As the scientist who designed the 2007 TAMU study, I want to emphasize again, very firmly, that scientific studies almost never optimize anything. They only struggle to show statistical significance (typically p < 0.05). Basically, about 99.9% of scientific studies you will ever see are just an exercise to show that doing something (call it “A”), gives a different result than doing nothing (call it “B”). Almost every scientific study you will ever see is simply the test: is A different from B?
In order to answer this question, it is essential to remove anything that complicates the study, such as the use of multiple anything (drugs, nutrients, whatever). This simplification makes statistical analysis easier, and greatly reduces the cost and time and complexity of a scientific study. But it does not tell you, ever, the one thing you want to know: what is the best way to get something to work.
This explains why so many studies on foods or supplements are deeply flawed, for example. They study only one nutrient at a time, or only one dosage, then they state that it works, or it does not. This over-simplification will be very misleading if, for example, they chose to study the wrong dose, or if the dose-response shows some form of hormesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis
For the TAMU study, I had a very limited budget and time window. In fact, it even got cut in half mid-way through the study. So, my only question was this: does PEMF help, or not, YES or NO. I did not ask what “frequency” is best. I did however manage to sneak in the key question and ask what waveform (pulse shape) is best. That was the purpose of this comparative study, and that makes the usefulness of this study much greater than most scientific studies, if you know how to read the science.
So, in order to complete this study I had to pick one, and only one, frequency. At that time (1996) the most often reported “frequency” was 10 Hz. So, we used 10 Hz. That does not mean that 10 Hz was the best, only, optimal, magical, or special frequency in any other way. It was just an educated guess, based on previously published science at the time.
I have since done a lot of work to optimize this, something that can’t really be done within the limits of a typical scientific study. My results are embedded in the hardware of ICES-PEMF:
Waveform has been fixed to the waveform identified in the TAMU study. People who are interested can read the study here:
https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/27
“Frequency” was optimized as well as possible after the TAMU study by field testing new designs and protocols with existing customer volunteers. It includes several different pulse rates to minimize tissue habituation, and based on the beta-test, where users reported that results for a very wide range of ailments and injuries was slightly, but noticeably, better using the Omni 8 protocol when compared blind to several other protocols, including a steady 10 Hz and, interestingly, Omni8 was noticeably better when compared to the primary Schumann resonance frequency of 7.82 Hz.
Therefore, my scientific advice:
Try using Omni-8, not 10 Hz.
Since you have an M1, you might also try:
Schumann 4 or 3 or 5
Alpha Wave
But in general, none of these will be markedly better than the others.