Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 78 references

Full-volume aberration-space holography

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Per-spot hologram kernels correct aberrations across an entire field at once.

desk verdict A genuinely useful technique for parallel anisoplanatic correction; the relative-Strehl metrology undermines the absolute 'diffraction-limited' claim but not the comparative demonstration. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08777 v1 pith:U4JZOQ7W submitted 2025-05-13 physics.optics

Ian Christen , Christopher Panuski , Thomas Propson , Dirk Englund This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords aberration-spaceholographyanisoplanaticaberrationcorrectionspatiallightmodulatorcomputer-generatedopticaltweezerarraysvolumetricdisplayZernikepolynomialswavefrontshaping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that diffraction-limited holographic projection no longer has to be confined to a small "isoplanatic patch" (a region where the point spread function is effectively constant). By giving each targeted spot its own propagation kernel that includes that site's local aberration, and merging all those kernels into one phase mask on a spatial light modulator, a single hologram can correct spatially varying ("anisoplanatic") aberrations in parallel across the whole Nyquist-limited field of view and volume (the full region the SLM can address before its pixel grid undersamples). The authors demonstrate this with a 50-spot tweezer array imaged through a strongly warped acrylic window, getting an 8x larger diffraction-limited field than any single isoplanatic correction, and with a two-photon volumetric display in a quantum-dot cuvette, getting a 12x larger addressable volume. Why it matters: systems that currently correct patch by patch — tweezer arrays, optogenetics, deep-tissue imaging, volumetric displays, laser fabrication — could instead use the full addressable range of the SLM at once, with parallel calibration routines and an open-source implementation provided.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the aberration-space kernel: a per-target Zernike phase term $\sum_d w_d^{(n)} Z_d(x,y)$ that generalizes the Fourier shearing kernel $k_x x + k_y y$ and the Fresnel focusing kernel $p_z(x^2+y^2)$ to a $D$-dimensional aberration space. Summing $N$ such kernels and solving for the complex weights $F_n$ with weighted Gerchberg-Saxton iteration (an iterative phase-retrieval algorithm) produces one hologram whose spots are individually shape-corrected. A parallel superpixel-interference measurement and an iterative Zernike-subtraction routine supply the site-specific coefficients, and singular value decomposition of the $N\times D$ coefficient matrix distills the correction to its $K$ most significant principal isoplanatic modes, which both denoises the calibration and yields the best single global correction.

What would settle it

Re-measure the same spot arrays with an absolute Strehl calibration—for example, imaging a single spot formed by an unaberrated portion of the SLM or a pinhole-defined Airy pattern under identical illumination and normalizing each spot to that—and check whether field fractions above $\tilde{S}>0.8$ and the 8x/12x ratios persist; if the brightest reference spot already carries aberration, those numbers shrink.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that anisoplanatic aberration compensation for projection reduces to replacing the single global Fourier kernel with a sum of site-specific kernels $K_n(x,y)=\exp(-i[\sum_d w_d^{(n)} Z_d(x,y)])$, where $Z_d$ are Zernike polynomials (a standard basis of wavefront shapes on a circular pupil) and $w_d^{(n)}$ are the aberration coefficients at target site $n$; the kernels encode steering, focusing, and arbitrary local wavefront correction in one phase mask. Using weighted Gerchberg-Saxton iteration (an iterative phase-retrieval algorithm) over these kernels, the paper shows simultaneous correction of 50 isoplanatic patches with 8 principal aberration modes, lifting average relative Strehl (a normalized spot-quality metric) from 0.15 uncorrected and about 0.31 for the best single-patch correction to 0.78 across the field, with 43% of the field above the diffraction-limited threshold of 0.8 versus about 2% for isoplanatic correction. In three dimensions the same procedure corrects depth-dependent spherical aberration, giving a 12x larger addressable volume in a two-photon volumetric display. The paper frames this as recovering the $M$ distinct spots that an $M$-pixel SLM is intrinsically capable of generating, by untangling the aberrated farfield in the nearfield rather than in the farfield.

