Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Steerable dual-trap optical tweezers with confocal position detection using back-scattered light

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 reports a dual-trap optical tweezers design in which position detection uses confocally detected back-scattered light, with pinholes that keep the two traps' signals independent while both traps are steered.

desk verdict The confocal back-scatter design is a real idea, but the steering-invariant detection claim is invalid as drawn because the steering mirror is not in the detection path; the paper needs major revision but deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16256 v1 pith:5LLXZVGF submitted 2024-11-25 physics.optics cond-mat.softphysics.bio-phphysics.ins-det

Md Arsalan Ashraf , Pramod Pullarkat This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscond-mat.softphysics.bio-phphysics.ins-det
keywords opticaltweezersdual-trapback-scatteredlightdetectionconfocalquadrantphotodiodecross-talkeliminationtip-tiltmirrorsteeringtwo-pointmicrorheology
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 reports a dual-trap optical tweezers design in which bead position is measured from light scattered backward through the trapping objective, detected in a confocal arrangement where each quadrant photodiode (QPD) is placed at the image conjugate of its own trap and a pinhole blocks light from the other trap. The central claim is that this eliminates cross-talk between the two position signals completely, even while tip-tilt mirrors steer the two traps independently, and that the resulting force measurements are insensitive to common-mode thermal drift. The practical payoff is that the trapping and detection optics form a single module that mounts on a microscope side port, leaving the condenser untouched and preserving phase-contrast, DIC, and fluorescence imaging. If the claim holds, dual-trap molecular force spectroscopy and two-point microrheology could be done with one laser and simpler optics than the two-wavelength or forward-detection designs now used.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a confocal detection arm built on the trapping objective itself: each QPD is placed one focal length behind a lens so that the detector center is conjugate to the trap point, and a 1 mm pinhole at that plane passes only the on-axis image of the trapped bead. Steering is handled by tip-tilt mirrors whose reflecting surfaces sit in the back focal plane of lens L3, making them conjugate to the objective's back focal plane, so tilting a mirror pivots the beam about the objective pupil and moves the trap in the sample plane. A polarizing beam splitter and a right-trapezoid layout of the steering optics send most of each bead's back-scattered light to its own detector while oblique mounting of the beam splitters keeps spurious surface reflections from retracing the beam path.

What would settle it

Place a bead in only the second trap, steer that trap through its full angular range, and record the full power spectral density from the first detector; if any signal above the noise floor appears, or if the spectrum changes with steering angle, the claimed zero cross-talk is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that placing the two position detectors at the conjugate image points of the two traps and inserting a pinhole in front of each detector makes back-scattered-light detection completely free of cross-talk, even while the traps are steered independently by tip-tilt mirrors. Light back-scattered by bead 1 is routed by polarization through PBS2 mostly to QPD1, and light from bead 2 mostly to QPD2; the small wrong-polarization fractions are blocked by the pinholes because the other trap's image falls off-center. Since trap and detector center are confocal, a steered trap keeps its image centered on its own pinhole, so detection continues without realignment. The paper also claims that thermal drift is common-mode: shared optics move both traps together, and the QPDs measure only relative bead displacements, leaving force measurements between two held objects unaffected. The design constraint noted in the paper is that for 1 µm beads at about 300x magnification, the 1 mm pinholes require the two traps to be separated by more than about 2.2 µm.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes that light back-scattered by each bead keeps the same polarization as the trapping beam closely enough for PBS2 to route it to the correct detector, and that each bead's image stays centered on its pinhole as the traps are steered; the paper states the polarization retention only qualitatively and does not report a measurement of spot centering versus steering angle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Both traps can be moved independently while position and force detection continues in real time, because each bead's image remains centered on its own pinhole and detector.
  • Two-point correlation measurements, such as molecular force spectroscopy and active microrheology, can be done with a single laser and ordinary polarization splitting rather than a second wavelength.
  • Force measurements between two held objects are insensitive to common-mode thermal drift, since shared optics move both traps together and the QPDs record only relative bead displacements.
  • The trapping and detection optics form a single module attached to a microscope side port, preserving phase-contrast, DIC, and fluorescence imaging without changing the condenser.
  • Independent detection requires a minimum trap separation of about 2.2 µm for 1 µm beads at the reported magnification, because closer traps would send light from both beads through the 1 mm pinholes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported cross-talk test checks detector output while trap occupancy changes, but not while the second trap is steered; measuring QPD1's signal as a function of steering angle and trap separation would directly test the continuous-isolation claim.
  • Because back-scattered light is weak and the pinholes reject part of it, the usable measurement bandwidth may be set by shot noise; increasing laser power or choosing beam splitters that favor the back-propagating light would push the bandwidth higher.
  • The same confocal-per-trap principle could be extended to more than two traps, for example time-shared or holographic traps, by giving each trap its own pinhole and quadrant detector, subject to the same spacing constraint.
  • The common-mode drift argument suggests that long single-molecule force-extension curves between the two traps should require no real-time trap-position correction, which would simplify automated force spectroscopy assays.
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 describes a dual-trap optical tweezers setup in which two independently steered traps are created with orthogonally polarized beams, and position detection is performed using back-scattered light collected by the same objective and routed to two QPDs through a confocal arrangement with pinholes. The authors claim that this design provides zero cross-talk between the two detection channels, permits continuous position/force detection while the traps are steered, and is robust to thermal drift. The paper includes characterization data: a QPD linearity test against camera tracking up to 200 nm, a static four-condition PSD cross-talk test, and an 18-minute camera-based drift measurement. The central design claims, however, are not supported by the presented optics and data, and the steering-invariance assertion is inconsistent with the detection geometry as drawn.

