ID Number		720
Study Type		Human / Provocation
Model		900, 1800 MHz (GSM) 2 GHz (UMTS) exposure to adults and children and analysis of sleep and EEG including audio- and visual-event related potentials.
Details		Human subjects exposed to 900 MHz (GSM) from a mobile phone and analyzed for EEG and sleep parameters. In an initial study, subjects were exposed for 60 minutes with the mobile phone emitting 2W peak power and set in a cradle on the right side of the head. Although SAR values were not supplied in initial studies, SAR values from subsequent studies (presumably using a similar mobile phone exposure) were 0.11 W/kg averaged over 10 g, with a peak value of 0.29 W/kg. Volunteers wore an EEG cap containing a 62 electrode arrangement, and served as their own sham control using a randomized two arm cross-over double blind protocol 1 week apart. Subjects were tested for memory, attention, and problem solving following exposure using a neuropsychological battery including alternate forms of AVLT, DSST, TMT. SCT, and SDST tests. These tests measure a wide range of psychological processes including visual motor coordination and speed, visual scanning, incidental learning, sustained attention, language comprehension, rapid decision making, psychomotor speed, short term memory and attention, verbal encoding and recall, sequencing, capacity to learn, and short term recall. Preliminary results from a subset of volunteers (n=12) exposed as above (reported in "The Progress Leader (17 Feb, 2004)" and published in Clinical Neurophysiology 115 (2004) 171-178) reported reduced amplitudes and shortened latencies of sensory EEG (ERP) components N100 and P300, especially in a visual task, under exposed conditions as compared with sham controls. The authors also reported preliminary findings of slowed reaction (increased reaction time by ~50 milliseconds, ~15%) during an auditory task with no difference in accuracy. Supportive studies designed to evaluate possible EMI / EEG noise on the 62-electrode EEG cap due to 900 MHz (GSM) exposure during EEG measurements using a phantom head model reported significant effects (greater amplitude) at electrodes near the central reference electrode, Cz (located at the center of the top of the head) as well as sporadic changes due to exposure at electrode C3 (on the midline, near top center of head), and P4 (over the left parietal lobe). However, the authors report no significant differences within the physiologically important range 0.5-30 Hz, and interpreted the results to indicate that "physiological responses in studies on human volunteers are unlikely to be contaminated by direct pick-up from the handset." A review of EEG & Sleep studies using mobile phone RF exposure was also performed in 2002. Authors point out that although results are inconsistent, increased alpha band measurements have been reported in several studies, although this is does not seem to directly link to increases in performance reported in some human studies. Subsequent reports in volunteers (n = 120) exposed similar to those above (900 MHz GSM for 30 minutes at 0.11 W/kg peak) and tested while performing a visual and auditory oddball protocol did not verify the previous findings, namely latency and amplitude reduction of the early sensory component or increased latency of the cognitive component and reaction time. In a subsequent study in 50 volunteers exposed to 900 MHz GSM for 30 minutes (as above, but immediately before sleep) the authors report an increase in EEG spectral power in the band 11.5-12.25 Hz during non-REM sleep (no increase at 12.25-13.5 or 13.5-14 Hz) and a decrease in REM sleep latency although they concede that the health consequences of these effects are unknown. They found no effect on any other measured sleep parameters (percentage of stage 3 and 4 sleep, arousal index, sleep efficiency, REM sleep percentage, non-REM sleep percentage, and total sleep time). A subsequent study performed in laboratory phantoms showed the placement of the electrode cap on the head reduced the peak 10 gram SAR in the head by 15-18%, and by up to 38% when electrode leads were parallel to the dipole orientation. Proposed studies will involve 3G signals and children. In earlier studies (2002), human volunteers (n=24) were exposed to 900 MHz GSM RF via a mobile phone hooked-up to the network and transmitting at an undefined power level, resulting in an undefined SAR ("estimated average power 3-4 mW, actual emissions during experiment not measured"). Testing was performed using a single-blind and counterbalanced cross-over design to test resting EEG as well as auditory evoked potentials. The authors report that mobile phone exposure decreased 1-4Hz EEG bands in the right (ipsilateral) hemisphere and increased 8-12Hz EEG bands in the midline posterior sites. Exposure also altered AEP, attenuating the normal response decrement over time in the 4-8Hz band, decreasing the response in the 1230Hz band, and increasing midline frontal and lateral posterior responses in the 30-45Hz band. The authors also published a subsequent paper suggesting that a "Q Link Alloy" could attenuate the effects of RF exposure from mobile phones. Preliminary findings of RF exposure to congnitive function and EEG