Literature DB >> 11568930

Provocation study of persons with perceived electrical hypersensitivity and controls using magnetic field exposure and recording of electrophysiological characteristics.

E Lyskov1, M Sandström, K H Mild.   

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate possible neurophysiological effects of intermittent 15 sec on/off cycle, 60 Hz, 10 microT magnetic field exposure on patients with perceived "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" (EHS), and control subjects during rest and performance of a mental arithmetic task. Twenty participants (15 female, 5 male, 31-60 years old, mean 45.8 +/- 0.7 years) were invited from the group of EHS patients. Twenty volunteers (15 female, 5 male, 31-59 years old, mean 45.0 +/- 0.7 years?) served as a control group. The test protocol consisted of a set of examinations: EEG, visual evoked potentials, electrodermal activity, ECG, and blood pressure. The total duration of the test was 40 min, divided into two 10 min rest periods and two 10 min periods of mathematical performance. Magnetic field and sham exposures were presented randomly during these periods, resulting in four different conditions: Field-Rest, Sham-Rest, Field-Math, and Sham-Math. The data showed significant main effects of the Group factor (EHS vs. control subjects) on heart rate (F(1,80) = 20.6; P < 0.01), heart rate spectrum ratio (F(1,80) = 9.5; P = 0.02), and electrodermal activity (F(1,76) = 4.2; P = 0.04), whereas EEG characteristics did not differ between groups. The Condition factor (mathematical task vs. relaxed) showed main effects for heart rate (F(1,80) = 14.8; P < 0.01), heart rate spectrum ratio (F(1,80) = 7.8; P = 0.06), electrodermal activity (F(1,76) = 56.8; P < 0.01), and alpha and theta spectral bands of EEG. Magnetic field exposure did not affect autonomous system or electroencephalographic variables of either group. These data do not indicate that EHS patients or control are affected by low-level 60 Hz magnetic field exposure. However, persons reporting EHS differed from the control subjects in baseline values of investigated physiological characteristics. Perhaps EHS patients have a rather distinctive physiological predisposition to sensitivity to physical and psychosocial environmental stressors. Copyright 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11568930

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioelectromagnetics        ISSN: 0197-8462            Impact factor:   2.010


  10 in total

1.  Neurophysiological and behavioral effects of a 60 Hz, 1,800 μT magnetic field in humans.

Authors:  A Legros; M Corbacio; A Beuter; J Modolo; D Goulet; F S Prato; A W Thomas
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 3.078

Review 2.  Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF): a systematic review of identifying criteria.

Authors:  Christos Baliatsas; Irene Van Kamp; Erik Lebret; G James Rubin
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-08-11       Impact factor: 3.295

3.  Physiological changes and symptoms associated with short-term exposure to electromagnetic fields: a randomized crossover provocation study.

Authors:  Po-Chang Huang; Jui-Chin Chiang; Ya-Yun Cheng; Tain-Junn Cheng; Chien-Yuan Huang; Ya-Ting Chuang; Ti Hsu; How-Ran Guo
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 5.984

4.  Association of tinnitus and electromagnetic hypersensitivity: hints for a shared pathophysiology?

Authors:  Michael Landgrebe; Ulrich Frick; Simone Hauser; Goeran Hajak; Berthold Langguth
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-03-27       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Do TETRA (Airwave) base station signals have a short-term impact on health and well-being? A randomized double-blind provocation study.

Authors:  Denise Wallace; Stacy Eltiti; Anna Ridgewell; Kelly Garner; Riccardo Russo; Francisco Sepulveda; Stuart Walker; Terence Quinlan; Sandra Dudley; Sithu Maung; Roger Deeble; Elaine Fox
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-01-14       Impact factor: 9.031

6.  Emerging synergisms between drugs and physiologically-patterned weak magnetic fields: implications for neuropharmacology and the human population in the twenty-first century.

Authors:  P D Whissell; M A Persinger
Journal:  Curr Neuropharmacol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 7.363

7.  Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study.

Authors:  Stacy Eltiti; Denise Wallace; Anna Ridgewell; Konstantina Zougkou; Riccardo Russo; Francisco Sepulveda; Dariush Mirshekar-Syahkal; Paul Rasor; Roger Deeble; Elaine Fox
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Effects of a 60 Hz Magnetic Field Exposure Up to 3000 μT on Human Brain Activation as Measured by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Alexandre Legros; Julien Modolo; Samantha Brown; John Roberston; Alex W Thomas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-27       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Odor and noise intolerance in persons with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

Authors:  Steven Nordin; Gregory Neely; David Olsson; Monica Sandström
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 10.  Tinnitus and cell phones: the role of electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation.

Authors:  Luisa Nascimento Medeiros; Tanit Ganz Sanchez
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-09-21
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.