No effect on cognitive function from daily mobile phone use.

Bioelectromagnetics · 2005 · No effect · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

No effectModerate evidencePaper 5202

In this double-blind study comparing GSM 900 mobile phone switched on vs switched off, daily exposure during the exposure period showed no effect on cognitive function after a 13-hour rest period.

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2005

Study typerandomized_trial

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

The increasing use of mobiles phones (MP) has raised the problem of the effects of daily electromagnetic fields (EMF) exposure on human health. To date several studies have been published concerning the effects of acute MP exposure on psychomotor performances. This study investigated the effects of daily exposure to GSM 900 type MP on cognitive function. Fifty-five subjects (27 male and 28 female) were divided into two groups: a group with MP switched on and a group with MP switched off. The two groups were matched according to age, gender, and IQ. This double blind study lasted for 45 days and was divided in three periods: baseline (BLP, 2 days), exposure (EP, 27 days), and recovery (RP, 13 days). Subjects were exposed during EP and sham exposed during RP for 2 h/day, 5 days/week. The neuropsychological test battery composed of 22 tasks screened four neuropsychological categories: information processing, attention capacity, memory function, and executive function. This neuropsychological battery was performed four times on day 2 (BLP), day 15 (EP), day 29 (EP), and day 43 (RP). Our results indicate that daily MP use has no effect on cognitive function after a 13-h rest period.

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

Population55 adult subjects (27 male, 28 female)

Sample size55

ExposureRF · 900 MHz · 2 h/day, 5 days/week during a 27-day exposure period (study lasted 45 days total)

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In this double-blind study comparing GSM 900 mobile phone switched on vs switched off, daily exposure during the exposure period showed no effect on cognitive function after a 13-hour rest period.

Outcomes measured

Cognitive function (neuropsychological test battery: information processing, attention capacity, memory function, executive function)

Limitations

Specific exposure metrics (e.g., SAR) not reported in abstract
Follow-up limited to the 45-day study period
Findings described specifically after a 13-hour rest period

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 900,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "2 h/day, 5 days/week during a 27-day exposure period (study lasted 45 days total)"
  },
  "population": "55 adult subjects (27 male, 28 female)",
  "sample_size": 55,
  "outcomes": [
    "Cognitive function (neuropsychological test battery: information processing, attention capacity, memory function, executive function)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In this double-blind study comparing GSM 900 mobile phone switched on vs switched off, daily exposure during the exposure period showed no effect on cognitive function after a 13-hour rest period.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Specific exposure metrics (e.g., SAR) not reported in abstract",
    "Follow-up limited to the 45-day study period",
    "Findings described specifically after a 13-hour rest period"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "GSM 900",
    "mobile phone",
    "RF EMF",
    "daily exposure",
    "double blind",
    "cognitive function",
    "neuropsychological tests"
  ],
  "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.20053
PubMed: 15672372

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library