in 13-15 yr old children suggested reduced task accuracy with 3G (UMTS) but not with 2G (GSM) exposures. A BEMS 2008 presentation reported the effects observed earlier in human subjects (increased alpha band spectral density) were replicated when using subjects that had previously demonstrMobile phone exposure-related effects on the human electroencephalogram (EEG) have been shown during both waking and sleep states, albeit with slight differences in the frequency affected. This discrepancy, combined with studies that failed to find effects, has led many to conclude that no consistent effects exist. We hypothesised that these differences might partly be due to individual variability in response, and that mobile phone emissions may in fact have large but differential effects on human brain activity. Twenty volunteers from our previous study underwent an adaptation night followed by two experimental nights in which they were randomly exposed to two conditions (Active and Sham), followed by a full-night sleep episode. The EEG spectral power was increased in the sleep spindle frequency range in the first 30 min of non-rapid eye movement (non-REM) sleep following Active exposure. This increase was more prominent in the participants that showed an increase in the original study. These results confirm previous findings of mobile phone-like emissions affecting the EEG during non-REM sleep. Importantly, this low-level effect was also shown to be sensitive to individual variability. Furthermore, this indicates that previous negative results are not strong evidence for a lack of an effect and, given the far-reaching implications of mobile phone research, we may need to rethink the interpretation of results and the manner in which research is conducted in this field.ated effects in prior studies. The authors suggest that some subjects may be more responsive to such effect than others. AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Loughran et al. 2011 (#5087): Mobile phone exposure-related effects on the human electroencephalogram (EEG) have been shown during both waking and sleep states, albeit with slight differences in the frequency affected. This discrepancy, combined with studies that failed to find effects, has led many to conclude that no consistent effects exist. We hypothesised that these differences might partly be due to individual variability in response, and that mobile phone emissions may in fact have large but differential effects on human brain activity. Twenty volunteers from our previous study underwent an adaptation night followed by two experimental nights in which they were randomly exposed to two conditions (Active and Sham), followed by a full-night sleep episode. The EEG spectral power was increased in the sleep spindle frequency range in the first 30 min of non-rapid eye movement (non-REM) sleep following Active exposure. This increase was more prominent in the participants that showed an increase in the original study. These results confirm previous findings of mobile phone-like emissions affecting the EEG during non-REM sleep. Importantly, this low-level effect was also shown to be sensitive to individual variability. Furthermore, this indicates that previous negative results are not strong evidence for a lack of an effect and, given the far-reaching implications of mobile phone research, we may need to rethink the interpretation of results and the manner in which research is conducted in this field. AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Verrender, Loughran, Croft et al. 2016 (IEEE #6440: PURPOSE: To investigate whether exposure to pulse modulated radiofrequency (PM RF) influences human cognitive performance, and whether it does so in a dose-dependent manner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six healthy adults participated in a randomized, double-blind, counterbalanced provocation study. Cognitive performance was assessed using a visual discrimination task and a modified Sternberg working memory task, which were calibrated to individual performance levels in a preliminary testing session. An sXh920 planar exposure system was used to generate a 920 MHz GSM-like signal, providing three conditions (peak-spatial SAR averaged over 10 g) of 0 W/kg (sham), 1 W/kg (low RF) and 2 W/kg (high RF). RESULTS: A significant decrease in reaction time (RT) in the Sternberg working memory task was found during exposure compared to sham. This effect was not dose-dependent. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive performance was shown to be faster under PM RF conditions, relative to sham, in a working memory task. While the majority of the literature has not found effects of PM RF exposure on cognitive performance, it is possible that the methodological improvements employed in the present study increased sensitivity, and thus the ability to detect potential effects.AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Dalecki, Loughran, Croft et al. 2018 (IEEE #6992): Objective: To use improved methods to address the question of whether acute exposure to radio-frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) affects early (80200/ms) sensory and later (180600/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).