Load-bearing premise

The headline factors rest on the spot-quality metric being normalized to the brightest measured spot; if that reference spot is not itself diffraction limited, the reported 8x field and 12x volume enhancements and the 'diffraction-limited' descriptor do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Optical tweezer arrays, optogenetics, and deep-tissue projection can be corrected over the whole SLM field instead of one isoplanatic patch, removing the serial patch-by-patch bottleneck.
  • Volumetric displays and multifocal two-photon microscopy gain roughly an order of magnitude in addressable volume with the same hardware.
  • Parallel wavefront calibration via superpixel interference and Zernike subtraction cuts measurement time by the parallelization factor, about 100x in the demonstrated case.
  • Singular value decomposition of the per-site coefficient matrix shows that a single global correction derived from the dominant principal mode outperforms any point-optimized isoplanatic correction, giving a better fallback when per-site shaping is unavailable.
  • Because the kernels can be evaluated on the fly on a GPU, video-rate per-site-corrected holography remains computationally feasible as spot counts grow toward $10^4$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The nearfield "untangling" viewpoint suggests the method is not tied to Zernike modes: any basis that locally approximates the system's propagation operator, including scattering-medium transmission modes, could be substituted, which would extend full-field correction to turbid media.
  • Because the correction is per-site and deterministic, it could be combined with learned aberration models that predict site coefficients from a sparse calibration, reducing the measurement overhead further.
  • A testable extension is dense image holography: augmenting each compressed spot kernel with a local miniature chirp-Z transform would bring full-field anisoplanatic correction to continuous images, not just sparse spot arrays.
  • The reported 12x volume factor is measured through two-photon brightness; a linear-excitation readout would clarify how much of the gain comes from peak intensity versus improved focus quality.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces 'aberration-space holography,' in which the Fourier propagation kernel of each target site is augmented by a per-site Zernike aberration correction and all corrected kernels are combined into a single SLM hologram via weighted Gerchberg-Saxton. The authors demonstrate this in two experiments: a 2D optical tweezer array through warped acrylic, achieving what they describe as an 8x larger diffraction-limited field of view than single-point isoplanatic correction, and a 3D two-photon volumetric display with a 12x larger addressable volume. They also present parallel wavefront-calibration methods and an SVD-based principal-mode compression of the anisoplanatic correction.

