Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 84 references

At clinical spinal-cord stimulation frequencies, under 0.25 percent of the applied electric-field energy reaches white or grey matter; most is absorbed in dura and CSF.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 07:34 UTC pith:C7EWBK3Y

load-bearing objection Useful multilayer T(f) curves for spinal-canal paths, but the headline clinical claim at 1.6 kHz sits outside the quasi-static regime that actually governs SCS. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02710 v1 pith:C7EWBK3Y submitted 2026-07-02 physics.bio-ph physics.med-ph

Electric Field Propagation with Spinal Cord Stimulation

Olivier Bernard , R\'ejean Fontaine , Oussama Eddaoui , Jonathan Harnie , Alain Frigon , Christian Iorio-Morin This is my paper
classification physics.bio-ph physics.med-ph PACS 87.50.C-41.20.Jb87.19.R-
keywords spinal cord stimulationelectric field transmissioncomplex permittivitymultilayer transfer matrixcerebrospinal fluidpulse widthepidural electrodeslossy dielectrics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain and paralysis currently rests on empirical and semi-hybrid models. This paper supplies a purely theoretical description of how an epidurally applied electric field propagates through the successive layers of the spinal canal. Using measured dielectric properties, the authors treat each tissue as a lossy medium with complex permittivity, refractive index and wave vector, then derive closed-form multilayer transmission coefficients. Numerical evaluation from 10 Hz to 0.1 THz shows that, for the clinically common biphasic pulse near 1.6 kHz, less than 0.25 percent of the field energy reaches white or grey matter; the bulk is reflected or dissipated as induced current inside the dura and cerebrospinal fluid. Consequently the first structures activated are expected to be floating bodies inside the CSF or a highly localized patch of dorsal horn where white-matter interposition is minimal. The same formulas also map how transmission rises and falls with pulse width, tissue thickness and electrode path, giving a practical tool for predicting energy delivery under different stimulation parameters.

Core claim

For an epidurally applied electric field at clinical frequencies (~1.6 kHz), multilayer transfer-matrix calculations show that transmission into white or grey matter is only ~0.05–0.25 percent; more than 65 percent of the energy is absorbed at the dura–CSF interface and inside the CSF as induced current, so the first neural structures activated are bodies floating in the CSF or a localized dorsal-horn region with minimal white-matter cover.

What carries the argument

Complex multilayer transmission coefficient T obtained from successive 2×2 interface matrices that enforce continuity of the complex wave vector and refractive index; T is evaluated as (ñ_final/ñ_initial) / |F00|^{2}, where F is the product of the interface matrices for two, three or four tissue layers.

Load-bearing premise

The high-frequency electromagnetic formulas (complex refractive index, phase factors and interference) remain valid at kilohertz frequencies, where free-space wavelengths are kilometers and the quasi-static conductive regime is normally assumed.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of electric-field amplitude or induced current density inside white or grey matter of an intact spinal cord during 1.6 kHz epidural stimulation; if more than a few percent of the applied energy is recovered there, the transmission claim fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Optimization of SCS can be performed by computing T for candidate pulse widths, tissue thicknesses and electrode paths before animal or clinical trials.
  • At GHz frequencies transmission rises sharply (up to ~90 percent), so future high-frequency stimulators could deliver energy more efficiently to deep neural targets.
  • Bodies floating in CSF or a thin dorsal-horn window become the primary candidates for the first activated structures, reorienting target identification away from bulk white or grey matter.
  • Tissue-thickness dependence of T supplies a quantitative explanation for why electrode placement relative to CSF depth strongly affects clinical thresholds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the quasi-static limit is restored, the same dielectric data could be re-cast as a network of complex impedances, allowing a direct comparison of wave versus circuit predictions for clinical pulse widths.
  • The model’s prediction that CSF acts as a current sink suggests that intentional modulation of CSF conductivity (e.g., by temperature or ion composition) could become an independent control parameter for SCS efficacy.
  • Because T peaks near 1–2 GHz, the same multilayer formalism could be reused to design focused microwave or millimeter-wave stimulation protocols for spinal or cortical targets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives complex permittivity, refractive index, and multilayer transfer-matrix transmission coefficients T(f) for epidurally applied electric fields through 2–4 layers of spinal-canal tissue (dura, CSF, white matter, grey matter), using Gabriel-style Cole–Cole parameters extended to low frequency and ad-hoc exponents ζ′, ζ″ on n′ and n″. Simulations over 10 Hz–0.1 THz are used to argue that at the clinical biphasic frequency ~1.6 kHz, T into WM/GM is ≲0.25%, most energy is absorbed or reflected in dura and CSF as induced current, and the first activated structures are therefore bodies floating in CSF or a localized dorsal horn with minimal WM interposition. The authors present this as a purely theoretical complement to semi-hybrid FEM SCS models.