Significance. If the central claims held, the design would be a practical contribution to dual-trap instrumentation, because it would allow back-scattered detection without descanning and would preserve the condenser path for phase-contrast and DIC microscopy. The authors provide useful practical details, including part numbers, amplifier modifications, and a straightforward static cross-talk test. However, the central claim of steering-invariant confocal detection is contradicted by the optical layout and the authors' own stated magnification, and the cross-talk and drift claims are not quantitatively established. The paper therefore does not currently support its advertised advantages.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2; Figure 2 caption; Section 4] The claim that the back-scattered image of a bead remains centered on the pinhole/QPD when the trap is steered is not supported by the optical layout. In the detection path (objective, DM, L4, L3, PBS2, BS1/BS2, L5/L6, QPD), the tip-tilt mirrors TTM1/TTM2 are absent, so a bead at trap position x_trap produces a return beam that emerges from the objective at angle x_trap/f_obj and is focused on the QPD at a position ~300·x_trap, using the authors' own 300× magnification. Therefore, steering the trap by Δx shifts the image by ~300·Δx. With a 1 mm pinhole and a 300 µm image of a 1 µm bead, a steering of roughly 1.2-1.7 µm would move the image to the pinhole edge, and the QPD linear range (200 nm, Fig. 4) is far smaller. The cross-talk PSDs (Fig. 5) and drift measurements (Fig. 6) are taken at fixed trap positions and do not address the spot position as a function of steering angle. Thus the central claim that 'the image of the trap remains centred on the QPD detector even when the trap is being steered' is unverified and, as drawn, inconsistent with the conjugate-imaging equations.
  2. [Abstract; Section 2.2; Section 3.2] The claim of 'zero cross-talk between signals' is not quantitatively demonstrated and is internally qualified. The cross-talk test in Fig. 5 examines only QPD1, reports PSDs visually without a signal-to-cross-talk ratio, and is performed at fixed trap positions; it cannot detect cross-talk that may appear when the images move during steering. Moreover, the authors state in Section 2.2 that cross-talk occurs when the inter-trap distance is below about 2.2 µm, so 'completely eliminated' is an overstatement. The routing through PBS2 also relies on the back-scattered light retaining the trapping polarization 'to some extent,' with no measured depolarization; any depolarized fraction could leak into the opposite channel.
  3. [Section 3.3] The claimed robustness to thermal drift is not established with the QPDs. The drift test uses camera tracking, and the sentence 'the QPD signal won’t register the drift' is asserted without a measurement. In the described confocal geometry, a trap drift δ moves the bead and its image by ~300δ on the QPD, so the QPD would register that drift as a spurious bead displacement rather than being immune to it. If the authors intended to use a differential signal between the two QPDs, that subtraction is not described or tested.
  4. [Section 3.1; Figure 4] The QPD calibration via fluid drag is performed with a stationary trap and therefore cannot validate the central steering-invariance claim. The reported linear range of 200 nm is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the trap displacements typically used in the applications described in Section 4 (e.g., pulling membrane nanotubes, two-point microrheology over micrometers). The manuscript provides no measurement of QPD response or crosstalk while the traps are actually being steered.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] Typographical errors: 'titling' should be 'tilting', and 'makes a afocal system' should be 'makes an afocal system'.
  2. [Section 2.2] The statement that the 1 mm pinhole is 'larger than the image of the trapped bead' should also specify that this condition holds only for relatively small bead displacements and for small steering angles; a brief quantitative relation between pinhole diameter, magnification, and usable steering range would clarify the limitation.
  3. [Section 3.2] The PSD plot in Fig. 5 would be more informative with a quantitative measure of crosstalk, such as the integrated area under the Lorentzian compared to the noise floor, rather than only a visual comparison.
  4. [Section 4] Typo: 'only the lower part fo the sample' should be 'only the lower part of the sample'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper's central claims are empirical properties of the built optical layout and are tested by independent measurements, not derived from fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The claimed advantages (zero cross-talk, robustness to drift, steering-invariant detection) are presented as properties of the optical design and are checked by measurements that could have failed. Section 3.2 tests cross-talk by changing trap occupancy and comparing QPD1 power spectral densities against the noise floor; this is an independent test, not a fit or a renamed prediction. The pinhole diameter is a stated design constraint (1 mm at about 300x magnification, requiring more than 2.2 um inter-trap separation), not a parameter fitted to the cross-talk outcome. Calibration in Section 3.1 uses camera tracking as an independent displacement reference, and the drift test in Section 3.3 deliberately uses camera tracking because the QPD is insensitive to common-mode drift, so the drift claim is not assumed by the measurement. The prior-work citations (e.g., refs. 20 and 25) are external comparisons of existing dual-trap schemes; there is no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem. The possible physical objection that the steering mirror is absent from the back-scattered detection path and therefore the spot may shift during steering is a correctness or validation concern, not a circularity: the paper's own data do not presuppose the conclusion that the spot remains centered. Accordingly, no step reduces by construction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central design relies on standard optical imaging assumptions (confocal conjugation, polarization retention, pinhole isolation) that are plausible but not quantitatively validated. The pinhole diameter is a hand-chosen design parameter that directly affects the cross-talk-free operating range. No new physical entities are introduced; this is an instrument design paper, not a theory paper.

