Does acute radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure affect visual event-related potentials in healthy adults?

Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2018 · Mixed · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

MixedModerate evidencePaper 5549

During RF-EMF exposure (1 or 2 W/kg) compared with sham, P1 amplitude was reduced (p=.02) and anterior N1 latency was increased (p=.04). No effects were observed on other ERP latencies or amplitudes; authors note only 2 of 56 comparisons differed and may be d…

Study snapshot

PublicationClinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2018

Study typerandomized_trial

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To use improved methods to address the question of whether acute exposure to radio-frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) affects early (80-200 ms) sensory and later (180-600 ms) cognitive processes as indexed by event-related potentials (ERPs). METHODS: Thirty-six healthy subjects completed a visual discrimination task during concurrent exposure to a Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM)-like, 920 MHz signal with peak-spatial specific absorption rate for 10 g of tissue of 0 W/kg of body mass (Sham), 1 W/kg (Low RF) and 2 W/kg (High RF). A fully randomised, counterbalanced, double-blind design was used. RESULTS: P1 amplitude was reduced (p = .02) and anterior N1 latency was increased (p = .04) during Exposure compared to Sham. There were no effects on any other ERP latencies or amplitudes. CONCLUSIONS: RF-EMF exposure may affect early perceptual (P1) and preparatory motor (anterior N1) processes. However, only two ERP indices, out of 56 comparisons, were observed to differ between RF-EMF exposure and Sham, suggesting that these observations may be due to chance. SIGNIFICANCE: These observations are consistent with previous findings that RF-EMF exposure has no reliable impact on cognition (e.g., accuracy and response speed).

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 directionmixed

PopulationHealthy adults

Sample size36

ExposureRF · 920 MHz · 2 W/kg · acute; concurrent during visual discrimination task

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Visual event-related potentials (ERPs): early sensory (80–200 ms) and later cognitive (180–600 ms) indices
P1 amplitude
Anterior N1 latency
Other ERP latencies and amplitudes (56 comparisons total)
Cognition (accuracy and response speed; mentioned in significance)

Limitations

Only 2 of 56 ERP comparisons were statistically different, raising the possibility of chance findings (multiple comparisons).
Acute exposure only (no information on longer-term effects).

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 920,
    "sar_wkg": 2,
    "duration": "acute; concurrent during visual discrimination task"
  },
  "population": "Healthy adults",
  "sample_size": 36,
  "outcomes": [
    "Visual event-related potentials (ERPs): early sensory (80–200 ms) and later cognitive (180–600 ms) indices",
    "P1 amplitude",
    "Anterior N1 latency",
    "Other ERP latencies and amplitudes (56 comparisons total)",
    "Cognition (accuracy and response speed; mentioned in significance)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "During RF-EMF exposure (1 or 2 W/kg) compared with sham, P1 amplitude was reduced (p=.02) and anterior N1 latency was increased (p=.04). No effects were observed on other ERP latencies or amplitudes; authors note only 2 of 56 comparisons differed and may be due to chance.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Only 2 of 56 ERP comparisons were statistically different, raising the possibility of chance findings (multiple comparisons).",
    "Acute exposure only (no information on longer-term effects)."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radio-frequency",
    "RF-EMF",
    "GSM-like",
    "920 MHz",
    "specific absorption rate",
    "SAR",
    "event-related potentials",
    "ERP",
    "P1",
    "N1",
    "visual discrimination",
    "double-blind",
    "randomized",
    "counterbalanced",
    "sham"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "mobile-phones",
      "weight": 0.86,
      "reason": "GSM-like 920 MHz RF exposure with SAR levels typical of mobile-phone research; sham vs exposure in healthy subjects."
    }
  ]
}

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.2018.01.074
PubMed: 29550650

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library