Significance. A closed-form, frequency-dependent transmission model for the spinal canal would be useful if it correctly described clinical SCS or a well-defined high-frequency regime, and the systematic compilation of ε̃r(f) and ñ(f) for dura/CSF/WM/GM is a potentially reusable contribution. The paper is explicit about its theoretical intent and about the scarcity of low-frequency optical data. However, the load-bearing clinical inference (T ≲ 0.25% at 1.6 kHz and the floating-body activation hypothesis) is obtained from a plane-wave multilayer formalism outside the quasi-static volume-conductor regime that governs kHz SCS and that is used by the FEM literature the authors cite. Until that regime mismatch is resolved or the claims are sharply re-scoped, the work’s impact on SCS optimization remains limited.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods §§II.C–F; Eqs. (17)–(19); §IV.B; Conclusion] Methods §§II.C–F, Eqs. (2)–(4), (6)–(8), (17)–(19) and Annexe A: the transmission model treats the stimulus as a normally incident plane wave with complex wave vector k̃=(2πf/c)ñ, phase factors e^{±ikr−κr}, and multilayer transfer matrices. At clinical SCS frequencies (~1.6 kHz; free-space λ ~ 10^5 km; tissue paths ~0.1–2 mm) the quasi-static conductive limit (σ ≫ ωε, Laplace/Ohmic current continuity) is the standard description used by every FEM SCS model cited (e.g. Capogrosso, Lempka, Arle). The paper notes the contrast with quasi-static FEM (§IV.G) yet still reports the 1.6 kHz T values and the floating-body/dorsal-horn inference (Abstract, §IV.B, Conclusion) as clinically relevant without (i) a demonstrated reduction of the wave matrices to the quasi-static limit or (ii) a matched volume-conductor calculation. If the wave formalism is inapplicable, those numerical T values and the
  2. [§II.A; Fig. 2; Results Fig. 6] §II.A and Fig. 2: square (or biphasic) stimulation pulses are collapsed to a monochromatic continuous wave at f = 1/(2 pwd). A square pulse has a broad Fourier spectrum; transmission of energy into tissue is not equivalent to T evaluated only at the fundamental. The clinical claim at 1.6 kHz therefore rests on an incomplete spectral treatment. Either a full Fourier decomposition of the pulse through the linear T(f) filter, or an explicit restriction of the model to monochromatic RF/microwave stimuli, is required.
  3. [§II.D; Table I; Fig. 6; Conclusion] §II.D, Table I and Eqs. (7)–(8): the exponents ζ′ and ζ″ are free parameters introduced so that n′ and n″ match a sparse set of literature points (mostly ≳400 MHz), then used to generate the entire T(f) curves that support the narrative, including the low-frequency clinical band. The manuscript acknowledges that complex εr and n below ~400 MHz are poorly measured, yet the strongest claim is made precisely in that band. Sensitivity of T(1.6 kHz) to ζ′/ζ″ and to the Cole–Cole extension below 400 MHz must be quantified, or the clinical-band numbers withdrawn until data exist.
  4. [§II.F; Fig. 1; §IV.B; Conclusion] The model assumes infinite planar layers and normal incidence (Fig. 5, Annexe A). Real SCS uses finite electrode arrays on a cylindrical cord with anisotropic WM and current injection from the electrodes (not a free-space incident plane wave). Even if the high-frequency T(f) curves are retained as a theoretical exercise, the inference that “bodies floating in the CSF” are preferentially activated requires a current-density / activating-function calculation in realistic geometry; plane-wave energy transmission alone does not establish which neural elements fire first.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and body] Throughout: “dura matter” should be “dura mater”.
  2. [Front matter] The French “Résumé” block duplicates the English abstract; for an English-language APS-style submission this is unusual and should be removed or moved to SI unless the journal requests it.
  3. [Fig. 6; §IV.E] Fig. 6 paths a–d: thicknesses are given in the caption (0.693–2.156 mm) but the source of those lengths (cat microCT/MRI) and sensitivity of T to ±20–50% thickness variation should be stated in the main text, not only in Discussion §IV.E.
  4. [Eq. (1); Annexe A] Eq. (1): the Cole–Cole sum is written with Δεn/(1+(iωτn)^(1−αn))+σn/(iωε0); confirm that the sign convention for the imaginary part of ε̃r is consistent with the n′, n″ extraction in Annexe A (A4 uses ε′−iε″ in one place and ε′+iε″ in another).
  5. [§II.E; Eq. (10)] §II.E: setting μ0 “as unity” while keeping SI frequencies and c in the wave-vector formulas is dimensionally inconsistent; clarify units or restore μ0 explicitly.
  6. [§IV.F] References and comparison to head multilayer RF work [69] are helpful; a short table of T peak frequency/value versus that work would make the agreement claim in §IV.F more concrete.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Mild parameter fitting of refractive-index exponents to sparse literature; T and the clinical claim are not forced by construction from those fits or from self-citation.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§II.D Complex refractive index; Eqs. (7)–(8); Table I]
    "with variables ζ′ and ζ′′ present to fit calculations to the scarce number of data from previous work [47–50], with the exception of the complex part of dura... The variables ζ′ and ζ′′ are exponents, in a similar fashion to αn of the modified Cole-Cole equation... The values of ζ′ and ζ′′ are presented in table I."

