Effects of thirty-minute mobile phone use on visuo-motor reaction time.

Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2006 · No effect · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

No effectModerate evidencePaper 5100

In a double-blind, counterbalanced crossover study of 16 normal subjects, reaction times and movement times were not affected after 30 minutes of exposure to pulsed high-frequency EMF from a mobile phone compared with sham exposure.

Study snapshot

PublicationClinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2006

Study typerandomized_trial

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether exposure to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic field (pulsed EMF) emitted by a mobile phone has short-term effects on the visuo-motor choice reaction time (RT) and movement time (MT). METHODS: A double blind, counterbalanced crossover design was employed. In 16 normal subjects, we studied the performance of a visuo-motor precued choice reaction time task (PCRT) before and after exposure to EMF emitted by a mobile phone for 30 minutes or sham exposure. RESULTS: The RTs and MTs under different conditions of precue information were not affected by exposure to pulsed EMF emitted by a mobile phone or by sham phone use. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty minutes of mobile phone use has no significant short-term effect on the cortical visuo-motor processing as studied by the present PCRT task. SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first study to investigate visuo-motor behavior in relation to mobile phone exposure. No significant effect of mobile phone use was demonstrated on the performance of the visuo-motor reaction time task.

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

Population16 normal subjects

Sample size16

ExposureRF · 30 minutes

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Visuo-motor choice reaction time (RT)
Movement time (MT)
Performance on visuo-motor precued choice reaction time task (PCRT)

Limitations

Small sample size (n=16)
Short-term exposure only (30 minutes)
Frequency and SAR not reported in abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "30 minutes"
  },
  "population": "16 normal subjects",
  "sample_size": 16,
  "outcomes": [
    "Visuo-motor choice reaction time (RT)",
    "Movement time (MT)",
    "Performance on visuo-motor precued choice reaction time task (PCRT)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a double-blind, counterbalanced crossover study of 16 normal subjects, reaction times and movement times were not affected after 30 minutes of exposure to pulsed high-frequency EMF from a mobile phone compared with sham exposure.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Small sample size (n=16)",
    "Short-term exposure only (30 minutes)",
    "Frequency and SAR not reported in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "mobile phone",
    "pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic field",
    "RF exposure",
    "double blind",
    "counterbalanced crossover",
    "reaction time",
    "movement time",
    "visuo-motor processing",
    "PCRT"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "mobile-phones-rf",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Study tests short-term effects of mobile phone-emitted pulsed high-frequency EMF on visuo-motor reaction time outcomes."
    }
  ]
}

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.clinph.2006.07.318
PubMed: 17005447

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library