Significance. If the quantitative claims survive calibration, the work is a significant practical advance: it shows that anisoplanatic aberration can be compensated in parallel for many sites with a single hologram, rather than serially or with pupil segmentation, and the open-source implementation (slmsuite) should make the method easy to adopt. The core qualitative result—per-site correction improves spot quality outside the isoplanatic patch—is visually supported by the Strehl maps and spot images. However, the absolute performance numbers and the 'diffraction-limited' descriptor currently rest on an uncalibrated relative metric, and the headline 8x/12x enhancement factors need tightening, so the advance is not yet fully quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods 3 and Fig. 3] Methods 3 defines the quality metric as S = S'/max(S'), with S' = max(I)/sum(I) over a 21x21-pixel box, and the maximum is taken across all measured arrays. This relative normalization removes any absolute reference: the reference spot is merely the sharpest spot in the dataset, not a calibrated diffraction-limited point spread function. The paper then applies the Marechal threshold S > 0.8 as if it were an absolute Strehl ratio, but without knowing the absolute Strehl of the normalization point (or, equivalently, the residual wavefront RMS), a relative value of 0.8 does not imply diffraction-limited performance. Since the '8x field of view', '12x volume', and 'diffraction-limited' descriptors are all threshold-dependent, the central quantitative claims are not established. Please add an absolute calibration (e.g., a measured or simulated diffraction-limited PSF under the same imaging conditions, or a wavefront-RMS-based estimate), report absolute Strehl values, and include repeated-measurement error bars.
  2. [Sec. III and Fig. 3 caption] The text reports that the isoplanatic correction yields about 2% of the field with S > 0.8, while aberration-space holography yields about 43%, a ratio of roughly 20, not 8. The abstract and figure caption state '8x larger field of view' (and similarly in Sec. I). If the 8x factor refers to a different metric (e.g., linear dimension, a different threshold, or a different reference condition), the calculation should be specified explicitly. As written, the headline number is inconsistent with the stated percentages.
  3. [Methods 5 and Sec. III] The correction order K = 8 is selected as the value that maximizes the average Strehl on the same dataset used to report the headline performance. Because the same data are used for model selection and evaluation, the reported gain may be optimistic. Please provide a cross-validation or leave-one-site-out analysis, or at least state explicitly whether K was chosen on a separate calibration run, and report the sensitivity of the stated 8x/12x factors to K.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Methods 3] The definition of S' as max(I)/sum(I) in a 21x21-pixel box is a coarse peak-to-energy proxy; the paper should state whether camera background and readout noise are subtracted before computing S', since an unsubtracted background would bias the relative Strehl values across conditions.
  2. [Sec. IV and Fig. 4] The 12x volume enhancement is inferred from two fitted brightness-versus-volume curves, but the extraction procedure (how the lateral area and depth enhancement are combined, and how the 12x factor is read off the curves) is not described. Please provide the fitting form, the data points, and uncertainty intervals for the volume ratio.
  3. [Sec. I] The claim of achieving 'full-field, anisoplanatic aberration compensation for the first time' is strong given the prior multi-point correction demonstrations cited in Refs. [41], [45], and [48]; the novelty claim should be sharpened by stating explicitly the distinction from these earlier approaches (parallel vs. serial, single-hologram vs. segmented pupil).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: per-site aberrations are measured and applied as corrections; no prediction reduces to its input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental demonstration, not a derived prediction. Per-site Zernike coefficients are measured from the physical system (Methods 2: superpixel interference and Zernike subtraction) and applied as conjugate phase terms in the propagation kernels; the resulting spot quality is measured independently, so the output is not the input. The SVD truncation to K=8 principal isoplanatic modes (Methods 5) is a disclosed, data-driven model-selection step whose performance is still measured against Strehl; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Self-citations ([12], [15], [25]) appear only as background/application context and do not carry the argument. Methods 3's relative Strehl normalization (S~ = S'/max(S')) is a metrological limitation because it lacks absolute calibration, and the phrase 'near-unity S~ near the correction point' is partly definitional for the brightest spot, but it is not load-bearing: the 8x field-of-view and 12x volume claims are spatial comparisons under a common normalization and do not reduce to the metric's definition. No equation in the paper equals its own input, and no load-bearing conclusion is forced by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. It does depend on a finite Zernike basis for each site, coherent linear superposition of per-spot kernels, static aberrations, and a relative Strehl metric that is normalized within the experiment. The SVD truncation and per-site coefficients are data-derived.

free parameters (3)
  • K, number of principal isoplanatic modes retained = 8
    Selected in Fig. 3f as the order that maximizes averaged relative Strehl across the field; a data-driven model choice, not prescribed by theory.
  • Per-site Zernike correction coefficients w_d^(n) = Measured per site, up to D=44 in 2D and D=27 in 3D
    These coefficients are fit by sweeping global Zernike perturbations and maximizing spot quality; they are calibration data rather than independent external constraints.
  • Zernike truncation order D = 44 (2D), 27 (3D)
    Chosen by the authors as the correction order; higher-order terms are interpreted as noise, so the truncation affects the reported results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The anisoplanatic aberration at each target site can be represented by a finite pupil-plane Zernike phase expansion applied across the SLM aperture.
    The correction kernels in Sec. II and calibration in Methods 5 assume each spot's aberration is a single pupil phase function; if the aberration varies within the sub-aperture relevant to a spot, this basis cannot fully correct it.
  • domain assumption Light propagation from the SLM to each focal spot is coherent, scalar, and linear, so per-spot kernels can be weighted and summed in one phase mask.
    The method superposes N kernel phases via weighted Gerchberg-Saxton; multiple scattering, polarization, or nonlinear effects would break superposition.
  • domain assumption The aberrations are static or slowly varying during calibration and projection.
    Calibration precedes projection in Secs. III-IV; dynamic media would invalidate the measured Zernike maps.
  • ad hoc to paper Measured relative Strehl, normalized to the brightest spot across experiments, is a valid proxy for absolute Strehl.
    Methods 3 defines S' and normalizes it; the diffraction-limited and 8x/12x claims rely on this normalization rather than an absolute calibration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Full-volume aberration-space holography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U4JZOQ7W