    ζ′ and ζ′′ are free exponents chosen so that computed n′ and n′′ match sparse external refractive-index points. Those calibrated n(ω) then enter the transfer matrices that produce the T(f) curves used to support the narrative (including low-f clinical-band values). This is mild model calibration, not a prediction forced by fitting the same clinical T; the reduction is only that the shape of T inherits the fitted n, not that T equals the fit target by definition.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is: Gabriel-style Cole–Cole ε̃r(ω) (external) → complex ñ via Eqs. (6)–(8) with fitted ζ′,ζ″ → multilayer transfer-matrix T (Eqs. 17–19, Annexe A) → numerical T(1.6 kHz) ≲ 0.25% → physiological inference about CSF/floating bodies. T is not algebraically identical to the fitted n data, nor is it fitted to clinical SCS outcomes; the 0.25% figure is a model output, not a renamed fit. The only mild circularity-adjacent step is the introduction of ζ′/ζ″ so that n matches scarce literature points, which then shapes the T curves. There is no self-definitional loop, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no self-citation that forces the central claim. Regime applicability of the wave matrices at kHz is a correctness/physics concern, not circularity. Score 2 reflects one minor fitted-input step that is not load-bearing for the clinical number by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim chain is: Gabriel-type complex ε → ñ=√ε̃r with fitted ζ exponents and μ≈μ0 → complex k → multilayer transfer matrices / Fresnel+Beer for 2–4 layers → T(f) → physiological inference that CSF absorbs most clinical energy. Free parameters are the ζ′/ζ″ fits and path thicknesses; axioms are standard EM plus domain choices (normal incidence, CW proxy for square pulses, layered homogeneous slabs, human tissue params for cat anatomy). No new particle-like entities; the 'model' is a standard transfer matrix specialized to SCS.

