4.4 Article

Theoretical study of laser intensity noise effect on CW-STED microscopy

出版社

Optica Publishing Group
DOI: 10.1364/JOSAA.452035

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Berthiaume Family Foundation
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa de Santa Catarina FAPESC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents an analytical formulation based on a stochastic model to characterize the impact of laser fluctuations and correlation time on depletion efficiency in continuous-wave (CW) STED microscopy. The analytical results were compared with simulations, showing a high degree of agreement. This work provides a starting point for modeling laser noise effects in various microscopy implementations.
Spatial resolution of stimulated emission depletion (STED) microscopy varies with sample labeling techniques and microscope components, e.g., lasers, lenses, and photodetectors. Fluctuations in the intensity of the depletion laser decrease achievable resolution in STED microscopy; the stronger the fluctuations, the higher the average intensity needed to achieve a given resolution. This phenomenon is encountered in every STED measurement. However, a theoretical framework that evaluates the effect of intensity fluctuations on spatial resolution is lacking. This paper presents an analytical formulation based on a stochastic model that characterizes the impact of the laser fluctuations and correlation time on the depletion efficiency in continuous-wave (CW) STED microscopy. We compared analytical results with simulations using a wide range of intensity noise conditions and found a high degree of agreement. The stochastic model used considers a colored noise distribution for the laser intensity fluctuations. Simple analytical expressions were obtained in the limit of small and large fluctuations' correlation time. These expressions fitted very well the available experimental data. Finally, this work offers a starting point to model other laser noise effects in various microscopy implementations. (c) 2022 Optica Publishing Group

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据