Are media reports able to cause somatic symptoms attributed to WiFi radiation? An experimental test of the negative expectation hypothesis

2017 · Mixed · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

MixedModerate evidencePaper 2297

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2017

Study typerandomized_trial

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Are media reports able to cause somatic symptoms attributed to WiFi radiation? An experimental test of the negative expectation hypothesis Bräscher AK, Raymaekers K, Van den Bergh O, Witthöft M. Are media reports able to cause somatic symptoms attributed to WiFi radiation? An experimental test of the negative expectation hypothesis. Environ Res. 2017 Mar 31;156:265-271. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.03.040. Abstract People suffering from idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) experience numerous non-specific symptoms that they attribute to EMF. The cause of this condition remains vague and evidence shows that psychological rather than bioelectromagnetic mechanisms are at work. We hypothesized a role of media reports in the etiology of IEI-EMF and investigated how somatosensory perception is affected. 65 healthy participants were instructed that EMF exposure can lead to enhanced somatosensory perception. Participants were randomly assigned to watch either a television report on adverse health effects of EMF or a neutral report. During the following experiment, participants rated stimulus intensities of tactile (electric) stimuli while being exposed to a sham WiFi signal in 50% of the trials. Sham WiFi exposure led to increased intensity ratings of tactile stimuli in the WiFi film group, especially in participants with higher levels of somatosensory amplification. Participants of the WiFi group reported more anxiety concerning WiFi exposure than the Control group and tended to perceive themselves as being more sensitive to EMF after the experiment compared to before. Sensational media reports can facilitate enhanced perception of tactile stimuli in healthy participants. People tending to perceive bodily symptoms as intense, disturbing, and noxious seem most vulnerable. Receiving sensational media reports might sensitize people to develop a nocebo effect and thereby contribute to the development of IEI-EMF. By promoting catastrophizing thoughts and increasing symptom- focused attention, perception might more readily be enhanced and misattributed to EMF. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typerandomized_trial

Effect directionmixed

Population65 healthy participants

Sample size65

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Participants were randomized to watch either a TV report on adverse health effects of EMF or a neutral report, then completed trials with sham WiFi exposure in 50% of trials while rating tactile (electric) stimulus intensity. Sham WiFi exposure was associated with increased intensity ratings in the group that watched the WiFi/EMF adverse-effects report, particularly among participants with higher somatosensory amplification; the WiFi/EMF report group also reported more anxiety about WiFi exposure and tended to rate themselves as more sensitive to EMF after the experiment.

Outcomes measured

Somatosensory perception (tactile/electric stimulus intensity ratings)
Anxiety concerning WiFi exposure
Self-perceived sensitivity to EMF
Somatosensory amplification (as a moderator)

Limitations

WiFi exposure was sham (no actual RF exposure)
Healthy participants rather than individuals with IEI-EMF
Frequency, exposure level, and duration of the sham WiFi signal not reported in the abstract
Outcomes are subjective ratings and self-report measures

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "wi-fi",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "65 healthy participants",
  "sample_size": 65,
  "outcomes": [
    "Somatosensory perception (tactile/electric stimulus intensity ratings)",
    "Anxiety concerning WiFi exposure",
    "Self-perceived sensitivity to EMF",
    "Somatosensory amplification (as a moderator)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Participants were randomized to watch either a TV report on adverse health effects of EMF or a neutral report, then completed trials with sham WiFi exposure in 50% of trials while rating tactile (electric) stimulus intensity. Sham WiFi exposure was associated with increased intensity ratings in the group that watched the WiFi/EMF adverse-effects report, particularly among participants with higher somatosensory amplification; the WiFi/EMF report group also reported more anxiety about WiFi exposure and tended to rate themselves as more sensitive to EMF after the experiment.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "WiFi exposure was sham (no actual RF exposure)",
    "Healthy participants rather than individuals with IEI-EMF",
    "Frequency, exposure level, and duration of the sham WiFi signal not reported in the abstract",
    "Outcomes are subjective ratings and self-report measures"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "IEI-EMF",
    "idiopathic environmental intolerance",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "WiFi",
    "nocebo",
    "negative expectations",
    "media reports",
    "somatosensory perception",
    "somatosensory amplification",
    "sham exposure"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "school-wi-fi",
      "weight": 0.55,
      "reason": "Study concerns symptoms attributed to WiFi exposure (sham) and related perceptions."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.03.040
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library