free parameters (4)
  • ζ′ (real refractive-index exponent per tissue) = 0.5 / 0.435 / 0.42 / 0.55
    Table I: WM 0.5, GM 0.435, CSF 0.42, dura 0.55—introduced to fit scarce n data rather than derived from Cole–Cole alone.
  • ζ″ (imaginary refractive-index exponent) = 2 / 2 / 1 / exponential cutoff
    Table I: WM 2, GM 2, CSF 1, dura N/A with extra exp(−f·63.4e−12) factor—ad hoc damping of n″.
  • Tissue path thicknesses (paths a–d) = 0.693–2.156 mm
    Fig. 6: 0.693 mm (a,b), 0.783 mm (c), 2.156 mm (d) from cat reconstruction; T depends exponentially on thickness via κ and Beer factor.
  • Cole–Cole parameters (Δεn, τn, αn, σn) extended below 400 MHz = from Gabriel 1996 + authors' extension
    Taken from Gabriel et al. and 'extended by fitting' to prior work for f below reported range; drives all ε′(f), ε″(f).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Relative magnetic permeability μr ≃ 1 for all tissues at clinical and RF fields because χM ~ 10^−8, so ñ = √ε̃r.
    §II.D; standard for soft tissue but locks out magneto-dielectric corrections at low f.
  • ad hoc to paper Square stimulation pulses may be treated as continuous waves at f = 1/(2 pwd) for transmission calculations.
    §II.A and Fig. 2; discards harmonics and biphasic spectral content that matter for neural activation.
  • domain assumption Spinal canal tissues are homogeneous planar layers with normal incidence; cylindrical geometry and anisotropy (except a brief WM note) are neglected in T.
    §II.F transfer-matrix setup and Fig. 5; authors later note cylindrical vs spherical head geometry as a discrepancy source.
  • domain assumption Modified Cole–Cole complex permittivity (Gabriel) plus authors' low-frequency extension correctly represents cat lumbar dura/CSF/WM/GM.
    §II.B; human tissue tables applied to cat anatomy without species correction.
  • standard math Multilayer scattering/transfer matrix F with complex k and n yields the physical energy transmission coefficient T = (n4/n1)/|F00|^2 (real parts of n ratios).
    §II.F and Annexe A; standard 1D stratified-media EM if the wave regime applies.
  • ad hoc to paper High-frequency expressions for n′, n″ from complex ε remain valid down to 10 Hz because χM is small.
    §II.D explicit claim; this is the load-bearing regime extension into quasi-static band.
invented entities (1)
  • Spinal-canal-specific multilayer EF transmission coefficient T(f) model (2–4 layers) no independent evidence
    purpose: Closed-form prediction of energy reaching CSF, WM, GM versus pulse frequency/width and path.
    Not a new physical object; a specialized application of transfer matrices. independent_evidence false because no external measured T(f) for these paths is provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 25109 in / 4113 out tokens · 47238 ms · 2026-07-12T07:34:12.592625+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Spinal cord stimulation is routinely used for the treatment of chronic pain, and is increasingly being investigated for the restoration of movement after paralysis. However, most of our current knowledge on epidural spinal cord stimulation relies on empirical approaches and semi-hybrid models. Hence, optimizing this therapy requires a better theoretical understanding of how stimulation affects the target neural structures. Using the physical properties of tissues combined with an electromagnetic, dielectric, and metallic description of them, we derived the electric field transmission coefficient through a given number of layers of tissue in the spinal cord. We then used this model to calculate the transmission of electric field energy in target neural tissues such as grey or white matter for different pulse width. Simulations suggest that the propagation through the tissues of the spinal cord of an epidurally applied electric field has a complex relationship with the field pulse width. In addition the electric field energy is absorbed at the junction between dura matter and cerebrospinal fluid, and within the cerebrospinal fluid as induced current. These currents hit the different bodies floating within the cerebrospinal fluid, and/or dorsal horn in a very localized region of the spinal cord. The proposed models allow theoretical calculation of the transmission factor for different numbers of layers of tissue within the spinal canal, and for different electric field pulse widths. This eases the prediction of the expected energy reaching each layer of the spinal cord for different tissues, parameters, and electrode configurations, simplifying the optimization of spinal cord stimulation treatment.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. B. Ranck and S. L. BeMent, Exp Neurol.11, 451 (1965)

    1965

  2. [2]

    Coburn, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng.BME-32, 978 (1985)

    B. Coburn, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng.BME-32, 978 (1985)

    1985

  3. [3]

    E. R. Rogers, H. J. Zander, and S. F. Lempka, The Journal of Pain23, 434 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    C. A. Bossetti, M. J. Birdno, and W. M. Grill, J Neural Eng.5, 44 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    G. R. Hernadez-Labrado, J. L. Polo, E. Lopez-Dolado, and J. E. Collazos-Castro, Med Biol Eng Comput.49, 417 (2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    Capogrosso andet al., J Neurosci.33, 19326 (2013)

    M. Capogrosso andet al., J Neurosci.33, 19326 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Rattay, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng.BME-33, 974 (1986)

    F. Rattay, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng.BME-33, 974 (1986)

    1986

  8. [8]

    C. C. McIntyre and W. M. Grill, Ann Biomed Eng.28, 219 (2000)

    2000

  9. [9]

    C. C. McIntyre and W. M. Grill, J Neurophysiol.88, 1952 (2002)

    1952

  10. [10]

    Capogrosso, F

    M. Capogrosso, F. B. Wagner, J. Gandar, andet al., Nat Protoc13, 2031 (2018)

    2031

  11. [11]

