Next Article in Journal
LPCF-YOLO: A YOLO-Based Lightweight Algorithm for Pedestrian Anomaly Detection with Parallel Cross-Fusion
Previous Article in Journal
Prediction of Microvascular Adaptation to Hypoxia Based on Myogenic Microcirculation Oscillations
Previous Article in Special Issue
Robust EEG Characteristics for Predicting Neurological Recovery from Coma After Cardiac Arrest
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 25
Issue 9
10.3390/s25092749
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Effects of Mobile Electromagnetic Exposure on Brain Oscillations and Cortical Excitability: Scoping Review

by
Azadeh Torkan
1,*,
Maryam Zoghi
2,
Negin Foroughimehr
3,
Ali Yavari
4 and
Shapour Jaberzadeh
1
1
Monash Neuromodulation Research Unit, Department of Physiotherapy, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3199, Australia
2
Discipline of Physiotherapy, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, Federation University, Melbourne, VIC 3842, Australia
3
Australian Synchrotron, Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation, Melbourne, VIC 3168, Australia
4
6G Research and Innovation Lab, Swinburne University of Technology, John Street, Hawthorn, Melbourne, VIC 3122, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2025, 25(9), 2749; https://doi.org/10.3390/s25092749
Submission received: 6 March 2025 / Revised: 18 April 2025 / Accepted: 23 April 2025 / Published: 26 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Brain Activity Monitoring and Measurement (2nd Edition))
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
With the widespread adoption of smartphones, concerns about increased exposure to non-ionizing radiofrequency have emerged. This scoping review examines the effects of mobile phone exposure on neural oscillations and cortical excitability, focusing on both motor and non-motor regions of the cerebral cortex. A scoping review identified seventy-eight studies that involved healthy individuals and employed electroencephalography and only two studies that investigated transcranial magnetic stimulation as primary technical tools. The findings suggest that mobile phone exposure may affect brain oscillations and cortical excitability. However, inconsistencies in experimental methods across studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Additionally, research on fifth-generation technology, particularly mmWave exposure from next-generation mobile networks, remains limited and needs further exploration. These gaps highlight the need for more in-depth studies on how mobile phone exposure impacts brain function.

1. Introduction

Mobile phones are compact devices with telecommunication and computational capabilities, which can easily fit in a pocket and are seamlessly integrated into every aspect of daily life. They serve a wide range of functions, including communication, video recording, viewing, photography, and more, offering diverse solutions through various applications.
Driven by the need for high-speed, reliable and accessible communication for time-sensitive, data-driven, and large-scale innovation and technologies such as the Internet of Things, the mobile industry is constantly evolving [1,2,3]. Over the years, five generations of mobile networks have been developed, which mostly operated at frequencies below 6 gigahertz (GHz). Each generation represents a remarkable advancement in mobile technology and introduces faster data speeds and enhanced features, which revolutionize the way we connect and communicate. The current and fifth generation (5G) represents a major shift; it uses higher frequencies to support the increasing demands of applications like high-resolution video streaming, telepresence, and virtual reality (VR).
Regarding 5G technology, it delivers data transfer speeds of up to 10 gigabits per second (Gb/s) with latency under one millisecond (ms), which was achieved through advancements in mobile technologies and the utilization of millimeter-wave (mmWave) frequency bands (e.g., 26 GHz and higher), thus expanding spectrum usage beyond the traditional sub-6 GHz range. Initially defined as the sub-6 GHz frequency bands (450–6000 megahertz (MHz)), Frequency Range 1 (FR1) has now expanded to cover 410–7125MHz, commonly referred to as the mid-band/low-band. FR1 has been utilized in mobile networks since the first generation nearly four decades ago, with extensive research conducted on its exposure effects. Many countries are preparing to deploy 5G spectrum in Frequency Range 2 (FR2) spanning 24,250–52,600 MHz; this shift aims to support a wide range of applications [4].
Electromagnetic (EM) waves are crucial for enabling wireless communication and are classified as either ionizing or non-ionizing. These waves are generated by repetitive, synchronized vibrations of electric and magnetic fields and propagate through space at 3 × 10 8 m per second, transferring radiant energy [5]. The EM spectrum is divided into radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays [6].
Non-ionizing exposure, which includes UV, visible light, infrared, microwave, and radiofrequency (RF) waves, does not possess sufficient energy to initiate the ionizing process [7,8]. RF exposure consists of electromagnetic (EM) waves with frequencies ranging from 100 kilohertz (kHz) to 300 GHz. Several factors influence RF exposure, such as the type of wave (continuous or pulsed), electric and magnetic field strengths, power density, exposure type and zone, source frequency, and exposure duration [9]. The dielectric properties of water in the 6–300 GHz range result in an absorption coefficient (at 20 °C), which increases from 4 cm−1 at 6 GHz to 30 cm−1 at 30 GHz, 85 cm−1 at 100 GHz, and 150 cm−1 at 300 GHz [4]. Consequently, the penetration depth is approximately 1 mm at 30 GHz and decreases to around 0.3 mm at 100 GHz, which indicates that EM energy is primarily absorbed in the superficial layers of tissues at higher frequencies. A significant question regarding public health is how EM exposure will vary as mobile telecommunications transition to higher-frequency technologies, including those for millimeter-wave (mmWave) frequencies, compared to Frequency Range 1 (FR1).
Research on the effects of mobile phone EM exposure is essential for understanding how RF-EMFs influence brain function, especially brain oscillations (rhythmic electrical patterns) and cortical excitability (CSE), both of which are vital for cognition, motor control, and sensory processing. Since mobile phones emit RF-EMFs and are often used near the head for long periods, there is growing concern about the potential impact of long-term daily exposure on cognitive and visuomotor tasks [10] and sensorimotor pathways involved in Gait and Balance Control [11], and reaction time [12,13]. In addition, prolonged mobile phone EM exposure has been linked to subjective reports of localized discomfort, such as headache, dull pain, or weakness near the ear [14,15,16,17,18]. While the mechanisms remain unclear, hypotheses include thermal effects on superficial tissues or indirect activation of pain receptors by mmWave penetration in 5G frequencies [4,7].
New studies are emerging to assess the impact of higher-frequency millimeter waves (used in 5G) on brain tissue. Since these waves have lower penetration depths, the focus has shifted to superficial tissues, but concerns about cumulative exposure and indirect brain effects remain. The limited number of studies in this area highlights a clear gap in the literature.
Currently, there is no agreement on the effects of mobile EM exposure on brain activity. While some findings suggest that mobile EM exposure leads to increased brain activity within specific frequency ranges, others demonstrate a reduction in specific frequency bands. For example, experiments in [19] have shown that EM exposure in the 900–1800 MHz range results in a decrease in delta band activity and increased amplitudes in the alpha, beta, and theta bands. Additionally, another study revealed that mobile EM exposure in the 900 MHz range causes a decrease in alpha band power during exposure sessions in eyes closed conditions, with no effect in eyes opened conditions [20].
Similarly, different studies have reported conflicting results on the effect of mobile EM exposure on brain excitability. For instance, exposure to 902.40 MHz mobile phone EM has been found to significantly increase intracortical facilitation (ICF) while decreasing short intracortical inhibition (SICI) in comparison to the non-exposed hemisphere or sham exposure [21]. However, another study [22] reported that exposure to low-frequency EM, such as 800 MHz, cannot induce changes in CSE and SICI.
This scoping review, unlike a systematic review, summarizes existing research on RF-EMF effects (2G–4G) on brain oscillations and CSE on both motor and non-motor cortical regions without generating new experimental or numerical data. It highlights the lack of study on how 5G mobile phone EM exposure may alter neural activity. Therefore, this review focuses on addressing the main research question: What are the effects of mobile phone EM exposure on brain oscillations and cortical excitability in healthy individuals, and what gaps exist in the current understanding of these effects?
Through a mapping of the literature, this review verifies that its primary aims are simultaneously fulfilled by the EEG and TMS studies:
  • To map existing literature and evaluate the effect of mobile EM exposure on changes in EEG band power amplitudes in eyes opened or eye closed conditions.
  • To map existing TMS literature and evaluate the effects of mobile EM exposure on changes in CSE and the underlying mechanisms, such as SICI, LICI, and ICF.
  • To identify literature gaps and propose suggestions for future studies.

2. Materials and Methods

A scoping review selection was conducted using the following online databases: MEDLINE (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline, accessed on 1 July 2024), PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed on 1 July 2024), Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com, accessed on 1 July 2024), and Scopus (https://www.scopus.com, accessed on 1 July 2024).
In this review, only English-language studies were considered. The search was conducted from the 1980s of each included database until July 2024. The title, abstract, and keyword fields were screened. The search terms included in Table 1 were combined using ‘OR’ and ‘AND’ to complete the search.
The participants for this review are healthy individuals, aged 18 to 65, without any neurological, psychological, or musculoskeletal conditions. Animal studies or studies on patients have been excluded.
The included studies comprised primary research studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case (sham) control studies, case-control crossover studies, case series, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and narrative reviews that investigated the effects of mobile EM exposure on neural oscillations or cortical excitability. Conference reports were excluded to prevent data duplication.

