Table 1.
Comparison of fitted and simulated parameters
| Fig. 2B | Fig. 2C | Fig. 2E | ||||
| Fit | Simulation | Fit | Simulation | Fit | Simulation | |
| D (pixels2 frame−1) | 4.66 ± 0.06 | 5 | 0.0113 ± 0.0001 | 0.01 | 1.12 ± 0.07 | 1 |
| K (frame−1) | 1.02 ± 0.02 | 1 | 1.68 ± 0.01 | 1.7 | 0.284 ± 0.006 | 0.3 |
| ρon | 0.095 ± 0.006 | 0.1 | 0.59 ± 0.01 | 0.59 | 0.36 ± 0.03 | 0.33 |
| fD | 0.68 ± 0.03 | 0.7 | 0.59 ± 0.02 | 0.65 | 0.36 ± 0.06 | 0.35 |
The parameters are for fits shown in Fig. 2. Each simulation had photobleaching rate kp = 10−4 frame−1 over T =2048 frames. Simulations (Fig. 2B) and (Fig. 2C) were generated on 128 × 128 pixel grids, and (Fig. 2E) was on a 256 × 256 pixel grid. The simulations were assigned 8130, 8411, and 9048 total particles, respectively. In each case, fitted parameters and errors were obtained by splitting the simulation spatially into four equally sized and independent ROIs and then calculating the mean and its SE from their analyses.