Literature DB >> 9523778

Sensory, motor, and pain thresholds for stimulation with medium frequency alternating current.

A R Ward1, V J Robertson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of frequency of alternating current on the sensory, motor, and pain thresholds in normal subjects, and to establish the optimal frequency for motor stimulation with minimal subject discomfort.
DESIGN: A repeated measures design using two groups of 11 subjects.
SETTING: A laboratory setting was used. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were volunteers who met the inclusion criteria.
INTERVENTIONS: Alternating current with 20 different carrier frequencies between 1 and 35 kHz, all modulated at 50 Hz, was applied to each subject on two separate occasions. For half the subjects, the frequency was increased or decreased sequentially (reversed on second occasion), and for the other half, it was applied in a different random order on each occasion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The voltage at the sensory threshold was recorded for each applied frequency. This was subsequently repeated for motor and pain thresholds.
RESULTS: Sensory, motor, and pain thresholds decreased with increasing frequency between 1 kHz and approximately 10 kHz. Above 10 kHz, the thresholds increased. The ratio pain threshold/sensory threshold increased systematically with increasing frequency over the range examined. By contrast, the ratio pain threshold/motor threshold showed a distinct maximum at a frequency of 10 kHz. Marked accommodation to motor and pain fiber stimulation was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: For comfortable sensory stimulation, a high frequency of alternating current is preferable. Discrimination between pain and motor stimulation is maximal at a frequency of approximately 10 kHz. This suggests that the optimal frequency for comfortable motor stimulation, one that is least likely to elicit pain fiber stimulation, is close to 10 kHz.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9523778     DOI: 10.1016/s0003-9993(98)90006-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  13 in total

1.  Less indication of muscle damage in the second than initial electrical muscle stimulation bout consisting of isometric contractions of the knee extensors.

Authors:  Abdulaziz Aldayel; Marc Jubeau; Michael R McGuigan; Kazunori Nosaka
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2009-11-12       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  A computational study to evaluate the activation pattern of nerve fibers in response to interferential currents stimulation.

Authors:  Mahsa Agharezaee; Amin Mahnam
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2015-04-03       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Interferential electric stimulation applied to the neck increases swallowing frequency.

Authors:  Takayuki Furuta; Masanori Takemura; Junzo Tsujita; Yoshitaka Oku
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 3.438

4.  Supportive effect of interferential current stimulation on susceptibility of swallowing in guinea pigs.

Authors:  Toshiro Umezaki; Yoichiro Sugiyama; Shinya Fuse; Shigeyuki Mukudai; Shigeru Hirano
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-07-04       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Cortical and Subcortical Effects of Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation in Humans with Tetraplegia.

Authors:  Francisco D Benavides; Hang Jin Jo; Henrik Lundell; V Reggie Edgerton; Yuri Gerasimenko; Monica A Perez
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Cutaneous sensation of electrical stimulation waveforms.

Authors:  Gavin Hsu; Forouzan Farahani; Lucas C Parra
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2021-04-10       Impact factor: 8.955

7.  Perception thresholds and qualitative perceptions for electrocutaneous stimulation.

Authors:  Eva-Maria Dölker; Stephan Lau; Maria Anne Bernhard; Jens Haueisen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 4.996

8.  Technical development of transcutaneous electrical nerve inhibition using medium-frequency alternating current.

Authors:  Yushin Kim; Hang-Jun Cho; Hyung-Soon Park
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2018-08-20       Impact factor: 4.262

9.  Comparison between Russian and Aussie currents in the grip strength and thickness muscles of the non-dominant hand: A double-blind, prospective, randomized-controlled study.

Authors:  Gabriela Letícia Cittadin; Gabrielle Zardo Ansolin; Nathan Patryck Furtado Santana; Taliny Luiza Tonini; Márcia Rosângela Buzanello Azevedo; Carlos Eduardo de Albuquerque; Gladson Ricardo Flor Bertolini
Journal:  Turk J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2020-11-09

Review 10.  Neural Substrates of Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation: Neuromodulation across Multiple Segments of the Spinal Cord.

Authors:  Trevor S Barss; Behdad Parhizi; Jane Porter; Vivian K Mushahwar
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.