2.1. Methodological Approach

This review was conducted following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Review (PRISMA) guidelines [23,24].
The obtained results were managed using EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), where duplicate papers were removed for further review and screening (see Figure 1).
The remaining papers were screened separately for their eligibility following the exclusion of duplicates. Furthermore, the titles and abstracts of the studies were evaluated, leading to the exclusion of those that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Subsequently, the full texts of the remaining studies underwent scrutiny based on determined inclusion and exclusion parameters.

2.2. Extraction of Data

The subsequent information was extracted and organized in a tabular format (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4) for every study that met the inclusion criteria. The emphasis of the included studies focused on the energy of all mobile phone technologies, 3G, 4G, and 5G, that affect the brain with a specific focus on brain oscillation and CSE, which are objectives of this review. This review approach aligns with PRISMA’s emphasis on detailed and transparent data reporting.
Table 2 and Table 3 present a structured summary of the review outcomes, featuring details such as authorship, publication year, participant specifics (number, gender, and age range), mobile EM exposure parameters (frequency range and power density, Specific absorption rate (SAR)), duration of exposure, blinding/study design, EEG attributes (number of channels and electrode configuration), and recorded encephalogram details such as if the EEG recording is in the eyes open or eyes close condition and finally the mentioned impact on all band power amplitude which is the one of the target of this review. Moreover, these tables provide insights into the primary findings and their corresponding effects. Table 4 is organized similarly to the previous tables, including all parameters, but evaluates the effect of mobile EM exposure on CSE and Corticocortical Excitability (CCE).
Quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) was employed to record and evaluate brain oscillations before and after exposure to mobile EM energy. EEG signals were evaluated using two outcome measures: 1. EEG band power amplitude, including delta (0.5–4 Hz), theta (4–8 Hz), alpha (8–13 Hz), beta (13–30 Hz), and gamma (30–90 Hz) bands [96,97,98], and 2. connectivity, which signifies correlated signals between functionally related brain regions [99].
TMS was used to assess two outcome measures pre- and post-mobile phone exposure: 1. the peak-to-peak amplitude of single-pulse TMS-induced MEPs for assessment of CSE, and 2. the paired-pulse TMS paradigm for assessing CCE, including SICI [100], LICI [101] and ICF [102].

3. Results

A total of 949 studies were obtained through various databases. Among these, 112 articles were singled out, following the exclusion of duplicates based on the screening of titles and abstracts (Figure 1). A total of 565 articles were excluded after the screening, and 192 papers were excluded in the next step, based on eligibility criteria, resulting in 80 articles that were incorporated into this review. Among these, seventy-eight papers pertained to EEG studies, while two papers focused on TMS studies. The initial search strategy that will be used when searching the MEDLINE or (PubMed) database is presented in Figure 1.
We followed the PRISMA guidelines, which outline the essential components for systematic and scoping reviews and evidence-based meta-analyses [24,103]. We methodically examined relevant literature concerning the effects of mobile EM exposure on the brain within the context of a scoping review.

3.1. Effects of Mobile EM Exposure on Brain Oscillations

A total of 80 papers were included in this review. Out of this, 78 studies are EEG studies and focused on the effects of mobile EM exposure on brain oscillations. Brain oscillations, known as brainwaves, refer to rhythmic patterns of neural activity within the central nervous system. Neural tissue can produce oscillatory activity through various mechanisms, including processes within individual neurons or interactions among multiple neurons from different brain regions [104]. The emission of EMR via mobile phones can lead to alterations in these brain activities. Most of the studies, specifically 78 out of 80 (97.5%), that focused on investigating the effects of mobile EM exposure on band power amplitude indicated that mobile EM exposure led to various alterations in brain oscillations, encompassing both increases and decreases. However, a smaller number of studies referred to (Table 2 and Table 3), yielded inconclusive results or demonstrated no evident effects.
A remarkable finding [85] indicates changes in alpha band amplitude, both increasing and decreasing, occurred only under specific electrodes. Generally, following the exposure to EMR, the presented studies reported various results, both an increase and a decrease in all EEG band amplitudes in EEG recordings under different conditions such as eyes opened or eyes closed; others yielded inconclusive results or demonstrated no evident effects.
The data have been divided into two tables: Table 2 presents data for eyes opened, and Table 3 presents data for eyes closed. This categorization was implemented to improve clarity, facilitate clearer visualization, simplify the information for presentation, and enhance comparability. This format supports researchers in developing more precise theories, research questions, and aims based on the observed effects in each condition, guiding future studies and experimental designs. Moreover, separate tables facilitate an easier understanding of the effects of mobile EM exposure on different EEG bands’ power, allowing readers to draw conclusions and recognize consistent outcomes. The observed results are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3.
Some studies examined both conditions within the same experiment, presenting different results across both tables [36,37]. In this scoping review, as is conventional in EEG recording, the absence of mention regarding the condition of the eyes during the experiment is typically interpreted to mean that the eyes were open. Notably, in the selected papers, the predominant findings indicate increased band power amplitude, while the key independent variables include mobile EM exposure frequency, power, as well as the exposure duration of mobile phones. There is also variability in the EEG recording details across the published papers. The most frequently utilized frequency is around 900 MHz, although a minimum of 450 MHz [42] and a maximum of up to 3500 MHz, around 5 GHz, were observed in studies [40,71]. The range of power, SAR, and amplitude variations associated with different frequencies exhibited considerable differences in the findings. Furthermore, concerning the duration of mobile EM exposure, a wide spectrum was observed, spanning from as short as 1 min [60] to as long as 8 h [93]. Pattnaik et al. [85] verified the effect of mobile EM exposure for both 2G and 3G, reporting an increase in theta, alpha, and beta activity while showing an increase in gamma band amplitude for 2G exposure in the eyes closed condition. Croft et al. [34] confirmed the effects of mobile EM exposure in 2G and 3G by just observing the increase in alpha band amplitude for mobile EM exposure 2G.
Some studies showed changes in certain electrodes, presenting a decrease in alpha band amplitude in some electrodes during the eyes closed condition [40].
Despite the missing information in certain columns of the table, it is important to note that no studies were disqualified or excluded.
Table 2 provides a comprehensive summary of the effects of mobile EM exposure on brain oscillations in the eyes opened condition. It shows the changes observed in brain oscillation parameters, including the amplitude of all EEG bands (Delta, Theta, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma), following mobile EM exposure. This table serves as a key resource for understanding the impact of mobile EM exposure on brain function and highlights significant findings from the included studies.
Table 2 shows that, out of 33 studies examining the effect of mobile EM exposure on all band power amplitudes using EEG in the eyes open recording conditions, four studies report an increase in delta band power amplitude, while three report a decrease. Five studies show an increase in theta band power, and three indicate a decrease. For alpha band power, fifteen studies show an increase and five studies report a reduction. Regarding beta band amplitude, eight studies indicate an increase and two indicate a decrease. For gamma-band power, three studies demonstrate an increase, whereas 30 studies show no effect. Overall, nine of the thirty-three studies suggest that mobile EM exposure does not influence brain oscillations.
Table 3 provides a comprehensive summary of the effects of mobile phone EM exposure on brain oscillations in the eyes closed conditions. Following mobile phone EM exposure, it verifies changes observed in brain oscillation parameters, including all bands’ amplitude power, delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma. This table summarizes the impact of mobile phone EM exposure on brain oscillations and highlights the key findings from the included studies.
As shown in Table 3, of the forty-eight studies investigating the effect of mobile EM exposure on all band power amplitudes using EEG in eyes closed recording conditions, six studies report an increase in delta band power amplitude, while three studies report a decrease. Regarding Theta band power, eight studies show an increase, and two show a decrease. For Alpha band power, twenty-four studies show an increase, and six studies report a reduction. Regarding Beta band amplitude, fourteen studies indicate an increase and four indicate a decrease. For gamma-band power, only one study proves an increase, whereas forty-seven studies show no effect. Overall, 13 of the 48 studies suggest that mobile EM exposure does not influence brain oscillations.

3.2. Effects of Mobile EM Exposure on Cortical Excitability

Table 4 provides a comprehensive summary of the effects of mobile EM exposure on cortical excitability. It details the changes observed in cortical excitability parameters following mobile EM exposure, including CSE, SICI, and ICF. This table shows the impact of mobile EM exposure on brain excitability and highlights significant findings from the included studies [21,22].
As shown in Table 4, in both included studies, ICF increased after exposure to mobile EM. Only one study [21] assessed SICI and showed a reduction in this outcome measure.

