RF Safe

Effect of a 902 MHz electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phones on human cognitive function: A replication study.

Bioelectromagnetics · 2003 · No effect · Moderate evidence

← Research stream
No effectModerate evidencePaper 5280

In a double-blind, multicenter replication study (n=64), participants completed 9 cognitive tasks during EMF-on versus EMF-off conditions from a 902 MHz mobile phone. The study reported no statistically significant effects of EMF exposure on reaction times or…

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2003
Study typerandomized_trial
Reported directionNo effect
Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Our study was a replication and extension with methodological improvements to a previous study on effects of the electromagnetic field (EMF) emitted by a 902 MHz mobile phone on human cognitive functioning. Improvements on the previous study included multicentre testing and a double blind design. A total of 64 subjects (32 men and 32 women) in two independent laboratories performed a battery of 9 cognitive tasks twice: while the EMF was on and while it was off. Reaction times (RTs) and accuracy were recorded. The order of exposure and tasks was counterbalanced across subjects and gender. There were no statistically significant differences in performance between genders or laboratories. Although the RTs and the accuracy of answers were very similar to those of our previous study, our previous results were not replicated. We concluded that EMF had no effect on RTs or on the accuracy of the subjects' answers. Further, our results indicate that our EMF had no immediate effect on human cognitive functioning or that such effects are so small that they are observed on behavior only occasionally.

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
PopulationHuman subjects (32 men, 32 women)
Sample size64
ExposureRF · 902 MHz
Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a double-blind, multicenter replication study (n=64), participants completed 9 cognitive tasks during EMF-on versus EMF-off conditions from a 902 MHz mobile phone. The study reported no statistically significant effects of EMF exposure on reaction times or accuracy, and prior findings were not replicated.

Outcomes measured

  • Cognitive task performance (battery of 9 tasks)
  • Reaction time (RT)
  • Accuracy

Limitations

  • Exposure duration not reported in abstract
  • Specific exposure metrics (e.g., SAR) not reported in abstract
  • Only immediate/acute effects assessed (no longer-term outcomes described)
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 902,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Human subjects (32 men, 32 women)",
  "sample_size": 64,
  "outcomes": [
    "Cognitive task performance (battery of 9 tasks)",
    "Reaction time (RT)",
    "Accuracy"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a double-blind, multicenter replication study (n=64), participants completed 9 cognitive tasks during EMF-on versus EMF-off conditions from a 902 MHz mobile phone. The study reported no statistically significant effects of EMF exposure on reaction times or accuracy, and prior findings were not replicated.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Exposure duration not reported in abstract",
    "Specific exposure metrics (e.g., SAR) not reported in abstract",
    "Only immediate/acute effects assessed (no longer-term outcomes described)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "902 MHz",
    "radiofrequency",
    "mobile phone",
    "double blind",
    "multicenter",
    "cognitive function",
    "reaction time",
    "accuracy",
    "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.10105
PubMed: 12696088

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library