Effect of Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by Cellular Phones on the Latency of Evoked Electrodermal Activity

Abstract

The widespread use of cellular phones raises the question of their possible adverse biological effects, especially on the central nervous system (CNS). Therefore, the authors examined the effect of electromagnetic fields emitted by cellular phones (CPEMFs) on the evoked neuronal activity of CNS relating to generation and representation of electrodermal activity (EDA), an index of sympathetic nervous system activity. EDA (skin resistance response; SRR) latency was lengthened approximately 200 ms with CPEMFs exposure irrespective of the head site next to mobile phone used. Hemispheric asymmetry of EDA-2 pathway, which is represented by shorter SRR latency in the right hand of the right hand responders, was also distorted with CPEMFs. Because the CNS regions including EDA-2 are also involved in tasks of motor timing and time estimation, delayed response in this neuronal network due to CPEMFs exposure may increase the response time of mobile phone users. Therefore, the findings point to the potential risks of mobile phones on the function of CNS and consequently, possible increase in the risk of phone-related driving hazards.

Effect of acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by a mobile phone (GSM 900 MHz) on electrodermal responsiveness in healthy human

“…With regard to latency, our results are not in accordance with those previously reported in a study by Esen and Esen, in which latency was found to be lengthened by approximately 200 ms under exposure to the EMFs of a mobile phone (Esen and Esen, 2006). It should be noted that there are differences in the methodological approach between our experiment and that of Esen and Esen.…”

“…With regard to EDA, one study showed a shorter latency of EDA under exposure to 900 MHz (Esen and Esen, 2006). In studies involving subjects hypersensitive to EMF, the results showed no effect of EMF exposure on the latency of the amplitude, the number of peaks of SCR (Wilén et al, 2006) or on the level of skin conductance (Eltiti et al, 2009).…”

Neurophysiological effects of mobile phone electromagnetic fields on humans: A comprehensive review

“…Other studies were excluded from the review because the authors did not meet criteria (a), (b) and (c) [Ozturan et al, 2002;Bak et al, 2003;Oysu et al, 2005;Pau et al, 2005], whereas Arai et al [2003] did not satisfy criteria (a) and (c). The study of Sievert et al [2005] did not meet criteria (a) and (b), while criteria (b) and (c) were not satisfied in experiments carried out by Eulitz et al [1998] and Esen and Esen [2006]. Moreover, the study by Hietanen et al [2000] did not satisfy criteria (c) and (d).…”