4. Discussion

This scoping review examines and catalogs the current literature, drawn from 80 studies, on the impact of mobile EM exposure on brain function. Of these, 78 studies investigated the effects of mobile EM exposure on brain oscillations using EEG, whereas only two studies examined CSE through TMS. The predominant findings indicated that after mobile EM exposure, studies observed an increase in the amplitude of brain oscillations across all frequency bands (delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma), especially during EEG recordings with eyes closed. Studies showed that these increases outweighed any reported decreases, with nearly 17 EEG studies being inconclusive. Additionally, one TMS study found that mobile EM exposure led to an increase in CSE and CCE within the ICF parameters.
This review focused on three key objectives: the primary aim of this review was to investigate the present literature regarding the impact of mobile EM exposure on changes in EEG band power amplitudes under both eyes opened and eyes closed conditions.
Regarding the first aim, almost all of the studies indicated that mobile EM exposure can induce changes (both increase and decrease) in EEG band power amplitude (Table 2 and Table 3). We aimed to assess the effects of mobile EM exposure on the amplitude of EEG band power during the eyes opened condition in healthy participants (Table 2). The 33 of the studies examining the effect of mobile EM exposure on all band power amplitudes via EEG in eyes opened conditions observed increases and decreases, as well as no effect in all band power amplitudes, although the number of studies showing an increase [52] was higher than those showing a decrease [39] and no effect [45].
Also, we planned to evaluate how mobile EM exposure affects all EEG band power amplitudes during the eyes closed condition in healthy participants (Table 3). Across the 48 studies examining this effect, we observed varying trends in band power amplitudes, including increases and decreases, without any significant effect. The evaluated results confirmed that the number of studies reporting increases [85] tended to exceed those reporting decreases [80] and had no effect [68].
Our investigation revealed a lack of consensus on the observed changes across all EEG bands. This discrepancy can be attributed to methodological differences among the included studies. Specifically, different generations of mobile telecommunication networks (3G, 4G, and 5G) were used across the studies. Variations in the duration of exposure, as well as differences in the characteristics of the hardware and software used, including diverse parameters for filtering EEG signals, contributed to the inconsistencies. These factors combined have led to inconclusive results regarding the effect of mobile EM exposure on the amplitude of EEG bands during the eyes opened condition and eyes closed condition in healthy participants. Therefore, we conclude that the effect of mobile EM exposure on the EEG bands’ power amplitude remains inconclusive.
The key question we need to address is which mechanisms allow mobile EM exposure to influence brain oscillations. Mobile EM exposure can cause localized heating in the brain tissues, which can alter neuronal activity and potentially affect the amplitude and frequency of EEG signals [105,106]. This thermal effect may also lead to changes in blood flow within the brain, influencing neural activity and thus EEG patterns [106,107,108,109,110]. Beyond thermal effects, mobile EM exposure might directly interfere with the electrical activity of neurons, causing changes in normal oscillatory patterns observed in EEG [111,112,113,114,115]. Exposure to mobile EM exposure may also affect ion channel behavior in neuronal membranes, impacting neuronal activity and synaptic transmission [116,117,118]. Mobile EM exposure can induce oxidative stress in neural tissues, leading to alterations in neural function and EEG signals [119,120,121,122,123,124]. These combined effects underscore the multifaceted ways in which mobile EM exposure can influence brain oscillations. However, the exact nature and extent of these effects remain an area for further research due to varying study methodologies and individual differences.
The second aim of this scoping review was to examine TMS studies in the existing literature regarding the effects of mobile EM exposure on changes in CSE and its underlying mechanisms through paired-pulse paradigms such as SICI, LICI, and ICF. Only two articles were included (Table 4). In both studies, ICF increased, which appears to be primarily due to enhanced facilitatory mechanisms and reduced inhibitory mechanisms. The limited scope, with only two studies on mobile EM exposure effects on CSE and CCE, restricts the ability to review both supporting and opposing evidence in this field, thus hindering the opportunity to draw definitive conclusions.
The exact mechanisms by which mobile EM exposure affects cortical excitability in the brain are not yet fully understood, and ongoing scientific research is continuing to explore this area. However, several mechanisms have been proposed. Mobile devices emit non-ionizing EM fields within the microwave range, which can penetrate tissues and potentially induce heating. This slight thermal effect can impact brain tissue, leading to alterations in CSE [125,126,127,128,129,130]. Various non-thermal mechanisms involving the interaction of EMFs with biological processes at the cellular level can explain the effects. Mobile EM exposure may influence tissues and cells, resulting in an effect on the release of neurotransmitters in the brain. Given the critical role of neurotransmitters in neural signalling, any modifications in their functionality could lead to changes in CSE [131,132]. Exposure to mobile EM exposure may also have been associated with alterations in gene expression within the brain. Changes in patterns of gene expression may lead to modifications in neural function, potentially influencing CSE [108,111,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140]. Although the effects of mobile phone EM exposure on cellular biological pathways such as Ion channel mechanisms and Oxidative stress have been mentioned earlier in the discussion section, several in vitro animal studies have specifically examined the cellular and molecular pathways within the neural system [137,141,142,143].
The third aim of this scoping review was to identify gaps in the literature and recommend future research directions. While extensive research has explored the global impact of EMR energy and the thermal and non-thermal effects of previous mobile phone technologies like 3G and 4G on brain tissues, a comprehensive evaluation of the non-thermal effects of mobile EM exposure is still lacking. Consequently, an urgent imperative exists for further research, with a particular focus on 5G technology, which represents a more advanced and practical approach compared to the previous mobile phone generations. Although several studies have explored the consequences of earlier generations of mobile phones on human health and organizations like the International Commission on Non-Ionizing exposure Protection (ICNIRP) have worked to enhance safety guidelines [7,144], it is clear that significant knowledge gaps exist in our understanding of the potential impacts of mobile EM exposure.
The existing literature on the effects of 5G mmWave mobile EM exposure suggests a number of areas where further research may be beneficial. One notable gap is the limited number of studies examining how 5G mmWave exposure may affect brain oscillations and excitability. Moreover, there are insufficient data on how mobile phone exposure affects brain function with regard to factors such as gender, age, and the type of mobile phone used, including GSM mobile phones and smartphones, as well as the placement and proximity of these devices to the brain. Another issue is that many studies do not provide detailed methodologies, such as pre-determined effect sizes based on power and sample size considerations. Important information such as frequency, SAR, power, power density, mobile phone brands, and the distance of the device from the brain is often not included in these studies. Studies using EEG often fail to provide adequate details about the EEG channel systems, including the number and placement of electrodes, the frequencies analyzed, and recording conditions such as whether the subjects’ eyes were open or closed during the EEG sessions. Moreover, there is a scarcity of data on brain excitability assessments using TMS, a reliable method for evaluating CSE. This includes the use of single-pulse MEP and paired-pulse TMS to investigate SICI, LICI, and ICF as potential mechanisms influencing changes in CSE. Addressing these gaps through well-designed studies would be crucial for improving our understanding of the potential biological effects of 5G technology on brain function and excitability.
This scoping review highlights the field by addressing inconsistencies in prior studies regarding the effects of RF exposure on brain oscillations. It demonstrates consistent increases in alpha and beta power amplitudes, particularly in eyes closed conditions, which underscores the implications for understanding cognitive states and neural process synchronization [61,84]. Previous reviews just focused on 3G/4G mobile phone EM exposure; however, this review highlights the urgent need to investigate the long-term effects of 5G on the brain, emphasizing that addressing this gap is essential for conducting precise safety guidelines [113,145]. The review also calls for the need to account for demographic variables, particularly age and gender, when grouping participants in research, which likely influences responses to RF exposure. Some studies also acknowledge this [146,147,148], but many research studies still fail to incorporate sufficient age and gender-specific analyses. Additionally, it presents the use of TMS and EEG as non-invasive methods to verify RF exposure effects with direct neurophysiological outcomes through cortical excitability [22] assessments and brain oscillation [49].
To provide a clearer overview of the research evolution and highlight the existing gaps, Table 5 summarizes the frequency bands used across mobile generations, their main applications, existing research, and the identified research gaps [149].

5. Limitations

The findings of the current scoping review should be interpreted carefully and with caution, given some limitations. The first concern is the very limited number of TMS studies in the literature to assess CSE and CCE, considering comprehensive protocols, which limits judgment and identification of the existing TMS findings. The second limitation is the excessive diversity in assessment parameters across different EEG studies, which prevents the possibility of leading a meta-analysis, specifically when regarding the effects of mobile EM exposure on brain oscillations. Additionally, since only English-language papers were included, some relevant studies in other languages may have been overlooked. Other concerns, such as imprecise volunteer selection regarding age and gender and the lack of pre-defined effect sizes based on power and sample size considerations, may affect the overall strength and generalizability of the results.

6. Conclusions and Future Work

Our literature review indicates that mobile EM exposure can induce changes in brain oscillations, primarily increasing the amplitude of alpha, beta, theta, and delta bands, particularly in the eyes closed condition. This review suggests that mobile EM exposure may enhance CSE due to strengthened facilitator mechanisms and weakened inhibitory mechanisms. Despite extensive research over the years, several gaps remain in the literature, which require further investigation, particularly regarding the effects of 5G as an emerging technology. This is linked to the non-thermal effect even at exposure levels below current thermal thresholds. These findings underscore the need to revise SAR limits and to incorporate neurophysiological EEG and TMS metrics as non-invasive measures. Furthermore, the advent of 5G technology, with its use of higher frequency mmWave bands (>24 GHz), demands urgent investigation into potential unique tissue interactions and indirect neural impacts, which warrants precautionary measures until robust safety data are available. The conclusions of this review may be judged as consistent with the evidence. However, they should be treated with caution due to key limitations, such as limited TMS studies (only two), which resulted in a lack of data and some methodological and technical problems in EEG studies, as mentioned in the discussion and limitations section. Additionally, the lack of research verifying 5G frequencies above 6 GHz prevents definitive claims.
The following recommendations are suggested for future research in this field: (1) Conduct more comprehensive examinations of the effects of 5G mobile EM exposure on brain oscillations and brain excitability. This requires additional experimental research, including exposure systems operating at 5G frequencies and post-exposure assessments. (2) Study the impact of age factors on brain structure and physiology by assessing mobile EM exposure effects on both young and older adults to better understand age-related differences. (3) Investigate potential gender effects of mobile EM exposure on brain structure and function. (4) Enhance the precision of future research by refining methodological aspects, from data acquisition to result analysis, in EEG and TMS studies. This includes careful attention to study design, optimal sample size determination, and comprehensive study setup, all contributing to improved accuracy in future investigations. (5) Standardize exposure parameters (frequency, SAR, distance from the head), sham/control conditions (double-blind protocols), and reporting EEG/TMS technical details (electrode placement, filtering) in EEG and TMS protocols, which are critical updates to international EM exposure guidelines.

Author Contributions

A.T.: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; visualization; writing—original draft. S.J.: Conceptualization; formal analysis; methodology; supervision; writing, review, and editing. M.Z.: Writing—review and editing. N.F.: review and editing. A.Y.: review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the use of a Generative AI tool, Chat GPT (developed by Open AI), to assist in the preparation of this manuscript. The tool was used solely to improve the clarity, structure, and language of the text. All scientific content and interpretations were developed and verified by the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Shafique, K.; Khawaja, B.A.; Sabir, F.; Qazi, S.; Mustaqim, M. Internet of things (IoT) for next-generation smart systems: A review of current challenges, future trends and prospects for emerging 5G-IoT scenarios. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 23022–23040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Korala, H.; Georgakopoulos, D.; Yavari, A.; Jayaraman, P.P. A time-sensitive IoT data analysis framework. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA, 5 January 2021; IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 7185–7194. [Google Scholar]
  3. Yavari, A. Internet of Things Data Contextualisation for Scalable Information Processing, Security, and Privacy; College of Science, Engineering and Health; RMIT: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  4. Foroughimehr, N.; Wood, A.; McKenzie, R.; Karipidis, K.; Yavari, A. Design and Implementation of a Specialised Millimetre-Wave Exposure System for Investigating the Radiation Effects of 5G and Future Technologies. Sensors 2024, 24, 1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Joshi, A.; Kumar, A. What can we Learn from the Electromagnetic Spectrum? Resonance 2003, 8, 8–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Browne, M. Schaum’s Outline of Physics for Engineering and Science; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  7. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 2020, 118, 483–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Omer, H. Radiobiological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 5585–5592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hitchcock, R. Radio-Frequency and Microwave Radiation; AIHA: Falls Church, VA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  10. García-Larrea, L.; Perchet, C.; Perrin, F.; Amenedo, E. Interference of cellular phone conversations with visuomotor tasks: An ERP study. J. Psychophysiol. 2001, 15, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lu, Z.; Zhang, X.; Mao, C.; Liu, T.; Li, X.; Zhu, W.; Wang, C.; Sun, Y. Effects of Mobile Phone Use on Gait and Balance Control in Young Adults: A Hip–Ankle Strategy. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mortazavi, S.; Rouintan, M.; Taeb, S.; Dehghan, N.; Ghaffarpanah, A.; Sadeghi, Z.; Ghafouri, F. Human short-term exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones decreases computer-assisted visual reaction time. Acta Neurol. Belg. 2012, 112, 171–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Haque, M.M.; Washington, S. Effects of mobile phone distraction on drivers’ reaction times. J. Australas. Coll. Road Saf. 2013, 24, 20–29. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chia, S.E.; Chia, H.P.; Tan, J.S. Prevalence of headache among handheld cellular telephone users in Singapore: A community study. Environ. Health Perspect. 2000, 108, 1059–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sandström, M.; Wilen, J.; Hansson Mild, K.; Oftedal, G. Mobile phone use and subjective symptoms. Comparison of symptoms experienced by users of analogue and digital mobile phones. Occup. Med. 2001, 51, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cinel, C.; Russo, R.; Boldini, A.; Fox, E. Exposure to mobile phone electromagnetic fields and subjective symptoms: A double-blind study. Psychosom. Med. 2008, 70, 345–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Mat, D.A.A.; Kho, F.; Joseph, A.; Kipli, K.; Sahrani, S.; Lias, K.; Marzuki, A.S.W. Electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone near ear-skull region. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer and Communication Engineering (ICCCE’10), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11–12 May 2010; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  18. Szyjkowska, A.; Gadzicka, E.; Szymczak, W.; Bortkiewicz, A. The risk of subjective symptoms in mobile phone users in Poland–an epidemiological study. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2014, 27, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Croft, R.; Chandler, J.; Burgess, A.; Barry, R.; Williams, J.; Clarke, A. Acute mobile phone operation affects neural function in humans. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2002, 113, 1623–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ghosn, R.; Yahia-Cherif, L.; Hugueville, L.; Ducorps, A.; Lemarechal, J.D.; Thuróczy, G.; de Seze, R.; Selmaoui, B. Radiofrequency signal affects alpha band in resting electroencephalogram. J. Neurophysiol. 2015, 113, 2753–2759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ferreri, F.; Curcio, G.; Pasqualetti, P.; De Gennaro, L.; Fini, R.; Rossini, P. Mobile phone emissions and human brain excitability. Ann. Neurol. 2006, 60, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Inomata-Terada, S.; Okabe, S.; Arai, N.; Hanajima, R.; Terao, Y.; Frubayashi, T.; Ugawa, Y. Effects of high frequency electromagnetic field (EMF) emitted by mobile phones on the human motor cortex. Bioelectromagn. J. Bioelectromagn. Soc. Soc. Phys. Regul. Biol. Med. Eur. Bioelectromagn. Assoc. 2007, 28, 553–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372. [Google Scholar]
  25. Croft, R.; Hamblin, D.; Spong, J.; Wood, A.; McKenzie, R.; Stough, C. The effect of mobile phone electromagnetic fields on the alpha rhythm of human electroencephalogram. Bioelectromagnetics 2008, 29, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vecsei, Z.; Knakker, B.; Juhász, P.; Thuróczy, G.; Trunk, A.; Hernádi, I. Short-term radiofrequency exposure from new generation mobile phones reduces EEG alpha power with no effects on cognitive performance. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 18010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kramarenko, A.; Tan, U. Effects of high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human EEG: A brain mapping study. Int. J. Neurosci. 2003, 113, 1007–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Loughran, S.P.; Verrender, A.; Dalecki, A.; Burdon, C.A.; Tagami, K.; Park, J.; Taylor, N.A.; Croft, R.J. Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and the resting EEG: Exploring the thermal mechanism hypothesis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Krause, C.; Pesonen, M.; Haarala Björnberg, C.; Hämäläinen, H. Effects of pulsed and continuous wave 902 MHz mobile phone exposure on brain oscillatory activity during cognitive processing. Bioelectromagnetics 2007, 28, 296–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hung, C.S.; Anderson, C.; Horne, J.; McEvoy, P. Mobile phone ‘talk-mode’signal delays EEG-determined sleep onset. Neurosci. Lett. 2007, 421, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Javanrouh Givi, R.; Aminian Modarres, A.; Kafaee Razavi, M. Investigating The Effects of Modem Electromagnetic Waves (2.4 GHz) on Electroencephalogram. Int. J. Eng. 2019, 32, 1155–1162. [Google Scholar]
  32. Perentos, N.; Croft, R.J.; McKenzie, R.J.; Cvetkovic, D.; Cosic, I. The effect of GSM-like ELF radiation on the alpha band of the human resting EEG. In Proceedings of the 2008 30th IEEE Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 20–24 August 2008; pp. 5680–5683. [Google Scholar]
  33. Perentos, N.; Croft, R.J.; McKenzie, R.J.; Cosic, I. The alpha band of the resting electroencephalogram under pulsed and continuous radio frequency exposures. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2013, 60, 1702–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Croft, R.; Leung, S.; McKenzie, R.; Loughran, S.; Iskra, S.; Hamblin, D.; Cooper, N. Effects of 2G and 3G mobile phones on human alpha rhythms: Resting EEG in adolescents, young adults, and the elderly. Bioelectromagnetics 2010, 31, 434–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Regel, S.J.; Gottselig, J.M.; Schuderer, J.; Tinguely, G.; Rétey, J.V.; Kuster, N.; Landolt, H.P.; Achermann, P. Pulsed radio frequency radiation affects cognitive performance and the waking electroencephalogram. Neuroreport 2007, 18, 803–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Loughran, S.; Benz, D.; Schmid, M.; Murbach, M.; Kuster, N.; Achermann, P. No increased sensitivity in brain activity of adolescents exposed to mobile phone-like emissions. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2013, 124, 1303–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wallace, J.; Yahia-Cherif, L.; Gitton, C.; Hugueville, L.; Lemaréchal, J.D.; Selmaoui, B. Human resting-state EEG and radiofrequency GSM mobile phone exposure: The impact of the individual alpha frequency. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2022, 98, 986–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ahmed Nouri, E. Analyzing the Effects of Cell Phone on the Brain Using EEG; UniversitiTeknologi PETRONAS: Bandar, Seri Iskandar, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  39. Wallace, J.; Shang, W.; Gitton, C.; Hugueville, L.; Yahia-Cherif, L.; Selmaoui, B. Theta band brainwaves in human resting EEG modulated by mobile phone radiofrequency. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2023, 99, 1639–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Jamal, L.; Yahia-Cherif, L.; Hugueville, L.; Mazet, P.; Lévêque, P.; Selmaoui, B. Assessment of electrical brain activity of healthy volunteers exposed to 3.5 GHz of 5G signals within environmental levels: A controlled–randomised study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 6793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dalecki, A.; Verrender, A.; Loughran, S.; Croft, R. The effect of GSM electromagnetic field exposure on the waking electroencephalogram: Methodological influences. Bioelectromagnetics 2021, 42, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bachmann, M.; Lass, J.; Kalda, J.; Sakki, M.; Tomson, R.; Tuulik, V.; Hinrikus, H. Integration of differences in EEG analysis reveals changes in human EEG caused by microwave. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, New York, NY, USA, 30 August–3 September 2006; pp. 1597–1600. [Google Scholar]
  43. Tuulik, V.; Lass, J.; Bachmann, M. Stress Stages and Changes on EEG by low-level Physical (EMF) and Chemical Stressors. In Proceedings of the 14th Nordic-Baltic Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Medical Physics: NBC 2008, Riga, Latvia, 16–20 June 2008; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 335–338. [Google Scholar]
  44. Cvetkovic, D.; Cosic, I. Automated ELF magnetic field stimulation of the human EEG activity. Integr. Comput.-Aided Eng. 2006, 13, 313–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wagner, P.; Röschke, J.; Mann, K.; Fell, J.; Hiller, W.; Frank, C.; Grözinger, M. Human sleep EEG under the influence of pulsed radio frequency electromagnetic fields: Results from polysomnographies using submaximal high power flux densities. Neuropsychobiology 2000, 42, 207–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Eulitz, C.; Ullsperger, P.; Freude, G.; Elbert, T. Mobile phones modulate response patterns of human brain activity. Neuroreport 1998, 9, 3229–3232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Roggeveen, S.; van Os, J.; Viechtbauer, W.; Lousberg, R. EEG changes due to experimentally induced 3G mobile phone radiation. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0129496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bhangari, D.; Bhagali, A.; Kshirsagar, R. Effect of mobile phone radiation on EEG wave. Int. J. Innov. Technolgy Explor. Eng. 2019, 8, 121–125. [Google Scholar]
  49. Fuad, N.; Rahim, A.; Marwan, M.; Abd Wahab, M.; Idrus, S. The Analysis of EEG Distribution for Human Brainwave due to Mobile Phone Usage. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 917, p. 012046. [Google Scholar]
  50. Stefanics, G.; Thuróczy, G.; Kellényi, L.; Hernádi, I. Effects of twenty-minute 3G mobile phone irradiation on event related potential components and early gamma synchronization in auditory oddball paradigm. Neuroscience 2008, 157, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Smitha, C.; Narayanan, N. Effect of mobile phone radiation on brain using EEG analysis by Higuichi’s fractal dimension method. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Communication and Electronics System Design, Jaipur, India, 28–30 January 2013; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2013; Volume 8760, pp. 318–325. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lowden, A.; Åkerstedt, T.; Ingre, M.; Wiholm, C.; Hillert, L.; Kuster, N.; Nilsson, J.P.; Arnetz, B. Sleep after mobile phone exposure in subjects with mobile phone-related symptoms. Bioelectromagnetics 2011, 32, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Dwivedi, R.; Shakti Singh, S.; Rana, S.; Jakhar, D.; Kaur, K.; Poddar, A.; Tripathi, M. Effect of Mobile Phone Emissions on HD-EEG Signals and Preventive Measures. Preprint 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zentai, N.; Csathó, Á.; Trunk, A.; Fiocchi, S.; Parazzini, M.; Ravazzani, P.; Thuróczy, G.; Hernádi, I. No effects of acute exposure to Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields on spontaneous EEG activity and psychomotor vigilance in healthy human volunteers. Radiat. Res. 2015, 184, 568–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Trunk, A.; Stefanics, G.; Zentai, N.; Kovács-Bálint, Z.; Thuróczy, G.; Hernádi, I. No effects of a single 3G UMTS mobile phone exposure on spontaneous EEG activity, ERP correlates, and automatic deviance detection. Bioelectromagnetics 2013, 34, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Curcio, G.; Ferrara, M.; Moroni, F.; D’inzeo, G.; Bertini, M.; De Gennaro, L. Is the brain influenced by a phone call?: An EEG study of resting wakefulness. Neurosci. Res. 2005, 53, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Danker-Hopfe, H.; Dorn, H.; Bornkessel, C.; Sauter, C. Do mobile phone base stations affect sleep of residents? Results from an experimental double-blind sham-controlled field study. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2010, 22, 613–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Danker-Hopfe, H.; Bueno-Lopez, A.; Dorn, H.; Schmid, G.; Hirtl, R.; Eggert, T. Spending the night next to a router–Results from the first human experimental study investigating the impact of Wi-Fi exposure on sleep. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2020, 228, 113550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hietanen, M.; Kovala, T.; Hämäläinen, A.M. Human brain activity during exposure to radiofrequency fields emitted by cellular phones. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2000, 26, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hinrikus, H.; Bachmann, M.; Tomson, R.; Lass, J. Non-thermal effect of microwave radiation on human brain. Environmentalist 2005, 25, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hinrikus, H.; Bachmann, M.; Lass, J.; Tuulik, V. Effect of modulated at different low frequencies microwave radiation on human EEG. Environmentalist 2009, 29, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Röschke, J.; Mann, K. No short-term effects of digital mobile radio telephone on the awake human electroencephalogram. Bioelectromagn. J. Bioelectromagn. Soc. Soc. Phys. Regul. Biol. Med. Eur. Bioelectromagn. Assoc. 1997, 18, 172–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bachmann, M.; Lass, J.; Ioannides, A.; Hinrikus, H. Brain stimulation by modulated microwave radiation: A feasibility study. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE EMF-Med 1st World Conference on Biomedical Applications of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF-Med), Split, Croatia, 10–13 September 2018; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  64. Suhhova, A.; Bachmann, M.; Karai, D.; Lass, J.; Hinrikus, H. Effect of microwave radiation on human EEG at two different levels of exposure. Bioelectromagnetics 2013, 34, 264–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Suhhova, A.; Bachmann, M.; Lass, J.; Karai, D.; Hinrikus, H. Effect of modulated microwave radiation on human EEG asymmetry. Environmentalist 2009, 29, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lin, J. Cellular telephone radiation and electroencephalograms (EEG) of the human brain. IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag. 2003, 45, 150–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Murat, Z.H.; Kadir, R.; Isa, R.M.; Jahidin, A.H.; Taib, M.N.; Sulaiman, N. Observation of human brainwave signals due to mobile phone usage. Int. J. Simul. Syst. Sci. Technol. 2011, 12, 22–28. [Google Scholar]
  68. Lv, B.; Su, C.; Yang, L.; Xie, Y.; Wu, T. Whole brain EEG synchronization likelihood modulated by long term evolution electromagnetic fields exposure. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Chicago, IL, USA, 26–30 August 2014; pp. 986–989. [Google Scholar]
  69. Lv, B.; Chen, Z.; Wu, T.; Shao, Q.; Yan, D.; Ma, L.; Lu, K.; Xie, Y. The alteration of spontaneous low frequency oscillations caused by acute electromagnetic fields exposure. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2014, 125, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bachmann, M.; Tomson, R.; Kalda, J.; Säkki, M.; Lass, J.; Tuulik, V.; Hinrikus, H. Individual changes in human EEG caused by 450 MHz microwave modulated at 40 and 70 Hz. Environmentalist 2007, 27, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nakatani-Enomoto, S.; Yamazaki, M.; Nishiura, K.; Enomoto, H.; Ugawa, Y. Effects of electromagnetic fields from long-term evolution on awake electroencephalogram in healthy humans. Neurosci. Res. 2020, 156, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bachmann, M.; Hinrikus, H.; Aadamsoo, K.; Võhma, Ü.; Lass, J.; Rubljova, J.; Suhhova, A.; Tuulik, V. Modulated microwave effects on individuals with depressive disorder. Environmentalist 2007, 27, 505–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hinrikus, H.; Bachmann, M.; Karai, D.; Lass, J. Mechanism of low-level microwave radiation effect on nervous system. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 2017, 36, 202–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Eggert, T.; Dorn, H.; Sauter, C.; Marasanov, A.; Hansen, M.L.; Peter, A.; Schmid, G.; Bolz, T.; Danker-Hopfe, H. Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) exposure and its impact on slow cortical potentials. Environ. Res. 2015, 143, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. D’Costa, H.; Trueman, G.; Tang, L.; Abdel-Rahman, U.; Abdel-Rahman, W.; Ong, K.; Cosic, I. Human brain wave activity during exposure to radiofrequency field emissions from mobile phones. Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 2003, 26, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Singh, K.; Mehra, R. Mobile Phone Handset Radiation Impact Study on Brainwave Signal Using EEG. Int. J. Sci. Res. Dev. 2015, 3, 295–298. [Google Scholar]
  77. Vecchio, F.; Babiloni, C.; Ferreri, F.; Curcio, G.; Fini, R.; Del Percio, C.; Rossini, P.M. Mobile phone emission modulates interhemispheric functional coupling of EEG alpha rhythms. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2007, 25, 1908–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Vecchio, F.; Babiloni, C.; Ferreri, F.; Buffo, P.; Cibelli, G.; Curcio, G.; Van Dijkman, S.; Melgari, J.M.; Giambattistelli, F.; Rossini, P.M. Mobile phone emission modulates inter-hemispheric functional coupling of EEG alpha rhythms in elderly compared to young subjects. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2010, 121, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fritzer, G.; Göder, R.; Friege, L.; Wachter, J.; Hansen, V.; Hinze-Selch, D.; Aldenhoff, J. Effects of short-and long-term pulsed radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on night sleep and cognitive functions in healthy subjects. Bioelectromagnetics 2007, 28, 316–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Isa, R.; Pasya, I.; Taib, M. High frequency brainwaves comparison due to mobile phone radiofrequency emission. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Third International Conference on Intelligent Systems Modelling and Simulation, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 8–10 February 2012; pp. 191–196. [Google Scholar]
  81. Hinrikus, H.; Bachmann, M.; Lass, J.; Karai, D.; Tuulik, V. Effect of low frequency modulated microwave exposure on human EEG: Individual sensitivity. Bioelectromagnetics 2008, 29, 527–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hinrikus, H.; Bachmann, M.; Lass, J. Parametric mechanism of excitation of the electroencephalographic rhythms by modulated microwave radiation. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2011, 87, 1077–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lebet, J.; Barbault, A.; Rossel, C.; Tomic, Z.; Reite, M.; Higgs, L.; Dafni, U.; Amato, D.; Pasche, B. Electroencephalographic changes following low energy emission therapy. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 1996, 24, 424–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Yang, L.; Chen, Q.; Lv, B.; Wu, T. Long-term evolution electromagnetic fields exposure modulates the resting state EEG on alpha and beta bands. Clin. EEG Neurosci. 2017, 48, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Pattnaik, S.; Dhaliwal, B.S.; Pattnaik, S. Impact analysis of mobile phone electromagnetic radiations on human electroencephalogram. Sādhanā 2019, 44, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Huber, R.; Treyer, V.; Borbely, A.; Schuderer, J.; Gottselig, J.; Landolt, H.; Werth, E.; Berthold, T.; Kuster, N.; Buck, A. Electromagnetic fields, such as those from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and sleep and waking EEG. J. Sleep Res. 2002, 11, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Huber, R.; Graf, T.; Cote, K.; Wittmann, L.; Gallmann, E.; Matter, D.; Schuderer, J.; Kuster, N.; Borbély, A.; Achermann, P. Exposure to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic field during waking affects human sleep EEG. Neuroreport 2000, 11, 3321–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Reiser, H.; Dimpfel, W.; Schober, F. The influence of electromagnetic fields on human brain activity. Eur. J. Med. Res. 1995, 1, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
  89. Lustenberger, C.; Murbach, M.; Dürr, R.; Schmid, M.R.; Kuster, N.; Achermann, P.; Huber, R. Stimulation of the brain with radiofrequency electromagnetic field pulses affects sleep-dependent performance improvement. Brain Stimul. 2013, 6, 805–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Loughran, S.; McKenzie, R.; Jackson, M.; Howard, M.; Croft, R. Individual differences in the effects of mobile phone exposure on human sleep: Rethinking the problem. Bioelectromagnetics 2012, 33, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Schmid, M.R.; Murbach, M.; Lustenberger, C.; Maire, M.; Kuster, N.; Achermann, P.; Loughran, S.P. Sleep EEG alterations: Effects of pulsed magnetic fields versus pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields. J. Sleep Res. 2012, 21, 620–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. He, Y.; Leung, S.; Diao, Y.; Sun, W.; Siu, Y.; Sinha, P.; Chan, K. Impacts of radio frequency interference on human brain waves and neuro-psychological changes. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Informatics and Biomedical Sciences (ICIIBMS), Okinawa, Japan, 28–30 November 2015; pp. 257–261. [Google Scholar]
  93. Bueno-Lopez, A.; Eggert, T.; Dorn, H.; Schmid, G.; Hirtl, R.; Danker-Hopfe, H. Effects of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi exposure on sleep-dependent memory consolidation. J. Sleep Res. 2021, 30, e13224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kleinlogel, H.; Dierks, T.; König, T.; Lehmann, H.; Minder, A.; Berz, R. Effects of weak mobile Phone—Electromagnetic fields (GSM, UMTS) on well-being and resting EEG. Bioelectromagnetics 2008, 29, 479–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wood, A.; Loughran, S.; Croft, R.; Stough, C.; Thompson, B. DO mobile phones affect sleep? In Investigating Effects of Mobile Phone Exposure on Human Sleep EEG. Biosignals 2008, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Bio-Inspired Systems and Signal Processing, Funchal, Portugal, 28–31 January 2008; SciTePress: Setúbal, Portugal, 2008; Volume 2, pp. 565–569. [Google Scholar]
  96. Thut, G.; Pascual-Leone, A. A review of combined TMS-EEG studies to characterize lasting effects of repetitive TMS and assess their usefulness in cognitive and clinical neuroscience. Brain Topogr. 2010, 22, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Teplan, M. Fundamentals of EEG measurement. Meas. Sci. Rev. 2002, 2, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  98. Niedermeyer, E.; da Silva, F.L. Electroencephalography: Basic Principles, Clinical Applications, and Related Fields; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  99. Kandel, E.R.; Schwartz, J.H.; Jessell, T.M.; Siegelbaum, S.; Hudspeth, A.J.; Mack, S. Principles of Neural Science; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2000; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  100. Kujirai, T.; Caramia, M.; Rothwell, J.; Day, B.; Thompson, P.; Ferbert, A.; Wroe, S.; Asselman, P.; Marsden, C. Corticocortical inhibition in human motor cortex. J. Physiol. 1993, 471, 501–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Wassermann, E.M.; Samii, A.; Mercuri, B.; Ikoma, K.; Oddo, D.; Grill, S.E.; Hallett, M. Responses to paired transcranial magnetic stimuli in resting, active, and recently activated muscles. Exp. Brain Res. 1996, 109, 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Ziemann, U.; Tergau, F.; Wassermann, E.M.; Wischer, S.; Hildebrandt, J.; Paulus, W. Demonstration of facilitatory I wave interaction in the human motor cortex by paired transcranial magnetic stimulation. J. Physiol. 1998, 511, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Prill, R.; Karlsson, J.; Ayeni, O.R.; Becker, R. Author guidelines for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2021, 29, 2739–2744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Llinás, R. Intrinsic electrical properties of mammalian neurons and CNS function: A historical perspective. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Belpomme, D.; Hardell, L.; Belyaev, I.; Burgio, E.; Carpenter, D. Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 242, 643–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Kodera, S.; Gomez-Tames, J.; Hirata, A. Temperature elevation in the human brain and skin with thermoregulation during exposure to RF energy. Biomed. Eng. Online 2018, 17, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Leszczynski, D.; Joenväärä, S.; Reivinen, J.; Kuokka, R. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: Molecular mechanism for cancer-and blood-brain barrier-related effects. Differentiation 2002, 70, 120–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Nittby, H.; Grafström, G.; Eberhardt, J.L.; Malmgren, L.; Brun, A.; Persson, B.R.; Salford, L.G. Radiofrequency and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field effects on the blood-brain barrier. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 2008, 27, 103–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Nittby, H.; Brun, A.; Eberhardt, J.; Malmgren, L.; Persson, B.R.; Salford, L.G. Increased blood–brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone. Pathophysiology 2009, 16, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Sırav, B.; Seyhan, N. Effects of GSM modulated radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation on permeability of blood–brain barrier in male & female rats. J. Chem. Neuroanat. 2016, 75, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  111. Hossmann, K.A.; Hermann, D. Effects of electromagnetic radiation of mobile phones on the central nervous system. Bioelectromagn. J. Bioelectromagn. Soc. Soc. Phys. Regul. Biol. Med. Eur. Bioelectromagn. Assoc. 2003, 24, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Canovi, A.; Orlacchio, R.; Poulletier de Gannes, F.; Lagroye, I.; Garenne, A. In vitro exposure of neuronal networks to the 5G-3.5 GHz signal. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1231360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Valentini, E.; Curcio, G.; Moroni, F.; Ferrara, M.; De Gennaro, L.; Bertini, M. Neurophysiological effects of mobile phone electromagnetic fields on humans: A comprehensive review. Bioelectromagn. J. Bioelectromagn. Soc. Soc. Phys. Regul. Biol. Med. Eur. Bioelectromagn. Assoc. 2007, 28, 415–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Tombini, M.; Pellegrino, G.; Pasqualetti, P.; Assenza, G.; Benvenga, A.; Fabrizio, E.; Rossini, P.M. Mobile phone emissions modulate brain excitability in patients with focal epilepsy. Brain Stimul. 2013, 6, 448–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Zhang, J.; Sumich, A.; Wang, G.Y. Acute effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phone on brain function. Bioelectromagnetics 2017, 38, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ertilav, K.; Uslusoy, F.; Ataizi, S.; Nazıroğlu, M. Long term exposure to cell phone frequencies (900 and 1800 MHz) induces apoptosis, mitochondrial oxidative stress and TRPV1 channel activation in the hippocampus and dorsal root ganglion of rats. Metab. Brain Dis. 2018, 33, 753–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Bertagna, F.; Lewis, R.; Silva, S.; McFadden, J.; Jeevaratnam, K. Effects of electromagnetic fields on neuronal ion channels: A systematic review. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2021, 1499, 82–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Torkan, A. Examining Changes in Sensitivity and Functionality of Mechanosensitive Ion Channel Protein Piezo 1 Exposed to Low-Level Radiofrequency Radiation. Ph.D. Thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  119. Liu, C.; Gao, P.; Xu, S.C.; Wang, Y.; Chen, C.H.; He, M.D.; Yu, Z.P.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, Z. Mobile phone radiation induces mode-dependent DNA damage in a mouse spermatocyte-derived cell line: A protective role of melatonin. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2013, 89, 993–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Frenis, K.; Kalinovic, S.; Ernst, B.; Kvandova, M.; Al Zuabi, A.; Kuntic, M.; Oelze, M.; Stamm, P.; Bayo Jimenez, M.; Kij, A. Long-term effects of aircraft noise exposure on vascular oxidative stress, endothelial function and blood pressure: No evidence for adaptation or tolerance development. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2022, 8, 814921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Tseng, B.P.; Giedzinski, E.; Izadi, A.; Suarez, T.; Lan, M.L.; Tran, K.K.; Acharya, M.M.; Nelson, G.A.; Raber, J.; Parihar, V.K.; et al. Functional consequences of radiation-induced oxidative stress in cultured neural stem cells and the brain exposed to charged particle irradiation. Antioxidants Redox Signal. 2014, 20, 1410–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Naziroglu, M.; Akman, H.; Laher, I. Effects of cellular phone-and Wi-Fi-induced electromagnetic radiation on oxidative stress and molecular pathways in brain. In Systems Biology of Free Radicals and Antioxidants; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 106, pp. 2431–2449. [Google Scholar]
  123. Kerman, M.; Senol, N. Oxidative stress in hippocampus induced by 900 MHz electromagnetic field emitting mobile phone: Protection by melatonin. Biomed. Res. 2012, 23, 147–151. [Google Scholar]
  124. Dasdag, S.; Akdag, M.Z. The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wireless technologies and oxidative stress. J. Chem. Neuroanat. 2016, 75, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Wessapan, T.; Srisawatdhisukul, S.; Rattanadecho, P. Specific absorption rate and temperature distributions in human head subjected to mobile phone radiation at different frequencies. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2012, 55, 347–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Chandan, R.K.; Suman, P.N.; Sinha, K. The Environmental Impact of 5G Technology on Humans and Animals. In Handbook of Research on Knowledge and Organization Systems in Library and Information Science; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 48–68. [Google Scholar]
  127. Gultekin, D.H.; Moeller, L. NMR imaging of cell phone radiation absorption in brain tissue. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Wessapan, T.; Rattanadecho, P. Flow and heat transfer in biological tissue due to electromagnetic near-field exposure effects. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2016, 97, 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Wessapan, T.; Rattanadecho, P. Temperature induced in human organs due to near-field and far-field electromagnetic exposure effects. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2018, 119, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Wessapan, T.; Rattanadecho, P. Thermal effects of metal implants embedded in different layers of human tissues exposed to electromagnetic fields. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2024, 53, 103771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Khadrawy, Y.; Ahmed, N.A.; Ezz, H.S.A.; Radwan, N. Effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone on the levels of cortical amino acid neurotransmitters in adult and young rats. Rom. J. Biophys. 2009, 19, 295–305. [Google Scholar]
  132. Ezz, H.A.; Khadrawy, Y.; Ahmed, N.; Radwan, N.; BAKRY, M.E. The effect of pulsed electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone on the levels of monoamine neurotransmitters in four different areas of rat brain. Eur. Rev. Med Pharmacol. Sci. 2013, 17, 1782–1788. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  133. Hong, J.H.; Chiang, C.S.; Campbell, I.; Sun, J.R.; Withers, H.; McBride, W. Induction of acute phase gene expression by brain irradiation. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1995, 33, 619–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Baan, R.; Grosse, Y.; Lauby-Secretan, B.; El Ghissassi, F.; Bouvard, V.; Benbrahim-Tallaa, L.; Guha, N.; Islami, F.; Galichet, L.; Straif, K. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol. 2011, 12, 624–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Zou, C.C.; Zhao, Z.Y. Clinical and molecular analysis of NF-κB essential modulator in Chinese incontinentia pigmenti patients. Int. J. Dermatol. 2007, 46, 1017–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Yan, J.G.; Agresti, M.; Zhang, L.L.; Yan, Y.; Matloub, H.S. Qualitative effect on mRNAs of injury-associated proteins by cell phone like radiation in rat facial nerves. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 2009, 28, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Motawi, T.K.; Darwish, H.A.; Moustafa, Y.M.; Labib, M.M. Biochemical modifications and neuronal damage in brain of young and adult rats after long-term exposure to mobile phone radiations. Cell Biochem. Biophys. 2014, 70, 845–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Zhao, T.Y.; Zou, S.P.; Knapp, P.E. Exposure to cell phone radiation up-regulates apoptosis genes in primary cultures of neurons and astrocytes. Neurosci. Lett. 2007, 412, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Nittby, H.; Widegren, B.; Krogh, M.; Grafström, G.; Berlin, H.; Rehn, G.; Eberhardt, J.L.; Malmgren, L.; Persson, B.R.; Salford, L.G. Exposure to radiation from global system for mobile communications at 1,800 MHz significantly changes gene expression in rat hippocampus and cortex. Environmentalist 2008, 28, 458–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Yan, J.G.; Agresti, M.; Zhang, L.L.; Yan, Y.; Matloub, H.S. Upregulation of specific mRNA levels in rat brain after cell phone exposure. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 2008, 27, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Usikalu, M.; Rotimi, S.; Oguegbu, A. Effect of exposure of 900 MHz radiofrequency radiation on rat brain. Eur. J. Exp. Biol. 2012, 2, 2499–2504. [Google Scholar]