@misc{pith2026250508777,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Full-volume aberration-space holography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U4JZOQ7W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08777}
}
read the original abstract

Simultaneous, diffraction-limited control of multiple optical beams is crucial for applications ranging from lithography to optogenetics, deep tissue imaging, and tweezer-based manipulation of cells, particles, or atoms. Despite the desire to address wider fields of view, deeper volumes, and increasingly-disordered media, spatially-varying aberrations currently restrict parallelized steering to a limited "isoplanatic" region over which the point spread function is invariant. Here, we overcome this limitation by combining individual propagation kernels accounting for site-specific aberrations into a single spatial light modulator (SLM) hologram. This "aberration-space holography" unlocks precise, parallel holographic shaping over the SLM's entire Nyquist-limited volume, enabling us to realize full-field, anisoplanatic aberration compensation for the first time. By simultaneously correcting 50 isoplanatic patches with 8 principal aberration modes, we demonstrate a full-field optical tweezer array with 8x larger field of view than the best isoplanatic correction. Extending to 3D, we increase the volume of a multiphoton volumetric display by 12x. These performance enhancements are immediately accessible to a diverse range of applications through our open-source software implementation, which combines aberration-space holography with automated experimental feedback, wavefront calibration, and alignment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08777 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For 2D Fourier holography, the linear shearing kernels are efficiently implemented by the discrete Fourier transform (DFT)

    Computational Scaling The majority of computational holography’s complex- ity is generating nearfield-to-farfield transformation ker- nels along each k-vector. For 2D Fourier holography, the linear shearing kernels are efficiently implemented by the discrete Fourier transform (DFT). Working beyond the 2D case requires more complicated techniques operating...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Note that we index each polynomial Zd =Z l n with radial (az- imuthal) order n (l) by a singleton ANSI index d as il- lustrated in Fig. 2d. Individually, these generalized kernels enable free-form structured light at any singular target point. Diffraction- limited spots can therefore be achieved by tailoring each kernel to negate local aberration. While p...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Relative Strehl Metrology The Strehl ratio, a measure of maximum spot intensity relative to the ideal point spread function, is a standard metric to judge imaging quality. To estimate Strehl from camera imagesI, we first numerically calculate a discrete metric proportional to Strehl: S′ = max x∈X,y∈Y I , X x∈X,y∈Y I , i.e, the maximum image intensity with...

    work page

  4. [4]

    superpixels

    [34], instead enabling complete anisoplanatic control across 2D fields of view and 3D volumes as illustrated in Secs. III and IV, re- spectively. In the case of correction, a set of kernels constructed from a basis of D Zernike polynomials of- fers fully parallelized performance approaching that of a single Dth order correction. III. A FULL-FIELD 2D TWEEZ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    5a), fiber-coupled 633 nm light (HeNe) is collimated and expanded to the size of the SLM (Santec SLM-200)

    Experimental Setups In our baseline setup (Fig. 5a), fiber-coupled 633 nm light (HeNe) is collimated and expanded to the size of the SLM (Santec SLM-200). A 50:50 beamsplitter sepa- rates the incident and reflected paths, with the reflected path focused (Thorlabs 150 mm achromat) to our cam- era (Huateng Vision HT-SUA2000M-T1V-C, 20.0 MP xor AlliedVision ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Rather than estimat- ing P by tiling single-point isoplanatic corrections (e.g., Fig

