Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates an energy-efficient oscillator for wireless biomedical signal conditioning, highlighting its dual operational modes.
This paper presents a novel dual-mode memristor-based ring oscillator designed for energy-efficient, wireless biomedical signal conditioning systems. The proposed architecture leverages a compact DTMOS memristor emulator, consisting of only two transistors and one capacitor, to replace the conventional NMOS pull-down devices in a three-stage PMOS ring oscillator. This integration enables two distinct operating modes within a single compact core: a fixed-frequency mode for stable clock generation and carrier synthesis, and a programmable chirp mode for frequency-modulated signal generation. The fixed-frequency mode achieves continuous tuning from 3.142 GHz to 4.017 GHz via varactor control, with an ultra-low power consumption of only 111 µW at 4.017 GHz. The chirp mode generates linear frequency sweeps starting from 0.8 GHz, with the sweep range independently controllable through the state capacitor value and the pulse width of the control signal (SWChirp). Designed in a standard 0.18 µm CMOS process, the oscillator exhibits a low phase noise of −87.82 dBc/Hz at a 1 MHz offset for the three-stage configuration, improving to −94.3 dBc/Hz for the five-stage design. The overall frequency coverage spans 0.8–4.017 GHz, representing a 133.6% fractional range. The calculated figure of merit (FoM) is −169.45 dBc/Hz. Experimental validation using a discrete CD4007 prototype confirms the oscillation principle, while comprehensive simulations demonstrate robust performance across process corners and temperature variations. With its zero-static-power memristor core, wide tunability, and dual-mode reconfigurability, the proposed oscillator is ideally suited for multi-standard wireless biomedical applications, including implantable telemetry, neural stimulation, ultra-wideband (UWB) transmitters, and non-contact vital sign monitoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barraj et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: