Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1.A. Kurs, A. Karalis, R. Moffatt, J. D. Joannopoulos, P. Fisher, and M. Soljačić, Science 317, 83 (2007).
2.S. H. Yeung, R. Pradhan, X. Feng, and Y. Zheng, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, accepted for publication, available in IEEE Xplore.
3.K. Davey and C. M. Epstein, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 47, 1493 (2000).
4.K. G. Efthimiadis, T. Samaras, and K. S. Polyzoidis, Physics in Medicine and Biology 55, 2541 (2010).
5.I. Laakso and A. Hirata, Physics in Medicine and Biology 57, 7753 (2012).
6.F. S. Salinas, J. L. Lancaster, and P. T. Fox, Physics in Medicine and Biology 54, 3631 (2009).
7.V. W.-H. Lin, I. N. Hsiao, and V. Dhaka, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 47, 600 (2000).
8.M. Lu and S. Ueno, Journal of Applied Physics 105(7), 07B322 - 07B322-3 (2009).
9.M. Sekinoa and S. Ueno, Journal of Applied Physics 91, 8730 (2002).
10.R. Salvador, P. C. Miranda, Y. Roth, and A. Zangen, Physics in Medicine and Biology 54, 3113 (2009).
11.Z.-D. Deng, A. V. Peterchev, and S. H. Lisanby, Proceedings of the 30th Annual International IEEE EMBS Conference, 5675 (2008).
12.A. Y. J. Szeto and J. K. Nyquist, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine 2, 14 (1983).
13.M. Linzer and D. M. Long, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 23, 341 (1976).
14.D. Long, J. Neurosurg. 39, 718 (1973).
15.L. Guo, N. J. Kubat, and R. A. Isenberg, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 30, 21 (2011).
16.M. S. Markov, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 26, 257 (2007).
17.H. S. Lee, S. Kim, and D. G. Hwang, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 47, 3060 (2011).
18.D. K. Cheng, Field and Wave Electromagnetic, 2nd ed. (Pearson Education, Inc., 1989).
19.J. Cox, Fundamentals of Linear Electronics: Integrated and Discrete, 2nd ed. (Delmar, Thomson Learning, 2002).
20.J. P. Reilly, Appied bioelectricity: From electrical simulation to electropathology, 1st ed. (Springer Science + Business Media New York, 1998).
21.M.S. Gupta, IEEE Transactions on Education 23, 156 (1980).
22. CST Studio Suite ® is a trademark by Computer Simulation Technology.
23.M. Castro-Giráldez, P. Botella, F. Toldrá, and P. Fito, Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 11, 376 (2010).
24.F. Gao, Y. J. Zheng, X. H. Feng, and C. D. Ohl, Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 063702 (2013).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



Recently, the design concept of magnetic resonant coupling has been adapted to electromagnetic therapy applications such as non-invasive radiofrequency (RF) stimulation. This technique can significantly increase the electric field radiated from the magnetic coil at the stimulation target, and hence enhancing the current flowing through the nerve, thus enabling stimulation. In this paper, the developed magnetic resonant coupling (MRC) stimulation, magnetic stimulation (MS) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) are compared. The differences between the MRC RF stimulation and other techniques are presented in terms of the operating mechanism, ex-vivo tissue voltage measurement and electromagnetic simulation analysis. The ev-vivo tissue voltage measurement experiment is performed on the compared devices based on measuring the voltage induced by electromagnetic induction at the tissue. The focusing effect, field and voltage induced across the tissue, and the attenuation due to the increase of separation between the coil and the target are analyzed. The electromagnetic stimulation will also be performed to obtain the electric field and magnetic field distribution around the biological medium. The electric field intensity is proportional to the induced current and the magnetic field is corresponding to the electromagnetic induction across the biological medium. The comparison between the MRC RF stimulator and the MS and TENS devices revealed that the MRC RF stimulator has several advantages over the others for the applications of inducing current in the biological medium for stimulation purposes.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd