 –119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3991(97)00102-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0304-3991(97)00102-2 1998

  8. [8]

    Midgley, M

    P.A. Midgley, M. Weyland, 3D electron microscopy in the physical sciences: the development of Z -contrast and EFTEM tomography, Ultramicroscopy 96 (2003) 413 –431. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3991(03)00105-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0304-3991(03)00105-0 2003

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Midgley, R.E

    P.A. Midgley, R.E. Dunin -Borkowski, Electron tomography and holography in materials science, Nat. Mater. 8 (2009) 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat2406

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    U. Kolb, T. Gorelik, C. Kübel, M.T. Otten, D. Huber t, Towards automated diffraction tomography: Part I —Data acquisition, Ultramicroscopy 107 (2007) 507 –513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2006.10.007

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    Van Aert, K.J

    S. Van Aert, K.J. Batenburg, M.D. Rossell, R. Erni, G. Van Tendeloo, Three -dimensional atomic ima ging of crystalline nanoparticles, Nature 470 (2011) 374 –377. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09741

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    Wolf, L.A

    D. Wolf, L.A. Rodriguez, A. Béché, E. Javon, L. Serrano, C. Magen, C. Gatel, A. Lubk, H. Lichte, S. Bals, G. Van Tendeloo, A. Fernández -Pacheco, J.M. De Teresa, E. Snoeck, 3D Magnetic Induction Maps of Nanoscale Materials Revealed by Electron Holographic Tomography, Chem. Mat...

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Nogales, The development of cryo-EM into a mainstream structural biology technique, Nat

    E. Nogales, The development of cryo-EM into a mainstream structural biology technique, Nat. Methods 13 (2016) 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3694

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Ophus, Four-Dimensional Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy (4D-STEM): From Scanning Nanodiffraction to Ptychography and Beyond, Microsc

    C. Ophus, Four-Dimensional Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy (4D-STEM): From Scanning Nanodiffraction to Ptychography and Beyond, Microsc. Microa nal. 25 (2019) 563 –

    2019

  7. [15]

    Z. Chen, M. Odstrcil, Y. Jiang, Y. Han, M.-H. Chiu, L.-J. Li, D.A. Muller, Mixed-state electron ptychography enables sub-angstrom resolution imaging with picometer precision at low dose, Nat. Commun. 11 (2020) 2994. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16688-6

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Phatak, J

    C. Phatak, J. Fullerton, H. Arava, Automated imaging of the annihilation of a transverse domain wall in patterned magnetic thin films, APL Mater. 13 (2025) 081115. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0270455

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    Jones, H

    L. Jones, H. Yang, T.J. Pennycook, M.S.J. Marshall, S. Van Aert, N.D. Browning, M.R. Castell, P.D. Nellist, Smart Align—a new tool for robust non-rigid registration of scanning microscope data, Adv. Struct. Chem. Imaging 1 (2015) 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40679-015-0008-4

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Berkels, P

    B. Berkels, P. Binev, D.A. Blom, W. Dahmen, R.C. Sharpley, T. Vogt, Optimized imaging using non -rigid registration, Ultramicroscopy 138 (2014) 46 –56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2013.11.007. 25

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    Savitzky, I

    B.H. Savitzky, I. El Baggari, C.B. Clement, E. Waite, B.H. Goodge, D.J. Baek, J.P. Sheckelton, C. Pasco, H. Nair, N.J. Schreiber, J. Hoffman, A.S. Admasu, J. Kim, S. -W. Cheong, A. Bhattacharya, D.G. Schlom, T.M. McQueen, R. Hovden, L.F. Kourkoutis, Image registration of low s...

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Berkels, C.H

    B. Berkels, C.H. Liebscher, Joint non -rigid image registration and reconstruction for quantitative atomic resolution scanning transmission electron microscopy, Ultramicroscopy 198 (2019) 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2018.12.016

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Voelkl, D

    E. Voelkl, D. Tang, Approaching routine phase resolution for off -axis type holography, Ultramicroscopy 110 (2010) 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2009.11.017

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    McLeod, M

    R.A. McLeod, M. Bergen, M. Malac, Phase measurement error in summation of electron holography series, Ultramicroscopy 141 (2014) 38 –50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2014.03.001

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Boureau, R

    V. Boureau, R. Mc Leod, B. Mayall, D. Cooper, Off -axis electron holography combining summation of hologram series with double -exposure phase-shifting: Theory and application, Ultramicroscopy 193 (2018) 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2018.06.004

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Tejada, A.J

    A. Tejada, A.J. den Dekker, W. Van den Broek, Introducing measure -by-wire, the systematic use of systems and control theory in transmission electron microscopy, Ultramicroscopy 111 (2011) 1581–1591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2011.08.011

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    Tejada, W

    A. Tejada, W. Van den Broek, A.J. den Dekker, Chapter Five - Measure-by-Wire (MBW): An Automatic Control Framework for High-Throughput Transmission Electron Microscopy, in: P.W. Hawkes (Ed.), Adv. Imaging Electron Phys., Elsevier, 2013: pp. 291 –346. https://doi.org/10.1016/B9...

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    HoloLive (HREM Research Inc.) a plug -in for DigitalMicrosgraph (Gatan Inc.) https://www.hremresearch.com/hololive, (n.d.)