free parameters (1)
  • pinhole diameter = 1 mm
    Section 2.2 chooses 1 mm pinholes to pass the 300 um image of a 1 um bead while blocking light from the second trap; this sets the minimum inter-trap separation of about 2.2 um for cross-talk-free operation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Back-scattered light from each trapped bead retains the polarization of the trapping beam sufficiently for PBS2 to separate the two detection channels.
    Section 2.2 states 'the scattered light retains the polarization of the trapping beam to some extent'; no quantitative depolarization measurement is given, yet the separation of the two channels relies on this.
  • domain assumption The optical system images the trap plane onto each QPD such that the image of the trap remains centered on the QPD when the trap is steered.
    Section 2.2 relies on the trap position and the QPD center being a confocal pair; no measurement of spot centering vs. steering angle is shown.
  • domain assumption A 1 mm pinhole is large enough to pass all light from the intended bead but small enough to block the other bead's light when inter-trap separation exceeds about 2.2 um.
    Section 2.2 derives this from a 300x magnification and a 1 um bead image size; the diffraction limit and scattering spot profile are not considered.
  • domain assumption Thermal drift affects common optical elements after PBS2 so that both traps drift together while their relative separation remains constant.
    Section 3.3 asserts this and supports it with camera tracking over 18 minutes; the tracking data show correlated drift but no quantitative spread is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Steerable dual-trap optical tweezers with confocal position detection using back-scattered light." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5LLXZVGF

@misc{pith2026241116256,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Steerable dual-trap optical tweezers with confocal position detection using back-scattered light},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5LLXZVGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16256}
}
read the original abstract

