1. 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 (March 2004)
DOI: /S (03)

2. 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  , DOI: ( /S (03) )

3. 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  , DOI: ( /S (03) )

4. 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  , DOI: ( /S (03) )

5. 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  , DOI: ( /S (03) )

6. 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  , DOI: ( /S (03) )

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  , DOI: ( /S (03) )