Findings		Effects
Status		Completed With Publication
Principal Investigator		Swinburne Institute of Technology, Australia - awood@swin.edu.au
Funding Agency		NHMRC, Australia, GSM Association
Country		AUSTRALIA
References		Croft, RJ et al. Clin EEG Neurosci, (2009) 40:223- Hamblin, DL et al. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, (2007) 54:914-920 Hamblin, DL et al. Bioelectromagnetics, (2006) 27:265-273 Loughran , SP et al. Neuroreport, (2005) 16:1973-1976 Hamblin, DL et al. Clin Neurophysiol, (2004) 115:171-178 Wood, AW et al. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, (2003) 41:470-472 Hamblin, DL et al. Int. J. Radiat. Biol., (2002) 78:659-669 Croft, RJ et al. Clin. Neurophysiol., (2002) 113:1623-1632 Croft , RJ et al. J Altern Complement Med., (2002) 8:427-435 Croft, RJ et al. Bioelectromagnetics., (2010) 31:434-444 Loughran, SP et al. Bioelectromagnetics. , (2012) 33:86-93 Verrender, A et al. Int J Rad Biol., (2016) 92:603-610 Dalecki, A et al. Clin Neurophysiol. , (2018) 129:901-908 Loughran, SP et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health., (2019) 16:1505-doi:10.3390/ijerph16091505 Dalecki, A et al. Bioelectromagnetics., (2021) 42:317-328
Comments		The Auditory findings of slowed reaction (increased rxn time) are in direct contrast to the increased reaction (decreased rxn time) reported by Preece et al (International Journal of Radiation Biology (1999) 75:447-456) and Jech et al (Bioelectromagnetics (2001) 22:519-528), and also not consistent with initial reports of increased reaction (decreased rxn time) by Koivisto (NeuroReport (2000) 11:1641-1643) who could then not repeat their own initial findings (Bioelectromagnetics (2003) 24:283-288). Jech et al also found differences in the various EEG amplitude measurements, but these do not directly correspond to the findings of Hamblin et al. The authors report changes on the same side of the head (right) as the phone, although many previous studies have reported no effect (Huber et al 2000) or contra-lateral effects (Freude et al 1998, 2000, Krause 2000) that do not seem to indicate a consistent mechanism for AEP. The Introduction did not mention work by Heitanen (Scand J Work Environ Health (2000) 26:87-92) reporting no effect on alpha EEG signals by cell phone exposure, Hladky (Cent Eur J Public Health 1999, 7(4):165-7) showing no effect of cell phone exposure on visually evoked potentials, or the follow-up study by Koivisto (Bioelectromagnetics (2003) 24:283-288) that did not repeat the initial positive findings. Although it was not clear from the published study how many parameters were analyzed, a preliminary report from the 2000 meeting in Australia suggested minor statistically significant differences in 22 out of 270 different brain signal parameters (when 13 were expected by chance) from N100, N200, P100, P200, and P300 component measurements. This is only 8 % (as opposed to 5% using a 95% CI approach) which still would indicate a farily good possibility of statistical chance. While RF exposure was said to be from a phone operating at 2 watts (peak) / 250 mW (average) and held over the subjects head during the test, it is not clear what the actual dose in terms of SAR was or exactly where the phone was (separation distance and anatomically location) with respect to the head. The authors admit there was a "barely perceptible buzz" when the phone was on - a similar observation was made by Haarala et al (Neuroreport (2003) 14:2019-23) of a slight auditory signal from the phone (that the subjects claimed they could not detect when asked), and in that study the authors dismissed a slight ipsilateral decrease in rCBF as being generated by the slight noise / buzz (WHO # 1110), mainly because it occurred in the auditory cortex. In general, the observations are preliminary, the experimental design has some uncontrolled elements that may have confounded the data, and the results do not reveal a consistent effect, localized region, brain signal component, or evoking stimulus that can be tied into other studies in the literature. The most recent (negative) studies do not replicate the previously reported positive findings of Eulitz et al. 1998, Croft 2002, Hamblin 2003, Maby et al. 2004, or Papageorgiou et al 2006. Other studies that have also found increased alpha signals: " Mann & Röschke (1996) 0.5 W/m² average power for 8-hrs = increased alpha 7.5  15 Hz (REM) " Mann et al., (1998) & Wagner et al., (1998) 0.2 W/m² average power for 8-hrs = no significant effects " Wagner et al., (2000) 50 W/m ² submaximal power for 8-hrs = No significant effects " Borbély et al., (1999) 1 W/Kg Peak SAR at 15 mins on/off for 8-hrs = increased alpha 11.5 - 12.25 Hz & 13.5 - 14 Hz " Huber et al., (2000) 1 W/Kg Peak SAR for 30 mins prior to daytime sleep = increased alpha 9.75  11.25 Hz and 12.25  13.25 Hz " Huber et al., (2002) 1 W/Kg Peak SAR for 30 mins prior sleep = increased alpha 12.25  13.5 Hz " Loughran et al., (2005) 2W, Peak SAR 0.6 W/Kg for 30 mins prior sleep = increased alpha 11.5  12.25 Hz Croft associated with an RF shielding device manufacturer (Q Link Alloy)