Figure 1

Comparison of the 3D-DAOSTORM and sparse emitter analysis (SEA) algorithms on simulated data. (A) Analysis of simulated 3D data using the sparse emitter analysis algorithm with image-shape-based filtering (SEA.1). The simulated images of emitters are shown in grey scale and their actual locations are indicated by green ovals. The localizations identified by the analysis are marked by red ovals. The widths of the ovals in x and y are drawn proportional to the simulated PSF widths of the emitters. The molecule density is 0.3 molecules / um². (B, C) Same as A, except that the analysis was performed using the sparse emitter analysis algorithm without any image-shape-based filtering (SEA.2) (B) and the 3D-DAOSTORM algorithm (C). Scale bars: 4 pixels or 668 nm. (D) A comparison of the recall fraction for the three different analysis methods on the simulated 3D STORM data. The recall fraction is defined as the fraction of the emitters that were identified by the algorithm. (E) A comparison of the localization error in the xy plane for the three different analysis methods on the simulated 3D STORM data. (F) A comparison of the z localization error for the three analysis methods. Data in (D-F) are extracted from ten 256 x 256 pixel images as shown in A-C.