A comparison of true and premodulated interferential currents 1 John Ozcan, BPhysio, Alex R Ward, PhD, Valma J Robertson, PhD, BAppSc(Phty) Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Volume 85, Issue 3, Pages 409-415 (March 2004) DOI: 10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00478-7
Fig 1 Resultant current produced by (A) interference of 2 sinusoidal currents of different frequencies and (B) interference of 2 rectangular pulsed currents shifted in and out of phase. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 409-415DOI: (10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00478-7)
Fig 2 Regions of maximum stimulation (shaded), which are predicted with application of (A) true and (B) premodulated IFCs. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 409-415DOI: (10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00478-7)
Fig 3 The 4 test conditions used in the study. Condition A: constant-amplitude currents, paths crossed. Condition B: premodulated currents, paths crossed. Condition C: constant-amplitude currents, paths parallel. Condition D: premodulated currents, paths parallel. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 409-415DOI: (10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00478-7)
Fig 4 Sensory, motor, and pain thresholds for each test condition shown in figure 3. Bars represent the mean; error bars show the SD. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 409-415DOI: (10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00478-7)
Fig 5 Motor to sensory threshold ratio for each test condition shown in figure 3. Bars represent the mean; error bars show the SD. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 409-415DOI: (10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00478-7)
Fig 6 Maximum electrically induced torque for each test condition shown in figure 3. Bars represent the mean; error bars show the SD. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 409-415DOI: (10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00478-7)