  19. [27]

    Gatel, J

    C. Gatel, J. Dupuy, F. Houdellier, M.J. Hÿtch, Unlimited acquisition time in electron holography by automated feedback control of transmission electron microscope, Appl. Phys. Lett. 113 (2018) 133102. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5050906

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Denneulin, B

    T. Denneulin, B. Zingsem, J. Vas, W. Shi, L. Yang, M. Feuerbacher, R.E. Dunin -Borkowski, Acquisition of object and temperature series in medium resolution off-axis electron holography with live drift correction, Ultramicroscopy 271 (2025) 114119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ult...

    2025

  21. [29]

    Dukes, K

    M.D. Dukes, K. Marusak, Y. Guo, J. McConnell, S. Walden, J. Damiano, D. Nackashi, AXON: An In-situ TEM Software Platform Streamlines Image Acquisition, Metadata Synchronization and Data Analysis, Enabling Deeper Understanding, and Improved Reproducibility of In-situ Experiment...

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Kimoto, T

    K. Kimoto, T. Asaka, X. Yu, T. Nagai, Y. Matsui, K. Ishizuka, Local crystal structure analysis with several picometer precision using scanning transmission electron microscopy, Ultramicroscopy 110 (2010) 778–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2009.11.014

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    Mosse, J.J.P

    M. Mosse, J.J.P. Peters, E. Moynihan, J.A. Gott, A.M. Sanchez, M. Conroy, L. Jones, Predictive drift compensation of multi -frame STEM via live scan modification, Ultramicroscopy 285 (2026) 114416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2026.114416

    2026

  24. [32]

    Minorsky., Directional Stability of Automatically Steered Bodies, J

    N. Minorsky., Directional Stability of Automatically Steered Bodies, J. Am. Soc. Nav. Eng. 34 (1922) 280–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-3584.1922.tb04958.x

    1922

  25. [33]

    Snoeck, F

    E. Snoeck, F. Houdellier, Y. Taniguch, A. Masseboeuf, C. Gatel, J. Nicolai, M. Hytch, Off - Axial Aberration Correction using a B -COR for Lorentz and HREM Modes, Microsc. Microanal. 20 (2014) 932–933. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927614006382

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Andersen, L.A

    I.M. Andersen, L.A. Rodríguez, C. Bran , C. Marcelot, S. Joulie, T. Hungria, M. Vazquez, C. Gatel, E. Snoeck, Exotic Transverse -Vortex Magnetic Configurations in CoNi Nanowires, ACS Nano 14 (2020) 1399–1405. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.9b07448. 26

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    M. Amor, J. Wan, R. Egli, J. Carlut, C. G atel, I.M. Andersen, E. Snoeck, A. Komeili, Key Signatures of Magnetofossils Elucidated by Mutant Magnetotactic Bacteria and Micromagnetic Calculations, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 127 (2022) e2021JB023239. https://doi.org/10.1029/202...

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Gatel, R

    C. Gatel, R. Serra, K. Gruel, A. Masseboeuf, L. Chapuis, R. Cours, L. Zhang, B. Warot - Fonrose, M.J. Hÿtch, Extended Charge Layers in Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Nanocapacitors Revealed by Operando Electron Holography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 137701. https://doi.org/10.1103...

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Brodovoi, K

    M. Brodovoi, K. Gruel, A. Masseboeuf, L. Chapuis, M. Hÿtch, F. Lorut, C. Gatel, Mapping electric fields in real nanodevices by operando electron holography, Appl. Phys. Lett. 120 (2022) 233501. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0092019

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Zhang, F

    L. Zhang, F. Lorut, K. Gruel, M.J. Hÿtch, C. Gatel, Measuring Electrical Resistivity at the Nanoscale in Phase -Change Materials, Nano Lett. 24 (2024) 5913 –5919. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c01462

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Zhang, M.H

    L. Zhang, M.H. Raza, R. Wu, K. Gruel, C. Dubourdieu, M. Hÿtch, C. Gatel, Quantification of Interfacial Charges in Multilayered Nanocapacitors by Operando Electron Holography, Adv. Mater. 37 (2025) 2413691. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202413691

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    Zhang, C

    L. Zhang, C. Gatel, M.H. Raza, K. Gruel, C. Dubourdieu, M. Hÿtch, Mapping electric fields and observation of ferroelectric domain switching in hafnia -zirconia devices by electron holography, Nat. Commun. 16 (2025) 11233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-66807-4

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    Disic, K

    B. Disic, K. Gruel, A. Masseboeuf, L. Zhang, R. Serra, M. Hÿtch, C. Gatel, Leakage -Induced Space-Charge Accumulation and Interfacial Field Redistribution in a Dielectric Nanocapacitor Revealed by Operando Electron Holography, Nano Lett. 26 (2026) 5266 –5274. https://doi.org/1...

    2026 doi

  34. [42]

    Hÿtch, E

    M.J. Hÿtch, E. Snoeck, R. Kilaas, Quantitative measurement of displacement and strain fields from HREM micrographs, Ultramicroscopy 74 (1998) 131 –146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3991(98)00035-7

    1998 doi

  35. [43]

    Inve stissement d'Avenir

    GPA Phase ( HREM Research Inc.) a plug -in for DigitalMicrograph (Gatan Inc.), https://www.hremresearch.com/gpa, (n.d.). Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge funding of the French National Research Agency for the POLARYS project (ANR-23-CE42-0011) and the “Inve stissement ...

  36. [582]

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927619000497

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.