" on probe stiffness under lateral and longitudinal swiping, in simulation and experiment. With the exception of Fig 00, we see very little dependence on probe stiffness. Even with Fig 00, it would appear to suffice to pick a good stiffness (lower values appear better) and to fix it. The added value of varying the stiffness is by no means apparent.  This brings us to the Bayesian search, in which stiffness was updated trial-over-trial in a Bayesian fashion using likelihood functions at different stiffness values with prominence and nodule depth as variables. Two sets of likelihood functions, one obtained experimentally and one obtained from FEM. In both cases, the Bayesian technique clearly shows the best stiffness varying trial-over-trial. That variation, however, is not good evidence that an optimal stiffness is being obtained. To the contrary, it is notable that the best stiffness versus module depth behaves completely differently in Fig 00 (experimental likelihood) versus Fig 00 (FEM). The former tends toward a softer probe for deeper nodules and the latter tends toward a stiffer probe for deeper nodules. It is deeply concerning that the answers are just the opposite of one another. However, when looking at Fig 00, it appears that the likelihood functions simply don