2019
DOI: 10.1364/oe.27.021029
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Divide and conquer: real-time maximum likelihood fitting of multiple emitters for super-resolution localization microscopy

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this case, the center of gravity can be determined to a higher precision than the Gauss fit of the PSF would allow. Even the positions of multi-emitters can be accurately fit by special algorithms with minor sacrifices in the localization precision [21]. With such a sparse excitation regime, thousands of images must be recorded and combined into the final SMLM image.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, the center of gravity can be determined to a higher precision than the Gauss fit of the PSF would allow. Even the positions of multi-emitters can be accurately fit by special algorithms with minor sacrifices in the localization precision [21]. With such a sparse excitation regime, thousands of images must be recorded and combined into the final SMLM image.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dense emitter localization algorithms are more accurate for localizing overlapping dense emitters ( Holden et al, 2011 ), except that it is computationally intensive and slow ( Sage et al, 2019 ). High-speed algorithms for emitters with moderate or high density ( Li et al, 2019 ; Ma et al, 2019 ; Xu et al, 2020 ) have recently become available.…”
Section: Brief Overview Of Smlm Imaging Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the past decade, a number of localization algorithms have been developed in the literature on the basis of a variety of criteria and objectives, including but not limited to localization of single emitters in single frames : (d)STORM 4 , Octan 5 , FluoroBancroft 6 , Gaussian fitting 7 , PeakSelector 8 , SOFI 9 , DAOSTORM 10 , maximum likelihood 11 , and palm3d 12 , localization of multiple emitters in single frames : 3D-DAOSTORM 13 , compressed sensing 14 , fast maximum likelihood 15 , RadialSymmetry 16 , PeakFit 17 , PALMER 18 , RapidSTORM 19 , least-square fitting with the 3D Gibson-Lanni point spread function (PSF) 20 , PC-PALM 21 , fast compressed sensing 22 , Easy-DHPSF 23 , 3D-WTM 24 , RainSTORM 25 , WaveTracer 26 , μManager 27 , ThunderSTORM 28 , FALCON 29 , MIATool 30 , AO-STORM 31 , state space 32 , TVSTORM 33 , ADCG 34 , Cspline 35 , ALM 36 , SMAP 37 , UNLOC 38 , sparse Bayesian learning 39 , LSTR 40 , FCEG 41 , WinSTORM 42 , and QC-STORM 43 , localization of multiple emitters in multiple frames : 3B analysis 44 , deconSTORM 45 , spatiotemporal decomposition and association 46 , and nonnegative matrix factorization 47 . In addition, the recent approaches include cloud computing 48 , clustering analysis 49 , 50 , big data analysis 51 , correlation analysis 52 , HAWK 53 to alleviate artifacts detectable by the Fourier ring co...…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the localization algorithms in the literature, only a few exploit temporal correlation by jointly utilizing multiple data frames or the entire data movie in estimation of emitter locations 44 47 . The majority of localization algorithms 1 43 estimate emitter locations from each single data frame independently or by the frame-by-frame localization (FFL). Thus, most localization nanoscopy images are FFL images.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation