Abstract Transmission matrix (TM) is an important tool for controlling light focusing, imaging, and communication through turbid media. It can be measured by 3-step (TM3) or 4-step (TM4) phase-shifting interference, but the similarities and differences of the transmission matrices obtained by the two methods are rarely reported. Therefore, we make a quantitative comparison of the peak light intensity, signal-to-noise ratio, and average background of 24×24 = 576 focal points between paired samples (TM3-TM4) through the Wilcoxon rank sum test, and discuss the singular value of the transmission matrix and the focal peak. The comparative results of peak light intensity and signal-to-noise ratio show that there is a significant difference between the 3-step phase shift and the 4-step phase shift transmission matrixes. The focusing effect of the former is significantly better than that of the latter; interest concentrates on the focal intensity and singular value. The reciprocal of the singular value is proportional to the squared intensity, which is in accordance with singular value theory. The results of comparison of peak light intensity and signal-to-noise ratio strongly suggest that 3-step phase shift should be selected and used in applying the phase shift method to the measurement of the transmission matrix; and the singular value is of great significance in quantifying the focusing, imaging, and communication quality of the transmission matrix.
Received: 20 January 2021
Revised: 15 February 2021
Accepted manuscript online: 24 February 2021
(Optical properties of bulk materials and thin films)
Corresponding Authors:
Long-Jie Fang, Jing-Lei Du
E-mail: 1504450287@qq.com;dujl@scu.edu.cn
Cite this article:
Xi-Cheng Zhang(张熙程), Zuo-Gang Yang(杨佐刚), Long-Jie Fang(方龙杰), Jing-Lei Du(杜惊雷), Zhi-You Zhang(张志友), and Fu-Hua Gao(高福华) Phase-shift interferometry measured transmission matrix of turbid medium: Three-step phase-shifting interference better than four-step one 2021 Chin. Phys. B 30 104202
[1] Vellekoop I M and Mosk A P 2007 Opt. Lett.32 2309 [2] Vellekoop I M and Aegerter C M 2010 Opt. Lett.35 1245 [3] Vellekoop I M and Mosk A P 2008 Opt. Commun.281 3071 [4] Vellekoop I M and Mosk A P 2008 Phys. Rev. Lett.101 120601 [5] Vellekoop I M 2015 Opt. Express23 12189 [6] van Rossum M C W and Nieuwenhuizen T M 1999 Rev. Mod. Phys.71 313 [7] Wang Y 2008 Journal of Aerosol Science39 305 [8] Zhai P W, Hu Y X, Chowdhary J, Trepte C R, Lucker P L and Josset D B 2010 J. Quantum Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer.111 1025 [9] Kim M, Choi W, Choi Y, Yoon C and Choi W 2015 Opt. Express23 12648 [10] Sperling T, Bührer W, Aegerter C M and Maret G 2013 Nat. Photon.7 48 [11] Judkewitz B, Horstmeyer R, Vellekoop I M, Papadopoulos I N and Yang C 2015 Nat. Phys.11 684 [12] Liu H, Liu Z, Chen M, Han S and Wang L V 2019 Photon. Res.7 1323 [13] He H, Guan Y and Zhou J 2013 Opt. Express21 12539 [14] Baek Y, Lee K, Oh J and Park Y 2020 Sensors20 3147 [15] Zhang H, Shao C, Kong W, Wang Y, Cao W, Liu C and Shen C 2017 European Polymer Journal91 376 [16] Chaigne T, Katz O, Boccara A C, Fink M, Bossy E and Gigan S 2013 Nat. Photon.8 58 [17] Horstmeyer R, Ruan H and Yang C 2015 Nat. Photon.9 563 [18] Beard P 2011 Interface Focus1 602 [19] Vellekoop I M, Cui M and Yang C 2012 Appl. Phys. Lett.101 081108 [20] Savage N 2009 Nat. Photon.3 170 [21] Conkey D B, Brown A N, Caravaca-Aguirre A M and Piestun R 2012 Opt. Express20 4840 [22] Haoyi Z, Zuogang Y, Longjie F and Shirong L 2018 Laser Physics28 096202 [23] Popoff S M, Lerosey G, Carminati R, Fink M, Boccara A C and Gigan S 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett.104 100601 [24] Popoff S M, Lerosey G, Fink M, Boccara A C and Gigan S 2011 New J. Phys.13 123021 [25] Dremeau A, Liutkus A, Martina D, Katz O, Schulke C, Krzakala F, Gigan S and Daudet L 2015 Opt. Express23 11898 [26] Yoon J, Lee K, Park J and Park Y 2015 Opt. Express23 10158 [27] Zhang H, Zhang B and Liu Q 2020 Opt. Express28 15006 [28] Boniface A, Gusachenko I, Dholakia K and Gigan S 2019 Optica6 274 [29] Tao X, Bodington D, Reinig M and Kubby J 2015 Opt. Express23 14168 [30] Yu H, Hillman T R, Choi W, Lee J O, Feld M S, Dasari R R and Park Y 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett.111 153902 [31] van Putten E and Mosk A 2010 Physics3 22 [32] Zhan L, Liu D, Yang A, Miao J and Zhu J 2019 Appl. Opt.58 2624 [33] Conkey D B, Caravaca-Aguirre A M and Piestun R 2012 Opt. Express20 1733 [34] Aubry A and Derode A 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett.102 084301 [35] Goetschy A and Stone A D 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett.111 063901 [36] Durand M, Popoff S M, Carminati R and Goetschy A 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett.123 243901 [37] Conkey D B, Caravaca-Aguirre A M and Piestun R 2012 Opt. Express20 1733 [38] Hollander M, Wolfe D A and Chicken E 2015 Nonparametric Statistical Methods (John Wiley & Sons) pp. 676-743 [39] Wilcoxon F 1945 Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods (International Biometric Society, Wiley) pp. 80-83 [40] Gibbons J D and Chakraborti S 2011 Nonparametric Statistical Inference (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer) pp. 20-32
Altmetric calculates a score based on the online attention an article receives. Each coloured thread in the circle represents a different type of online attention. The number in the centre is the Altmetric score. Social media and mainstream news media are the main sources that calculate the score. Reference managers such as Mendeley are also tracked but do not contribute to the score. Older articles often score higher because they have had more time to get noticed. To account for this, Altmetric has included the context data for other articles of a similar age.
