902 MHz mobile phone does not affect short term memory in humans.

Bioelectromagnetics · 2004 · No effect · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

No effectModerate evidencePaper 5222

In a double-blind, multi-centre sham-controlled design, 902 MHz mobile phone EMF exposure showed no statistically significant effect on reaction times or accuracy on an n-back short term memory task. Results did not differ significantly between the two labora…

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2004

Study typerandomized_trial

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

We studied the effects of an electromagnetic field (EMF) as emitted by a 902 MHz mobile phone on human short term memory. This study was a replication with methodological improvements to our previous study. The improvements included multi-centre testing and a double blind design. A total of 64 subjects (32 men) in two independent laboratories performed a short term memory task (n-back) which poses a varying memory load (0-3 items) on the subjects' memory. They performed the task twice, once each under EMF and sham exposure. Reaction times (RTs) and accuracy of the responses were recorded. The order of exposure and memory load conditions were counterbalanced across subjects and gender. There were no statistically significant differences in performance between the two laboratories. We could not replicate our previous results: the EMF had no effect on RTs or on the accuracy of the subjects' answers. The inability to replicate previous findings could have been caused by lack of actual EMF effects or the magnitude of effects being at the sensitivity threshold of the test used.

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

PopulationHumans (64 subjects; 32 men)

Sample size64

ExposureRF · 902 MHz

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Short term memory performance (n-back task; varying memory load 0–3 items)
Reaction time (RT)
Accuracy

Limitations

Replication study notes inability to replicate previous findings; authors suggest either no actual EMF effects or effects near the sensitivity threshold of the test used.
Exposure duration and dosimetry (e.g., SAR) not reported in the abstract.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 902,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Humans (64 subjects; 32 men)",
  "sample_size": 64,
  "outcomes": [
    "Short term memory performance (n-back task; varying memory load 0–3 items)",
    "Reaction time (RT)",
    "Accuracy"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a double-blind, multi-centre sham-controlled design, 902 MHz mobile phone EMF exposure showed no statistically significant effect on reaction times or accuracy on an n-back short term memory task. Results did not differ significantly between the two laboratories.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Replication study notes inability to replicate previous findings; authors suggest either no actual EMF effects or effects near the sensitivity threshold of the test used.",
    "Exposure duration and dosimetry (e.g., SAR) not reported in the abstract."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "902 MHz",
    "RF EMF",
    "mobile phone",
    "double blind",
    "sham exposure",
    "multi-centre",
    "n-back",
    "short term memory",
    "reaction time",
    "accuracy"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "mobile-phones-rf",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Study tests 902 MHz mobile phone EMF exposure effects on cognition in humans."
    }
  ]
}

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.20014
PubMed: 15300731

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library