Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

The Representativeness Heuristic

The Representativeness Heuristic

The representative heuristic describes a biased way of thinking, in which you unintentionally stereotype someone or something. For example, you may assume that your professors spend their free time reading books and engaging in intellectual conversation, because the idea of them spending their time playing volleyball or visiting an amusement park does not fit in with your stereotypes of professors.

The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic

The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic

In order to make good decisions, we use our knowledge and our reasoning. Often, this knowledge and reasoning is sound and solid. However, sometimes, we are swayed by biases or by others manipulating a situation. For example, let’s say you and three friends wanted to rent a house and had a combined target budget of $1,600. The realtor shows you only very run-down houses for $1,600 and then shows you a very nice house for $2,000. Might you ask each person to pay more in rent to get the $2,000...

Errors In Hypothesis Tests

Errors In Hypothesis Tests

When performing a hypothesis test, there are four possible outcomes depending on the actual truth (or falseness) of the null hypothesis and the decision to reject or not.

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...

Fundamental Attribution Error

Fundamental Attribution Error

According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state. This erroneous assumption is called the fundamental attribution...

Routh-Hurwitz Criterion II

Routh-Hurwitz Criterion II

In the application of the Routh-Hurwitz criterion, two specific scenarios can arise that complicate stability analysis.
The first scenario occurs when a singular zero appears in the first column of the Routh table. This situation creates a division by zero issues. To resolve this, a small positive or negative number, denoted as epsilon (∈), is substituted for the zero. The stability analysis proceeds by assuming a sign for ∈. If ∈ is positive, any sign change in the first column of the Routh...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Point spread function estimation from projected speckle illumination.

Light, science & applications·2018

Same author

Enhanced sampling of 2D interference patterns.

Applied optics·2017

Same author

Beyond the diffraction limit via optical amplification.

Optics letters·2016

Same author

Phasing a segmented telescope.

Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics·2015

Same author

Color sorting by retinal waveguides.

Optics express·2015

Same author

Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision.

Nature communications·2014

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Hartmann-Shack analysis errors.

Naftali Zon, Orr Srour, Erez N Ribak

|June 9, 2009

Summary

Fourier demodulation in Hartmann-Shack sensors overcomes camera pixelization errors, unlike traditional centroiding methods. Simulations confirm both techniques align with infinite pixels per spot.

Area of Science:

Optics and Photonics
Optical Metrology

Background:

Hartmann-Shack (HS) wave-front sensing is crucial for optical system characterization.
Traditional HS analysis relies on centroiding spot patterns, which can be susceptible to pixelization errors.
Understanding and mitigating reconstruction errors is vital for accurate wave-front measurement.

Purpose of the Study:

To develop a theoretical model for reconstruction errors in HS wave-front sensors.
To compare the efficacy of centroiding versus Fourier demodulation techniques in mitigating pixelization and Poisson errors.
To validate simulation results against theoretical predictions.

Main Methods:

Constructed a theoretical model for HS wave-front sensor reconstruction errors.
Investigated pixelization errors arising from camera sensors.

Related Experiment Videos

Analyzed Poisson noise effects on camera pixels.

Employed Fourier demodulation as an alternative analysis technique.

Utilized computational simulations to support theoretical findings.

Main Results:

Fourier demodulation effectively overcomes pixelization errors inherent in the traditional centroid technique.
Pixelization errors significantly impact centroid accuracy, especially with limited pixels per spot.
Poisson errors were also modeled and considered within the analysis.
Simulations demonstrated that centroiding and Fourier demodulation yield comparable results when an infinite number of pixels per spot is assumed.

Conclusions:

Fourier demodulation offers a robust alternative to centroiding for HS wave-front sensing, particularly in reducing pixelization artifacts.
The choice of analysis technique impacts the accuracy of wave-front reconstruction.
Theoretical modeling and simulations provide valuable insights into HS sensor performance limitations.