Optical tweezers has emerged as a powerful tool in manipulating microscopic particles and in measuring weak forces of the order of a pico-Newton. As a result, it has found wide applications ranging from material science to biology. Dual-trap optical tweezers (DTOT) are of particular importance as they allow for two point correlation measurements as in molecular force spectroscopy, two-point active micro-rheology, etc. Here we report a novel design for a steerable DTOT setup which uses back-scattered light from the two traps for position detection. This is performed using a confocal scheme where the two detectors are placed at the conjugate points to the respective traps. This offers several significant advantages over current designs, such as, zero cross-talk between signals, single module assembly and robustness to thermal drift. Moreover, our design can be very easily integrated with standard microscopy techniques like Phase contrast and Differential Interference Contrast, without modifying the microscope illumination unit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16256 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagrams showing the optical designs used for trapping and detecting particles in our DTOT which uses detection of back-scattered light in a confocal arrangement. (a) Optics and beam paths used to create an independently steerable DTOT. The abbreviations for optical components are explained in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Intensity pattern that form at the detector plane due to the back-scattered light from the two trapped beads and unwanted reflections arising from the beam splitters. The pattern is imaged using a camera at the detector plane of one of the detectors. (b) The unwanted reflections are removed by placing the beam splitters at oblique angle, retaining only the back-scattered light from the two beads. (c) To detect t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a,b) Schematic showing how the optical trap module is coupled to the fluorescence microscope. (c) Image of the DTOT setup built around an Olympus-IX71 microscope. All the optics for optical tweezers, except IR dichroic mirror (DM), are mounted outside the microscope. The dichroic mirror (not visible in the image) is mounted below microscope objective. The condenser of the microscope is untouched. Since the dichroic… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: QPD response obtained by displacing a trapped bead (2.9 µm) using fluid drag force. A gravity driven flow chamber setup was used to generate laminar flow. The displacement of the trapped bead was obtained using camera based tracking. As can be seen by comparing with th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Power spectral density (PSD) of displacement signal from QPD1 under four different cases. (case i) Plot with yellow dots is obtained when both traps are empty. (case ii) Plot with red hollow circles when both traps are occupied. (case iii) Green data when trap 1 is occ…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plots showing long time (≈ 18 min) position measurement of two trapped particles (shown in the inset of (c)) without any applied force. The position detection was done using camera tracking as the QPD signal won’t register the drift. (a,b) X & Y positions of the two tr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Various possible experiments that can be performed using our DTOT setup. (a) An image and a schematic of two membrane nanotube pulled from an axon of a neuronal cell using our DTOT in order to study biomechanics of cell surface. A schematic of this scheme is shown on t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Acceleration and Trapping of Particles by Radiation Pressure

    A. Ashkin. “Acceleration and Trapping of Particles by Radiation Pressure”. In: Physical Review Letters 24.4 (Jan. 1970), pp. 156–159

    work page 1970

  2. [2]

    Observation of a Single-Beam Gradient Force Optical Trap for Dielectric Particles

    A. Ashkin et al. “Observation of a Single-Beam Gradient Force Optical Trap for Dielectric Particles”. In: Optics Letters 11.5 (May 1986), p. 288

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    Forces of a Single-Beam Gradient Laser Trap on a Dielectric Sphere in the Ray Optics Regime

    A. Ashkin. “Forces of a Single-Beam Gradient Laser Trap on a Dielectric Sphere in the Ray Optics Regime”. In: Biophysical Journal 61.2 (Feb. 1992), pp. 569–582

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    Direct Observation of the Full Transition from Ballistic to Diffusive Brownian Motion in a Liquid

    Rongxin Huang et al. “Direct Observation of the Full Transition from Ballistic to Diffusive Brownian Motion in a Liquid”. In: Nature Physics 7.7 (July 2011), pp. 576–580

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Experimental Verification of a Modified Fluctuation-Dissipation Relation for a Micron-Sized Particle in a Nonequilibrium Steady State

    J. R. Gomez-Solano et al. “Experimental Verification of a Modified Fluctuation-Dissipation Relation for a Micron-Sized Particle in a Nonequilibrium Steady State”. In: Physical Re- view Letters 103.4 (July 2009), p. 040601

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Optical Tweezers in Single-Molecule Biophysics

    Carlos J. Bustamante et al. “Optical Tweezers in Single-Molecule Biophysics”. In: Nature Reviews Methods Primers 1.1 (Dec. 2021), p. 25

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Optical Tweezers in Single-Molecule Experiments

    Annamaria Zaltron et al. “Optical Tweezers in Single-Molecule Experiments”. In: The European Physical Journal Plus 135.11 (Nov. 2020), p. 896

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Interrogating Biology with Force: Single Molecule High-Resolution Measurements with Optical Tweezers

    Marco Capitanio and Francesco S. Pavone. “Interrogating Biology with Force: Single Molecule High-Resolution Measurements with Optical Tweezers”. In: Biophysical Journal 105.6 (Sept. 2013), pp. 1293–1303. 14

    work page 2013

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Direct Observation of Kinesin Stepping by Optical Trapping Inter- ferometry

    Karel Svoboda et al. “Direct Observation of Kinesin Stepping by Optical Trapping Inter- ferometry”. In: Nature 365.6448 (Oct. 1993), pp. 721–727

    1993

  2. [10]

    Germanium Nanospheres for Ultraresolution Picotensiometry of Kinesin Motors

    Swathi Sudhakar et al. “Germanium Nanospheres for Ultraresolution Picotensiometry of Kinesin Motors”. In: Science 371.6530 (Feb. 2021), eabd9944

    2021

  3. [11]

    Microrheology of Solutions of Semiflexible Biopolymer Filaments Using Laser Tweezers Interferometry

    Karim M. Addas, Christoph F. Schmidt, and Jay X. Tang. “Microrheology of Solutions of Semiflexible Biopolymer Filaments Using Laser Tweezers Interferometry”. In: Physical Review E 70.2 (Aug. 2004), p. 021503

    2004

  4. [12]

    Short-Time Inertial Response of Viscoelastic Fluids: Observation of Vortex Propagation

    M. Atakhorrami et al. “Short-Time Inertial Response of Viscoelastic Fluids: Observation of Vortex Propagation”. In: Physical Review Letters 95.20 (Nov. 2005), p. 208302

    2005

  5. [13]

    Roadmap for Optical Tweezers

    Giovanni Volpe et al. “Roadmap for Optical Tweezers”. In: Journal of Physics: Photonics 5.2 (Apr. 2023), p. 022501

    2023

  6. [14]

    Microscopic Measurement of the Pair Interaction Potential of Charge-Stabilized Colloid

    John C. Crocker and David G. Grier. “Microscopic Measurement of the Pair Interaction Potential of Charge-Stabilized Colloid”. In: Physical Review Letters 73.2 (July 1994), pp. 352–355

    1994

  7. [15]

    Direct Measurement of Hydrodynamic Cross Correlations between Two Particles in an External Potential

    Jens-Christian Meiners and Stephen R. Quake. “Direct Measurement of Hydrodynamic Cross Correlations between Two Particles in an External Potential”. In: Physical Review Letters 82.10 (Mar. 1999), pp. 2211–2214

    1999

  8. [16]

    Optical Binding

    Michael M. Burns, Jean-Marc Fournier, and Jene A. Golovchenko. “Optical Binding”. In: Physical Review Letters 63.12 (Sept. 1989), pp. 1233–1236

    1989

  9. [17]

    One- and Two-Point Micro-Rheology of Viscoelastic Media

    L Starrs and P Bartlett. “One- and Two-Point Micro-Rheology of Viscoelastic Media”. In: Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 15.1 (Jan. 2003), S251–S256

    2003

  10. [18]

    Comparing Macrorheology and One- and Two-Point Microrheology in Wormlike Micelle Solutions

    M. Buchanan et al. “Comparing Macrorheology and One- and Two-Point Microrheology in Wormlike Micelle Solutions”. In: Macromolecules 38.21 (Oct. 2005), pp. 8840–8844

    2005

  11. [19]

    Direct Verification of the Fluctuation-Dissipation Relation in Vis- cously Coupled Oscillators

    Shuvojit Paul et al. “Direct Verification of the Fluctuation-Dissipation Relation in Vis- cously Coupled Oscillators”. In: Physical Review E 96.5 (Nov. 2017), p. 050102

    2017

  12. [20]

    Two-Point Active Microrheology in a Viscous Medium Exploiting a Motional Resonance Excited in Dual-Trap Optical Tweezers

    Shuvojit Paul, Randhir Kumar, and Ayan Banerjee. “Two-Point Active Microrheology in a Viscous Medium Exploiting a Motional Resonance Excited in Dual-Trap Optical Tweezers”. In: Physical Review E 97.4 (Apr. 2018), p. 042606

    2018

  13. [21]

    Femtonewton Force Spectroscopy of Sin- gle Extended DNA Molecules

    Jens-Christian Meiners and Stephen R. Quake. “Femtonewton Force Spectroscopy of Sin- gle Extended DNA Molecules”. In: Physical Review Letters 84.21 (May 2000), pp. 5014– 5017

    2000

  14. [22]

    Single-Molecule Dual-Beam Optical Trap Analysis of Protein Struc- ture and Function

