Effects of weak mobile phone - electromagnetic fields (GSM, UMTS) on event related potentials and cognitive functions.

Bioelectromagnetics · 2008 · No effect · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

No effectModerate evidencePaper 5017

In a double-blind, randomized, crossover study of 15 healthy right-handed subjects, unilateral UMTS (1950 MHz; 0.1 and 1 W/kg) and GSM (pulsed 900 MHz; 1 W/kg) exposures produced no significant changes versus sham in measured event-related potentials (P100, N…

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2008

Study typerandomized_trial

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Modern mobile phones emit electromagnetic fields (EMF) ranging from 900 to 2000 MHz which are suggested to have an influence on well-being, attention and neurological parameters in mobile phone users. Until now most studies have investigated Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM)-EMF and only very few studies have focused on Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS)-EMF. Therefore, we tested the effects of both types of unilaterally presented EMF, 1950 UMTS (0.1 and 1 W/kg) and pulsed 900 MHz GSM (1 W/kg), on visually evoked occipital P100, the P300 of a continuous performance test, auditory evoked central N100 and the P300 during an oddball task as well as on the respective behavioral parameters, reaction time and false reactions, in 15 healthy, right handed subjects. A double-blind, randomized, crossover application of the test procedure was used. Neither the UMTS- nor the GSM-EMF produced any significant changes in the measured parameters compared to sham exposure. The results do not give any evidence for a deleterious effect of the EMF on normal healthy mobile phone users.

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 directionno_effect

Population15 healthy, right handed subjects

Sample size15

ExposureRF · 1950 MHz · 1 W/kg

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Visually evoked occipital P100
P300 during a continuous performance test
Auditory evoked central N100
P300 during an oddball task
Reaction time
False reactions

Limitations

Small sample size (n=15)
Exposure duration not reported in the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 1950,
    "sar_wkg": 1,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "15 healthy, right handed subjects",
  "sample_size": 15,
  "outcomes": [
    "Visually evoked occipital P100",
    "P300 during a continuous performance test",
    "Auditory evoked central N100",
    "P300 during an oddball task",
    "Reaction time",
    "False reactions"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a double-blind, randomized, crossover study of 15 healthy right-handed subjects, unilateral UMTS (1950 MHz; 0.1 and 1 W/kg) and GSM (pulsed 900 MHz; 1 W/kg) exposures produced no significant changes versus sham in measured event-related potentials (P100, N100, P300) or behavioral parameters (reaction time, false reactions).",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Small sample size (n=15)",
    "Exposure duration not reported in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "mobile phone",
    "RF-EMF",
    "GSM",
    "UMTS",
    "900 MHz",
    "1950 MHz",
    "SAR",
    "event-related potentials",
    "P100",
    "N100",
    "P300",
    "cognitive function",
    "double-blind",
    "randomized crossover",
    "sham exposure"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

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: 10.1002/bem.20418
PubMed: 18421712

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library