RF Safe

Perception of the electromagnetic field emitted by a mobile phone.

Bioelectromagnetics · 2008 · No effect · Moderate evidence

← Research stream
No effectModerate evidencePaper 5037

Across forced-choice perception tasks, overall performance was no better than expected by chance and no participant met the pre-specified performance threshold for a prize. Two participants showed very high accuracy in one condition initially but did not repl…

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2008
Study typeother
Reported directionNo effect
Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Electromagnetic sensibility refers to the ability to perceive the electromagnetic field (EMF) without necessarily developing health symptoms attributed to EMF exposure. A large sample of young healthy adults (n = 84) performed two forced-choice tasks on the perception of the GSM mobile phone EMF (902 MHz pulsed at 217 Hz), "Was the field on?" and "Did the field change?" (3 conditions x 100 trials for each task, n = 600 trials in total). A monetary prize was announced for good performance (correct response rate > or =75%, n = 600 trials). The performance was no better than expected by chance, and thus none of the participants won the prize. Two participants showed extraordinary performance in one of the task conditions ("Was the field on?", n = 100 trials), with correct response rates of 97% (P = 1.28 x 10(-25)) and 94% (P = 9.40 x 10(-22)), but they failed to replicate the result in the retest of six blocks of the same condition 1 month later. Six participants had reported being able to perceive the mobile phone EMF in the preliminary inquiry, but they performed no better than the others. This study provides empirical evidence against the existence of electromagnetic sensibility to the mobile phone EMF, demonstrating the necessity for replication in EMF studies.

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 typeother
Effect directionno_effect
PopulationYoung healthy adults
Sample size84
ExposureRF · 902 MHz
Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Across forced-choice perception tasks, overall performance was no better than expected by chance and no participant met the pre-specified performance threshold for a prize. Two participants showed very high accuracy in one condition initially but did not replicate this performance in a retest 1 month later; self-reported perceivers did not perform better than others.

Outcomes measured

  • Ability to perceive GSM mobile phone EMF (forced-choice: "Was the field on?" and "Did the field change?")
  • Replication of extraordinary performance on retest after 1 month
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 902,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Young healthy adults",
  "sample_size": 84,
  "outcomes": [
    "Ability to perceive GSM mobile phone EMF (forced-choice: \"Was the field on?\" and \"Did the field change?\")",
    "Replication of extraordinary performance on retest after 1 month"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Across forced-choice perception tasks, overall performance was no better than expected by chance and no participant met the pre-specified performance threshold for a prize. Two participants showed very high accuracy in one condition initially but did not replicate this performance in a retest 1 month later; self-reported perceivers did not perform better than others.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic sensibility",
    "electromagnetic hypersensitivity",
    "EHS",
    "perception",
    "GSM",
    "mobile phone",
    "902 MHz",
    "217 Hz pulsed",
    "forced-choice task",
    "replication"
  ],
  "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.20375
PubMed: 18027840

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library