    E. E. Patrick, C. R. Fleeting, D. R. Patel, J. T. Casauay, A. Patel, H. Stepherd, and J. K. Wong, Front Hum Neurosci.18, 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1333183 (2024)

    work page doi:10.3389/fnhum.2024.1333183 2024

  12. [12]

    E. R. Rogers, M. Capogrosso, and S. F. Lempka, J Neurosci.44, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2199- 23.2024 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2199- 2024

  13. [13]

    J. E. Arle, K. W. Carlson, L. Mei, and J. L. Shils, Neuromodulation17, 320 (2013)

    2013

  14. [14]

    H. J. Zander, R. D. Graham, C. J. Anaya, and S. F. Lempka, J Neural Eng.17, 10.1088/1741- 2552/ab8fc4 (2020). 21

    doi:10.1088/1741- 2020

  15. [15]

    Capogrosso andet al., Nature539, 284 (2016)

    M. Capogrosso andet al., Nature539, 284 (2016)

    2016

  16. [16]

    F. B. Wagner, J. B. Mignardot, C. G. L. Goff-Mignardot, R. Demesmaker, S. Komi, M. Ca- pogrosso, and al., Nature563, 65 (2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    Rowald andet al., Nat Med28, 260 (2022)

    A. Rowald andet al., Nat Med28, 260 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    N. A. Greiner,Refinements of Hybrid Neurophysical Volume Conductor Models and Appli- cation to Study Epidural Electrical Stimulation of the Cervical Spinal Cord, phdthesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Solanes, J

    C. Solanes, J. L. Dura, M. A. Canos, J. de Andres, L. Marti-Bonmati, and J. Saiz, J. Neural Eng.18, 10.1088/1741-2552/abe44f (2021)

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abe44f 2021

  20. [20]

    M. P. Jensen and R. M. Brownstone, Eur. J. Pain.23, 652 (2018)

    2018

  21. [21]

    Naess, G

    S. Naess, G. Halnes, E. Hagen, D. J. J. Halgens, A. M. Dale, G. T. Einvoll, and T. B. Ness, Neuroimage 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117467 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117467 2020

  22. [22]

    M. A. Heald and J. B. Marion,Classical Electromagnetic Radiation, 3rd ed. (Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning, 1995)

    1995

  23. [23]

    J. D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, 1999)

    1999

  24. [24]

    Borne and E

    M. Borne and E. Wolf,Principles of Optics : Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interfe- rence and Diffraction of Light, 7th ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  25. [25]

    M. N. O. Sadiku,Elements of Electromagnetism, 4th ed. (Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  26. [26]

    D. J. Griffith,Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4th ed. (Wisley, 2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    Gabriel, R

    S. Gabriel, R. W. Lau, and C. Gabriel, Phys Med Biol.41, 2251 (1996)

    1996

  28. [28]

    Gabriel, R

    S. Gabriel, R. W. Lau, and C. Gabriel, Phys Med Biol.41, 2231 (1996)

    1996

  29. [29]

    Gabriel, S

    C. Gabriel, S. Gabriel, and E. Corthout, Phys Med Biol.41, 2271 (1996)

    1996

  30. [30]

    Gabriel, A

    C. Gabriel, A. Peynman, and E. H. Grant, Phys Med Biol.54, 4863 (2009)

    2009

  31. [31]

    Pethig and D

    R. Pethig and D. B. Kell, Phys Med Biol.32, 933 (1987)

    1987

  32. [32]

    K. R. Foster and H. P. Schwan, Crit Rev Biomed Eng.17, 25 (1989)

    1989

  33. [33]

    Peynman, C

    A. Peynman, C. Gabriel, E. H. Grant, G. Vermeeren, and L. Martens, Phys Med Biol.54, 227 (2009)

    2009

  34. [34]

    Nowak, E

    K. Nowak, E. Mix, J. Gimsa, U. Strauss, K. K. Sriperumbudur, R. Benecke, and U. Gimsa, Parkinsons Dis.2011, 10.4061/2011/414682 (2011)

    work page doi:10.4061/2011/414682 2011

  35. [35]

    Sollehudin, N

    M. Sollehudin, N. Seman, and H. Jaafar, Jurnal Teknologi73, 43 (2014). 22

    2014

  36. [36]

    L. Gun, D. Ning, and Z. Liang, Mathematical Problems in Engineering 10.1155/2017/7249672 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1155/2017/7249672 2017

  37. [37]

    O. P. Cherkasova andet al., J Biomed Opt.26, 10.1117/1.JBO.26.9.090902 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jbo.26.9.090902 2021

  38. [38]

    J. Chen, G. Li, H. Liang, S. Zhao, J. Sun, and M. Quin, Biomed Eng Online.20, 10.1186/s12938-021-00913-4 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1186/s12938-021-00913-4 2021

  39. [39]

    Matkovic, A

    A. Matkovic, A. Kordic, A. Jakovvcevic, and A. Sarolic, Diagnostics (Basel)12, 10.3390/diag- nostics12112580 (2022)

    work page doi:10.3390/diag- 2022

  40. [40]

    Sasaki, E

    K. Sasaki, E. Porter, E. A. Rashed, L. Farrugia, and G. Schmid, Phys Med Biol.67, 10.1088/1361-6560/ac7b64 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ac7b64 2022

  41. [41]

    Kordic and A

    A. Kordic and A. Sarolic, Cancers (Basel)15, 10.3390/cancers15164153 (2023)

    work page doi:10.3390/cancers15164153 2023

  42. [42]

    Here we will des- cribe what happens to all the components of said square pulse by calculating the transmission coefficient of each pulse frequency composing it

    A square pulse would be described as an infinite sum of sinusoidal functions. Here we will des- cribe what happens to all the components of said square pulse by calculating the transmission coefficient of each pulse frequency composing it

  43. [43]

    Khalid, N

    M. Khalid, N. Tedeschi, and F. Frezza,On a Lossy Electric-Magnetic Uniaxial Medium and its Applications to Boundary Conditions, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation63, 1686 (2014)

    2014

  44. [44]

    R. L. Boylestad,Introductory of Circuit Analasis, 4th ed. (Charles E. Merill Publishing, 1985)

    1985

  45. [45]

    Vorauer,Megnetic Susceptibility of Biological Tissue, mathesis, Karl-Franzens-University Graz (2016)

    T. Vorauer,Megnetic Susceptibility of Biological Tissue, mathesis, Karl-Franzens-University Graz (2016)

    2016

  46. [46]

    Klohs and A

    J. Klohs and A. M. Hirt, Phys Med.88, 37 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    W. J. Penfold and C. A. E. Price, The Medical Journal of Australia , 424 (1929)

    1929

  48. [48]

    S. L. Jacques, Phys Med Biol.58, 10.1088/0031-9155/58/11/R37 (2013)

    doi:10.1088/0031-9155/58/11/r37 2013

  49. [49]

    L. Zhu, Y. Zou, J. Li, and Q. Liu, inThe 9th International Symposium on Ultrafast Phenomena and Terahertz Waves,TerahertzSpectroscopyandImagingII(OpticaPublishingGroup,2018)

    2018

  50. [50]

    S. J. Nagel andet al., J Med Eng Technol.42, 128 (2018)

    2018

  51. [51]

    A. N. Yaroslavsky, P. C. Schulze, I. V. Yaroslavsky, R. Schobber, F. Ulrich, and H. J. Schwar- zimaier, Phys Med Biol.47, 2059 (2002)

    2059

  52. [52]

    S. C. Gebhart, W. C. Lin, and A. Mahadevan-Jansen, Phys Med Biol.51, 2011 (2006)

    2011

  53. [53]

    Wang andet al., Biomed Opt Express.11, 4085 (2020)

    Y. Wang andet al., Biomed Opt Express.11, 4085 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    Shapey and et al., J Biophotonics15, 10.1002/jbio.202100072 (2021)

    J. Shapey and et al., J Biophotonics15, 10.1002/jbio.202100072 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1002/jbio.202100072 2021

  55. [55]

    It is good to mention that epidural stimulation can be done at higherf, up to 20 kHz. 23

  56. [56]

    S. F. Lempka, C. C. McIntyre, K. L. Kilgore, and A. G. Machado, Anesthesiology122, 1362 (2015)

    2015

  57. [57]

    R.B.Balili,International Journal of Modern Physics : Conference Series,InternationalJournal of Modern Physics: Conference Series17, 159 (2012)

    2012

  58. [58]

    See supplemental Material [url] for mathematic models derivation

  59. [59]

    It is important to underline that only the real part of˜ni/˜nj are used in equations 17 and 18 asTis a real quantity

  60. [60]

    S. Ma, P. Ding, Z. Zhou, H. Jin, X. Li, and Y. Li, Brain Sci.14, 10.3390/brainsci14030279 (2024)

    work page doi:10.3390/brainsci14030279 2024

  61. [61]

    E. W. Prohofsky, Bioelectromagnetics25, 441 (2004)

    2004

  62. [62]

    H. Yada, M. Nagai, and K. Tanaka, Chemical Physics Letters464, 166 (2008)

    2008

  63. [63]

    A. R. Sheppard, M. L. Swicord, and Q. Balzano, Health Phys.95, 365 (2008)

    2008

  64. [64]

    L. Sun, L. Zhao, and R.-Y. Peng, Mil Med Res.8, 10.1186/s40779-021-00321-8 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1186/s40779-021-00321-8 2021

  65. [65]

    Mancini, R

    T. Mancini, R. Mosetti, A. Marcelli, M. Petrarca, S. Lupi, and A. D’Arco, Radiation2, 100 (2022)

    2022

  66. [66]

    Bocci, G

    T. Bocci, G. D. Carolis, M. Paroli, D. Barloscio, L. Parenti, L. Tollapi, M. Valeriani, and F. Sartucci, Neuromodulation21, 480 (2018)

    2018

  67. [67]

    W. A. Wesselink and H. B. K. Boom, IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng.6, 200 (1998)

    1998

  68. [68]

    Ladenbauer, K

    J. Ladenbauer, K. Minassian, U. S. Hofstoetter, M. R. Dimitrijevic, and F. Rattay, IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng.18, 637 (2010)

    2010

  69. [69]

    Chakarothai, K

    J. Chakarothai, K. Wake, and K. Fuji, Front Public Health9, 10.3389/fpubh.2021.725310 (2021)

    work page doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.725310 2021

  70. [70]

    Fröhlich, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.72, 4211 (1975)

    H. Fröhlich, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.72, 4211 (1975)

    1975

  71. [71]

    Mumtaz, J

    S. Mumtaz, J. N. Rana, E. H. Choi, and I. Han, Int J Mol Sci.23, 10.3390/ijms23169288 (2022)

    work page doi:10.3390/ijms23169288 2022

  72. [72]

    Maréchal, Journal of Molecular Structure1004, 146 (2011)

    Y. Maréchal, Journal of Molecular Structure1004, 146 (2011)

    2011

  73. [73]

    I. V. L. H. Rodilla, W. Y. Wahlgren, A. Duelli, G. Bourenkov, J. Vukusic, R. Friedman, J. Stake, T. Schneider, and G. Katona, Struct Dyn.2, 10.1063/1.4931825 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4931825 2015

  74. [74]

    DePaoli, A

    D. DePaoli, A. Gasecka, and al., Neurophotonics7, 10.1117/1.NPh.7.1.015011 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1117/1.nph.7.1.015011 2020

  75. [75]

    Lak and H

    A. Lak and H. Oraizi, Intl Jrnl of Antenn and Prop.2013, 10.1155/2013/580872 (2012). 24

    work page doi:10.1155/2013/580872 2013

  76. [76]

    Huang, H

    Q. Huang, H. Oya, O. E. Flouty, C. G. Reddy, M. A. H. Third, G. T. Gillies, and M. Utz, Med Biol Eng Comput.52, 531 (2014)

    2014

  77. [77]

    Gerasimenko, R

    Y. Gerasimenko, R. Gorodnichev, E. Machueva, E. Pivovarova, D. Semyenov, A. Savochin, R. R. Roy, and V. R. Edgerton, J Neurosci.30, 3700 (2010)

    2010

  78. [78]

    Åström, J.-J

    M. Åström, J.-J. Lemaire, and K. Wårdell, Med Biol Eng Comput.50, 23 (2012)

    2012

  79. [79]

    Canna, L

    A. Canna, L. J. Letho, L. Wu, S. Sang, H. Laakso, J. Ma, P. Filip, Y. Zhang, O. Grôhn, F. Esposito, C. C. Chen, I. Lavrov, S. Michaeli, and S. Mangia, Sci Rep.11, 10.1038/s41598- 021-84873-8 (2021)

    doi:10.1038/s41598- 2021

  80. [80]

    W. Bo, J. Xu, J. Tang, Y. Yang, J. Ma, Z. Wang, and Y. Gong, in2017 42nd International Conference on Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves (IRMMW-THz)(2017) pp. 1–2

    2017

Showing first 80 references.