    Isoplanatic Patch Density To judge the challenge of anisoplanatic correction, we quantify the difficulty of the alternative: serial interro- gation of P isoplanatic patches within which ˜S remains above a desired threshold ˜Sth. Rather than estimat- ing P by tiling single-point isoplanatic corrections (e.g., Fig. 3d) to fully cover the Nyquist-limited fie...

    work page

  7. [7]

    best average

    Anisoplanatic Singular Value Decomposition We adopt a singular value decomposition (SVD) ap- proach to rotate the D-dimensional Zernike basis into a basis of D principal isoplanatic modes [43]. Here, the Zernike matrix of our N-point full-field correction 11 10 5 0 5 10 1 10 5 0 5 10 2 10 5 0 5 10 Peak-Valley Strength [rad] 4 10 5 0 5 10 8 5 10 15 20 25 3...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Bertolotti and O

    J. Bertolotti and O. Katz, Imaging in complex media, Nature Physics 18, 1008 (2022)

    2022

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    D. T. Miller and K. Kurokawa, Cellular-scale imaging of transparent retinal structures and processes using adap- tive optics optical coherence tomography, Annual review of vision science 6, 115 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    S. Yoon, M. Kim, M. Jang, Y. Choi, W. Choi, S. Kang, and W. Choi, Deep optical imaging within complex scat- tering media, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 141 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Adesnik and L

    H. Adesnik and L. Abdeladim, Probing neural codes with two-photon holographic optogenetics, Nature neu- roscience 24, 1356 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    L. E. Russell, H. W. Dalgleish, R. Nutbrown, O. M. Gauld, D. Herrmann, M. Fi¸ sek, A. M. Packer, and M. H¨ ausser, All-optical interrogation of neural circuits in behaving mice, Nature Protocols 17, 1579 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Z. C. Zhou, A. Gordon-Fennell, S. C. Piantadosi, N. Ji, S. L. Smith, M. R. Bruchas, and G. D. Stuber, Deep- brain optical recording of neural dynamics during behav- ior, Neuron 111, 3716 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Bunea and J

    A.-I. Bunea and J. Gl¨ uckstad, Strategies for optical trap- ping in biological samples: Aiming at microrobotic sur- geons, Laser & Photonics Reviews 13, 1800227 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    I. A. Favre-Bulle, A. B. Stilgoe, E. K. Scott, and H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, Optical trapping in vivo: the- ory, practice, and applications, Nanophotonics 8, 1023 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Zhang, Y

    A. Zhang, Y. Jiang, K. Y. Loh, Z. Bao, and K. Deis- seroth, Genetically targeted chemical assembly, Nature Reviews Bioengineering 2, 82 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Somers, A

    P. Somers, A. M¨ unchinger, S. Maruo, C. Moser, X. Xu, and M. Wegener, The physics of 3d printing with light, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 99 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    P. S. Salter and M. J. Booth, Adaptive optics in laser processing, Light: Science & Applications 8, 110 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    C. L. Panuski, I. Christen, M. Minkov, C. J. Brabec, S. Trajtenberg-Mills, A. D. Griffiths, J. J. McKendry, G. L. Leake, D. J. Coleman, C. Tran,et al., A full degree- of-freedom spatiotemporal light modulator, Nature Pho- tonics 16, 834 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules, Nature Physics 17, 1324 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12021 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Christen, T

    I. Christen, T. Propson, M. Sutula, H. Sattari, G. Choong, C. Panuski, A. Melville, J. Mallek, C. Brabec, S. Hamilton, P. B. Dixon, A. J. Menssen, D. Braje, A. H. Ghadimi, and D. Englund, An integrated photonic engine for programmable atomic control, Na- ture Communications 16...

    2025

  15. [23]

    Davies and M

    R. Davies and M. Kasper, Adaptive optics for astronomy, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 50, 305 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Y. Guo, Y. Hao, S. Wan, H. Zhang, L. Zhu, Y. Zhang, J. Wu, Q. Dai, and L. Fang, Direct observation of atmo- spheric turbulence with a video-rate wide-field wavefront sensor, Nature Photonics 18, 935 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Smalley, E

    D. Smalley, E. Nygaard, K. Squire, J. Van Wagoner, J. Rasmussen, S. Gneiting, K. Qaderi, J. Goodsell, W. Rogers, M. Lindsey, et al. , A photophoretic-trap vol- umetric display, Nature 553, 486 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    E. J. Botcherby, C. W. Smith, M. M. Kohl, D. D´ ebarre, M. J. Booth, R. Juˇ skaitis, O. Paulsen, and T. Wilson, 13 Aberration-free three-dimensional multiphoton imaging of neuronal activity at khz rates, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 109, 2919 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    K. M. Hampson, R. Turcotte, D. T. Miller, K. Kurokawa, J. R. Males, N. Ji, and M. J. Booth, Adaptive optics for high-resolution imaging, Nature Reviews Methods Primers 1, 68 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    A. M. Ghez, S. Salim, N. Weinberg, J. Lu, T. Do, J. Dunn, K. Matthews, M. Morris, S. Yelda, E. Becklin, et al. , Measuring distance and properties of the milky way’s central supermassive black hole with stellar orbits, The Astrophysical Journal 689, 1044 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    I. M. Vellekoop and A. P. Mosk, Focusing coherent light through opaque strongly scattering media, Optics letters 32, 2309 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Z. Qin, Z. She, C. Chen, W. Wu, J. K. Lau, N. Y. Ip, and J. Y. Qu, Deep tissue multi-photon imaging using adaptive optics with direct focus sensing and shaping, Nature Biotechnology 40, 1663 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Barredo, V

    D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, S. De Leseleuc, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Synthetic three-dimensional atomic struc- tures assembled atom by atom, Nature 561, 79 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Bernstein, A

    L. Bernstein, A. Sludds, C. Panuski, S. Trajtenberg- Mills, R. Hamerly, and D. Englund, Single-shot optical neural network, Science Advances 9, eadg7904 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    P. L. McMahon, The physics of optical computing, Na- ture Reviews Physics 5, 717 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Di Leonardo, F

    R. Di Leonardo, F. Ianni, and G. Ruocco, Computer gen- eration of optimal holograms for optical trap arrays, Op- tics express 15, 1913 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    Nogrette, H

    F. Nogrette, H. Labuhn, S. Ravets, D. Barredo, L. B´ eguin, A. Vernier, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Single-atom trapping in holographic 2d arrays of micro- traps with arbitrary geometries, Physical Review X 4, 021034 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    D. Kim, A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Levine, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, M. D. Lukin, and D. R. Englund, Large- scale uniform optical focus array generation with a phase spatial light modulator, Optics letters 44, 3178 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    N. Ji, D. E. Milkie, and E. Betzig, Adaptive optics via pupil segmentation for high-resolution imaging in biolog- ical tissues, Nature Methods 7, 141 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    I. N. Papadopoulos, J.-S. Jouhanneau, J. F. Poulet, and B. Judkewitz, Scattering compensation by focus scanning holographic aberration probing (f-sharp), Nature Pho- tonics 11, 116 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    I. N. Papadopoulos, J.-S. Jouhanneau, N. Takahashi, D. Kaplan, M. Larkum, J. Poulet, and B. Judkewitz, Dynamic conjugate f-sharp microscopy, Light: Science & Applications 9, 110 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    M. A. May, N. Barr´ e, K. K. Kummer, M. Kress, M. Ritsch-Marte, and A. Jesacher, Fast holographic scat- tering compensation for deep tissue biological imaging, Nature Communications 12, 4340 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Jesacher and M

    A. Jesacher and M. J. Booth, Parallel direct laser writing in three dimensions with spatially dependent aberration correction, Optics express 18, 21090 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    S. T. Thurman and J. R. Fienup, Correction of anisopla- natic phase errors in digital holography, JOSA A 25, 995 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Guyon, Extreme adaptive optics, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 56, 315 (2018)

    O. Guyon, Extreme adaptive optics, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 56, 315 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Ragazzoni, E

