Ever since Ewing and Rosenhain [1] reported, at the beginning of the 20th century, the observation of (slip) markings that were oriented differently in different domains (crystals) on polished surfaces of lightly deformed samples of polycrystalline metals, the problem has captured the attention of several researchers who have sought to explain the exact physics controlling this phenomenon. While it is intuitive that the different constituent crystals are likely to experience different patterns of slip activity because of the differences in their lattice orientation in the sample, there does not yet exist a comprehensive theory that is currently capable of predicting accurately the crystal-scale evolution of microstructure for a specified imposed deformation history on the polycrystal. Modern crystal plasticity theory, built on the pioneering work of Taylor [2] and presented in its current form through the work of Asaro and Needleman, [3] and Kalidindi et al., [4] has enjoyed a great deal of success in predicting macroscopic anisotropic stress±strain curves and the averaged texture evolution in a variety of deformation paths for single-phase cubic polycrystalline metals.More recently, the attention has been focused on evaluating the accuracy of crystal plasticity models for predicting the evolution of microstructural details at the crystal scale. This is extremely important in developing recrystallization models. [5,6] It is also intuitive that understanding the accommodation of plastic deformation at the local scale has important bearing on fracture and other failure related properties of a number of brittle solids. The original experiments of Barrett and Levinson [7] and the more recent repetitions of these experiments by Pachanadeeswaran et al. [8] and by our research group [9] have cast serious doubts on the veracity of the currently used crystal plasticity theory. These experiments suffered from one or more of the following disadvantages in critically evaluating the models and providing new physical insight that could be used to improve the existing models: 1) These experiments are extremely difficult and time-consuming, although they have improved with the introduction of modern techniques. The experiments of Barrett and Levinson used X-ray and etch-pit techniques to monitor changes in lattice orientation of individual crystals with imposed deformation, while Pachanadeeswaran et al. used back-scattered Kikuchi diffraction patterns with manual identification of the patterns. In our recent work, we were able to exploit the recent introduction of orientation imaging microscopy (OIM), [10,11] which incorporates fully automated (computerized) identification of the back-scattered Kikuchi diffraction patterns and an automated computation of the crystal lattice orientation. The OIM technique is generally employed in a scanning electron microscope (SEM), and typically has a spatial resolution of about 1 lm.2) Since the techniques for measuring crystal orientations are surface techniques, the experiments are usually c...