    Jongmin Sung et al. “Single-Molecule Dual-Beam Optical Trap Analysis of Protein Struc- ture and Function”. In: Methods in Enzymology . Vol. 475. Elsevier, 2010, pp. 321–375. isbn: 978-0-12-381482-1

    2010

  15. [23]

    Nonlinear Mechanics of Human Mitotic Chromosomes

    Anna E. C. Meijering et al. “Nonlinear Mechanics of Human Mitotic Chromosomes”. In: Nature 605.7910 (May 2022), pp. 545–550

    2022

  16. [24]

    Design for Fully Steerable Dual-Trap Optical Tweezers

    Erik F¨ allman and Ove Axner. “Design for Fully Steerable Dual-Trap Optical Tweezers”. In: Applied Optics 36.10 (Apr. 1997), p. 2107. 15

    1997

  17. [25]

    Twin Optical Traps for Two-Particle Cross-Correlation Measurements: Eliminating Cross-Talk

    M. Atakhorrami, K. M. Addas, and C. F. Schmidt. “Twin Optical Traps for Two-Particle Cross-Correlation Measurements: Eliminating Cross-Talk”. In: Review of Scientific In- struments 79.4 (Apr. 2008), p. 043103

    2008

  18. [26]

    Optical Trapping in Vivo : Theory, Practice, and Applications

    Itia A. Favre-Bulle et al. “Optical Trapping in Vivo : Theory, Practice, and Applications”. In: Nanophotonics 8.6 (June 2019), pp. 1023–1040

    2019

  19. [27]

    Quantitative Com- parison of Algorithms for Tracking Single Fluorescent Particles

    Michael K. Cheezum, William F. Walker, and William H. Guilford. “Quantitative Com- parison of Algorithms for Tracking Single Fluorescent Particles”. In: Biophysical Journal 81.4 (Oct. 2001), pp. 2378–2388

    2001

  20. [28]

    Power Spectrum Analysis for Optical Tweezers

    Kirstine Berg-Sørensen and Henrik Flyvbjerg. “Power Spectrum Analysis for Optical Tweezers”. In: Review of Scientific Instruments 75.3 (Mar. 2004), pp. 594–612

    2004

  21. [29]

    Differential Detection of Dual Traps Improves the Spatial Reso- lution of Optical Tweezers

    Jeffrey R. Moffitt et al. “Differential Detection of Dual Traps Improves the Spatial Reso- lution of Optical Tweezers”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103.24 (June 2006), pp. 9006–9011

    2006

  22. [30]

    Construction of Multiple-Beam Optical Traps with Nanometer-Resolution Position Sensing

    K. Visscher, S.P. Gross, and S.M. Block. “Construction of Multiple-Beam Optical Traps with Nanometer-Resolution Position Sensing”. In: IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 2.4 (1996), pp. 1066–1076

    1996

  23. [31]

    High-Resolution Dual- Trap Optical Tweezers with Differential Detection: Instrument Design

    Carlos Bustamante, Yann R. Chemla, and Jeffrey R. Moffitt. “High-Resolution Dual- Trap Optical Tweezers with Differential Detection: Instrument Design”. In: Cold Spring Harbor Protocols 2009.10 (Oct. 2009), pdb.ip73

    2009

  24. [32]

    Optical Tweezers: Theory and Practice

    Giuseppe Pesce et al. “Optical Tweezers: Theory and Practice”. In: The European Physical Journal Plus 135.12 (Dec. 2020), p. 949

    2020

  25. [33]

    Single Myosin Molecule Mechanics: Piconewton Forces and Nanometre Steps

    Jeffrey T. Finer, Robert M. Simmons, and James A. Spudich. “Single Myosin Molecule Mechanics: Piconewton Forces and Nanometre Steps”. In: Nature 368.6467 (Mar. 1994), pp. 113–119

    1994

  26. [34]

    Murphy and Michael W

    Douglas B. Murphy and Michael W. Davidson. Fundamentals of Light Microscopy and Electronic Imaging. 1st ed. Wiley, Sept. 2012. isbn: 978-0-471-69214-0

    2012

  27. [35]

    Optical Tweezers for Force Measurements on DNA in Nanopores

    U. F. Keyser et al. “Optical Tweezers for Force Measurements on DNA in Nanopores”. In: Review of Scientific Instruments 77.10 (Oct. 2006), p. 105105. 16

    2006

Pith tools

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