Open Access
Add to BibSonomy
Abstract
Some minor issues were discovered after publication of Opt Lett. 43, 5801 (2018) and are corrected here. They do not change the main message of the paper.
© 2020 Optical Society of America
Fig. 1. (a), (b) Activation profiles for different phase mask periods $\Lambda_{{\rm PM}}$ at a fixed distance (2 µm) behind the mask, for (a) standard and (b) inverse molograms fabricated at illumination doses of 2 and ${10}\;{{\rm J/cm}^2}$, respectively. The area under the activation profiles is pro-portional to the fractional receptor density ${R}$, exemplified for $\Lambda_{\text{PM}} = 840 \,\text{nm}$ by the shaded area. (c), (d) Coherence weighting functions: green: constructive interference (i.e., ridges), red: destructive interference (i.e., grooves). (e), (f) Coherence-weighted activation profile of (e) standard and (f) inverse molograms, again for $\Lambda_{\text{PM}} = 840 \,\text{nm}$. For inverse molograms, the fraction of binding sites that contributes destructively to the signal is much smaller.
This has implications for the conclusion at the end of the paragraph. The sentence that begins "Hence, our models" should be changed to "Hence, our models deviate by a factor of 2 with STED data from Ref. [4]."
In addition, the labels (e) and (f) are missing from Fig. 3, and some of the y-axis labels were overlapping. The updated figure [Fig. 1] is shown here. The figure caption did not change.
Reference
1. A. Frutiger, C. D. Tschannen, Y. Blickenstorfer, A. M. Reichmuth, C. Fattinger, and J. Voros, Opt. Lett. 43, 5801 (2018).