    R. Ragazzoni, E. Marchetti, and G. Valente, Adaptive- optics corrections available for the whole sky, Nature 403, 54 (2000)

    2000

  37. [45]

    Rigaut and B

    F. Rigaut and B. Neichel, Multiconjugate adaptive optics for astronomy, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics 56, 277 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    K. Wang, W. Sun, C. T. Richie, B. K. Harvey, E. Betzig, and N. Ji, Direct wavefront sensing for high-resolution in vivo imaging in scattering tissue, Nature communications 6, 7276 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    R. Liu, Z. Li, J. S. Marvin, and D. Kleinfeld, Direct wave- front sensing enables functional imaging of infragranular axons and spines, Nature methods 16, 615 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    K. Wang, D. E. Milkie, A. Saxena, P. Engerer, T. Mis- geld, M. E. Bronner, J. Mumm, and E. Betzig, Rapid adaptive optical recovery of optimal resolution over large volumes, nature methods 11, 625 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    S. M. Popoff, G. Lerosey, R. Carminati, M. Fink, A. C. Boccara, and S. Gigan, Measuring the transmission ma- trix in optics: An approach to the study and control¡? format?¿ of light propagation in disordered media, Phys- ical review letters 104, 100601 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Badon, V

    A. Badon, V. Barolle, K. Irsch, A. C. Boccara, M. Fink, and A. Aubry, Distortion matrix concept for deep op- tical imaging in scattering media, Science Advances 6, eaay7170 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Z. Qin, C. Chen, S. He, Y. Wang, K. F. Tam, N. Y. Ip, and J. Y. Qu, Adaptive optics two-photon endomi- croscopy enables deep-brain imaging at synaptic resolu- tion over large volumes, Science advances 6, eabc6521 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Blochet, W

    B. Blochet, W. Akemann, S. Gigan, and L. Bourdieu, Fast wavefront shaping for two-photon brain imaging with multipatch correction, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2305593120 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Zhang, Q

    Q. Zhang, Q. Hu, C. Berlage, P. Kner, B. Judkewitz, M. Booth, and N. Ji, Adaptive optics for optical mi- croscopy, Biomedical Optics Express 14, 1732 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    J.-H. Park, L. Kong, Y. Zhou, and M. Cui, Large-field- of-view imaging by multi-pupil adaptive optics, Nature methods 14, 581 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    M. A. May, K. K. Kummer, M.-L. Edenhofer, J. L. Choconta, M. Kress, M. Ritsch-Marte, and A. Jesacher, Simultaneous scattering compensation at multiple points in multi-photon microscopy, Biomedical Optics Express 12, 7377 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    O. Haim, J. Boger-Lombard, and O. Katz, Image-guided computational holographic wavefront shaping, Nature Photonics , 1 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Balondrade, V

    P. Balondrade, V. Barolle, N. Guigui, E. Auriant, N. Rougier, C. Boccara, M. Fink, and A. Aubry, Multi- spectral reflection matrix for ultrafast 3d label-free mi- croscopy, Nature Photonics 18, 1097 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Zhang, C

    L. Zhang, C. Wang, C. Zhang, Y. Xue, Z. Ye, L. Xu, Y. Hu, J. Li, J. Chu, and D. Wu, High-throughput two- photon 3d printing enabled by holographic multi-foci high-speed scanning, Nano Letters 24, 2671 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    J. Wu, N. Ji, and K. K. Tsia, Speed scaling in multipho- ton fluorescence microscopy, Nature Photonics 15, 800 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Zhang, O

    T. Zhang, O. Hernandez, R. Chrapkiewicz, A. Shai, M. J. Wagner, Y. Zhang, C.-H. Wu, J. Z. Li, M. Inoue, Y. Gong, et al. , Kilohertz two-photon brain imaging in awake mice, Nature methods 16, 1119 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Y. Wang, H. Li, Q. Hu, X. Cheng, R. Chen, X. Lv, and S. Zeng, Aberration-corrected three-dimensional non- 14 inertial scanning for femtosecond lasers, Optics Express 28, 29904 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Pozzi, L

    P. Pozzi, L. Maddalena, N. Ceffa, O. Soloviev, G. Vdovin, E. Carroll, and M. Verhaegen, Fast calculation of computer generated holograms for 3d photostimula- tion through compressive-sensing gerchberg–saxton algo- rithm, Methods and protocols 2, 2 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Y. T. Chew, M. Poitrinal, T. Tomita, S. Kitade, J. Mauri- cio, K. Ohmori, and S. de L´ es´ eleuc, Ultraprecise holo- graphic optical tweezer array, Physical Review A 110, 053518 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    M. A. Neil, M. J. Booth, and T. Wilson, Closed-loop aberration correction by use of a modal zernike wave- front sensor, Optics letters 25, 1083 (2000)

    2000

  57. [65]

    M. J. Booth, M. A. Neil, R. Juˇ skaitis, and T. Wilson, Adaptive aberration correction in a confocal microscope, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, 5788 (2002)

    2002

  58. [66]

    ˇCiˇ zm´ ar, M

    T. ˇCiˇ zm´ ar, M. Mazilu, and K. Dholakia, In situ wavefront correction and its application to micromanipulation, Na- ture Photonics 4, 388 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    H. Ren, H. Lin, X. Li, and M. Gu, Three-dimensional parallel recording with a debye diffraction-limited and aberration-free volumetric multifocal array, Optics letters 39, 1621 (2014)

    2014

  60. [68]

    E. E. Diel, J. W. Lichtman, and D. S. Richardson, Tu- torial: avoiding and correcting sample-induced spherical aberration artifacts in 3d fluorescence microscopy, Nature Protocols 15, 2773 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Bouchal, V

    Z. Bouchal, V. Chlup, R. ˇCelechovsk´ y, P. Bouchal, and I. C. Nistor, Achromatic correction of diffractive disper- sion in white light slm imaging, Optics Express , Optics Express 22, 12046 (2014)

    2014

  62. [70]

    Q. Hu, Z. Zhou, X. Lv, and S. Zeng, Compensation of spatial dispersion of an acousto-optic deflector with a special keplerian telescope, Optics Letters, Optics Letters 41, 207 (2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    Y. Guo, Y. Wang, Q. Hu, X. Lv, and S. Zeng, High- resolution femtosecond laser beam shaping via digital holography, Optics Letters, Optics Letters44, 987 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    Schiffers, G

    F. Schiffers, G. Kuo, N. Matsuda, D. Lanman, and O. Cossairt, Holochrome: Polychromatic illumination for speckle reduction in holographic near-eye displays, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24144 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    J. Wu, Y. Guo, C. Deng, A. Zhang, H. Qiao, Z. Lu, J. Xie, L. Fang, and Q. Dai, An integrated imaging sensor for aberration-corrected 3d photography, Nature 612, 62 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    Yu and S

    L.-Y. Yu and S. You, High-fidelity and high-speed wave- front shaping by leveraging complex media, Science Ad- vances 10, eadn2846 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    Gopakumar, G.-Y

    M. Gopakumar, G.-Y. Lee, S. Choi, B. Chao, Y. Peng, J. Kim, and G. Wetzstein, Full-colour 3d holographic augmented-reality displays with metasurface waveguides, Nature 629, 791 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    Makey, ¨O

    G. Makey, ¨O. Yavuz, D. K. Kesim, A. Turnalı, P. Elahi, S. Ilday, O. Tokel, and F. ¨O. Ilday, Breaking crosstalk limits to dynamic holography using orthogonality of high- dimensional random vectors, Nature photonics 13, 251 (2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    A. E. Tippie and J. R. Fienup, Multiple-plane anisopla- natic phase correction in a laboratory digital holography experiment, Optics letters 35, 3291 (2010)

    2010

  70. [78]

    D. C. Johnston and B. M. Welsh, Analysis of multicon- jugate adaptive optics, Journal of the Optical Society of America A 11, 394 (1994)

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.