  142. Kivrak, E.G.; Altunkaynak, B.Z.; Alkan, I.; Yurt, K.K.; Kocaman, A.; Onger, M.E. Effects of 900-MHz radiation on the hippocampus and cerebellum of adult rats and attenuation of such effects by folic acid and Boswellia sacra. J. Microsc. Ultrastruct. 2017, 5, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  143. Hussein, S.; El-Saba, A.A.; Galal, M.K. Biochemical and histological studies on adverse effects of mobile phone radiation on rat’s brain. J. Chem. Neuroanat. 2016, 78, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Buchner, K.; Rivasi, M. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of Interest, Corporate Capture and the Push for 5G. ICNIRP-Report-FINAL-19-JUNE-2020. 2020. Available online: https://kompetenzinitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ICNIRP-report-FINAL-19-JUNE-2020.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2025).
  145. Warsaw, R.E.; Jones, A.; Rose, A.K.; Newton-Fenner, A.; Alshukri, S.; Gage, S.H. Mobile technology use and its association with executive functioning in healthy young adults: A systematic review. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 643542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; Standing Committee on Epidemiology; Ahlbom, A.; Green, A.; Kheifets, L.; Savitz, D.; Swerdlow, A. Epidemiology of health effects of radiofrequency exposure. Environ. Health Perspect. 2004, 112, 1741–1754. [Google Scholar]
  147. Hietanen, M. Establishing the health risks of exposure to radiofrequency fields requires multidisciplinary research. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2006, 32, 169–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Foster, K.R.; Chou, C.K. Response to “Children Absorb Higher Doses of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation from Mobile Phones than Adults” and “Yes the Children Are More Exposed to Radiofrequency Energy from Mobile Telephones than Adults”. IEEE Access 2016, 4, 5322–5326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Foroughimehr, N. Millimetre Wave Absorption by the Cornea; Swinburne University of Technology: Hawthorn, VIC, Australia, 2024. [Google Scholar]
Sensors 25 02749 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing the selection process of articles following PRISMA guidelines.
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing the selection process of articles following PRISMA guidelines.
Sensors 25 02749 g001
Table 1. Keywords and search terms used in this review.
Table 1. Keywords and search terms used in this review.
 Keywords InclusionKeywords Exclusion
PopulationHealthy individuals, Adults, Humans,
Healthy people, Able-bodied adults		Pathological disorders, Animal studies
ConceptEM radiation, EMR, Mobile phone radiation, mobile EM, 3G/4G/5G networks, Cell phone radiation
Mobile phone frequency, MPF, Radiofrequency radiation, RFR, Low-level radiation, Wireless emissions, Wireless radiation, Mobile device radiation, Cellular radiation, Radio wave exposure, Mobile phone generations		Cognitive function
ContextBrain function, Brain activity, Brain oscillation, Neural oscillations, Electroencephalography, EEG, Transcranial magnetic stimulation, TMS, Brain wave, Brainwave activity, Cortical excitability, Corticospinal excitability, CSE  Ionizing radiation, Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS), Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), Transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS)
Table 2. Experimental EEG studies investigating the effects of mobile phone EM exposure on brain oscillations (eyes opened).
Table 2. Experimental EEG studies investigating the effects of mobile phone EM exposure on brain oscillations (eyes opened).
StudyParticipants
(Gender)/
Age Range (Mean)		Mobile Phone
Specification
(Frequency/Power/SAR)		Exposure Time (min)Study Design (Crossover)/BlindingNumber of Channels
and/or Electrodes		Effects on Band Amplitude
Single-Blind Double-Blind Delta Theta Alpha Beta Gamma
[19]24 (16 M, 8 F)/19–48 Y, 27.5 Y900–1800 MHz/250 mW20√-19↓↑↑↑-
[25]120 (46 M, 74 F)/18–69 Y895 MHz/2 W, 0.674 W/kg30-√58--↑--
[26]34 F/20 ± 3 Y1920 to 2170 MHz/-20-√32--↓--
[27]10 M (adults), 10 children/12 Y900 MHz/-10-√16↑----
[28]36 (18 M, 18 F)/18–52 Y920 MHz/2 W/kg30-√19--↑--
[29]36 M/23.6 Y902 MHz/0.25 W40-√5--↑--
[30]10 M/-900 MHz, 2 W/kg30√-12↑-↑--
[31]15 F/21–30 Y2.476 GHz/80 μW/kg5 & 15--8/21-↑↑↑-
[32]72 (37 M, 35 F)/24.5 YNokia 3110/-20-√19--↓--
[33]72 (37 M, 35 F)/24.5 Y900 MHz/1.95 W/kg20-√19--↑--
[34]42 (21 M, 21 F)/19–40 Y894.6 MHz (2G) 250 mW/Vs 1900 MHz (3G)/1.7 W/kg50-√61--↑--
[35]24 M/19–25 Y900 MHz/1 W/kg30-√------
[20]26 (13 M, 13 F)/23.5 Y900 MHz/-26-√29-----
[36]22 (12 M, 10 F)/11–13 Y900 MHz/-30-√------
[37]21 (11 M, 10 F)/25.1 Y900 MHz/0.49 W/kg25.5-√74-----
[38]20 (M, F)/18–28 Y450–2500 MHz/2 W5-√16↓↓↓↑-
[39]21 (11 M, 10 F)/25.1 ± 3.6 Y900 MHz/0.49 W/kg25-√74↓↓-↓-
[40]34 (17 M, 17 F)/26.6 ± 4.7 Y3.5 GHz/5G Hz/ 0.037 ± 0.11 mW/kg25.5--64-----
[41]36 (18 M, 18 F)/18–52 Y920 MHz/2 W/kg30-√19--↑--
[42]23 (12 M, 11 F)/21–24 Y450 MHz/0.16 mW/cm2, 0.35 W/kg10 (1 min
ON/OFF)		-√9--↑↑-
[43]77/-450 MHz--√----↓↓
[44]8 (6 M, 2 F)/28 YCOMSOL 20046√-4/19--↑↑-
[45]20 M/19–36 Y900-MHz/10 W/m2480--2-----
[46]13 M/21–27 Y916.2 MHz/2.8 W-√-30---↑-
[47]31 F/26.7 Y5 Hz–3 GHz or 1.9291 to 1.9397 GHz/0.69 W/kg15√-12--↑↑↑
[48]5/-900 MHz, 1800 MHz/-1-√32↑↓↓↑-
[49]20 (9 M, 11 F)/-GCM: Nokia 105 vs. SP: Huawei P8lite5-√5-↑↑--
[50]36 (16 M, 20 F)/19–28 Y3G/1.75 W/kg20-√2/3----↑
[51]35 (18 M, 17 F)/39.8 Y-5-√21-----
[52]48 (21 M, 27 F)/18–44 Y884 MHz3-√8↑↑↑--
[53]29 (19 M, 10 F)/18–40 YAndroid 2500 mAh battery5--128-↑↑-↑
[54]25 (10 M, 15 F)/23.3 Y2.4 GHz/99.22 mW/kg60-√13/5-----
[55]17 (8 M, 9 F)/21.76 Y1947 MHz/1.75 W/kg30-√3-----
Note: M: Male; F: Female; Y: years old; F; frequency; SAR; specific absorption rate; MHz: Megahertz; GHz: Gigahertz; EO: Eyes opened; EC: Eyes closed, channels; GCM: Google Cloud Messaging Smartphone; 2G: 2nd generation; 3G: 3rd generation; 4G: 4th generation; ↑ = increased; ↓ = decreased; - = no significant changes; √ = yes.
Table 3. Experimental EEG studies investigating the effects of mobile phone EM exposure on brain oscillations (eyes closed).
Table 3. Experimental EEG studies investigating the effects of mobile phone EM exposure on brain oscillations (eyes closed).
StudyParticipants (Gender)/
Age Range (Mean)		Mobile Phone Specification
(Frequency/Power/SAR)		Exposure Time (min/s)Study Design (Crossover)/BlindingNumber of Channels
and/or Electrodes		Effects on Band Amplitude
Single-Blind Double-Blind Delta Theta Alpha Beta Gamma
[56]20 (10 M, 10 F)/22–31 Y902.40 MHz/0.25 W45-√5--↑--
[57]397 (50.9% F)/>18 Y900 MHz–1800 MHz/For 5 nights-√------
[58]34 M/20–30 Y2.45 GHz/6.4 mW/kgEvery six minutes for 5 nights-√19↓-↓↓-
[59]19 (10 M, 9 F)/M: 28–48 Y, F: 32–57 Y900, 1800 MHz/1–2 W20√-21↑----
[60]13 (4 M, 9 F)/21–30 Y450 MHz/0.16 mW/cm21-√9--↑↑-
[61]34 (16 M, 18 F)450 MHz/0.16 mW/cm210 (1 min ON/OFF)-√9--↑↑-
[62]34 M/21–35 Y900 MHz/0.05 mW/cm23.5--------
[63]14 (7 M, 7 F)/21–24 Y450 Hz/0.16 mW/cm210 (1 min ON/OFF)√√8/9--↑↑-
[64]15 (8 M, 7 F)/23–32 Y450-MHz/0.303 W/kg10 (1 min ON/OFF)--9/19--↑↑-
[65]28/21–30 Y450 Hz/0.303 W/kg10 (1 min ON/OFF)-√9---↑-
[66]16 M900 MHz/1 W/kg30√----↑--
[67]30/-450 to 2500 MHz5-√2↑-↓↑-
[68]10 M/25.2 Y2.573 GHz/-30-√32-----
[69]18 (12 M, 6 F)/19–35 Y800–3500 MHz/2.18–2.36 W/kg30-√8↓↑↑--
[70]15 (8 M, 7 F)/21–24 Y450 MHz/0.16 mW/cm210-√19--↑--
[71]38/20–36 Y5000 kHz–3 GHz 2.0 W/kg30-√128-----
[72]18F/39 Y450 MHz/0.9 mW/cm230√-19-↑-↑-
[73]15 (8 M, 7 F)/21–24 Y450 MHz/0.16 mW/cm25 (1 min ON/OFF)-√9--↑↑-
[74]30 M/20–30 Y100 kHz–3 GHz/1.5 W/kg12,960-√19-----
[75]10 (5 M, 5 F) 18–30 Y900 MHz/250 mW5√-6--↓↓-
[76]5/- 18–27 Y900–1800 MHz/->10 min-√19↓↓↑↓-
[77]10 M/25–36 Y902.40 MHz/0.25 W45-√19--↑--
[78]16 (7 M, 9 F)/47–84 Y902.40 MHz/0.5 W/kg45-√19--↑--
[79]20 M/22–37 Y900 MHz/-√-6-----
[80]45/--/0.69 W/kg5--2/4--↓↓-
[81]66 (30 M, 36 F)/19–24 Y450 MHz/0.303 W/kg 0.16 mW/cm220 and 40-√9/9--↑↑-
[82]28 (13 M, 15 F)/20–27 Y450 MHz/0.16 mW/cm2/0.303 W/kg10 cycle every odd min-√8/9--↑--
[83]52 (25 M, 27 F)/19–76 Y27.12 MHz/4 mW/kg15-√8↑----
[84]25 M/30.2 ± 2.7 Y2.61 GHz30-√19--↑↑-
[85]75 (57 M, 18 F)/22.2 YNokia, Samsung, Panasonic, and Motorola, 2G,3G/0.67 and 1.14 W/kg5--16/21-↑↑↑↑
[86]16 M/20–25 Y900 MHz/-30 pulls√----↑--
[34]42 (21 M, 21 F)/19–40 Y894.6 MHz (2G) 250 mW/Vs 1900 MHz (3G)/1.7 W/kg50-√61-----
[35]24 M/19–25 Y900 MHz/1 W/kg30-√---↑--
[20]26 (13 M, 13 F)/23.5 Y900 MHz/-26-√29--↓--
[36]22 (12 M, 10 F)/11–13 Y900 MHz/-30-√------
[87]60 M/- 20 ± 25 Y900 MHz/o 2.2W30-√9--↑↑-
[38]20 (M, F)/18–28 Y450–2500 MHz/2 W5-√16↓↓↑↑-
[37]21 (11 M, 10 F)/25.1 Y900 MHz/0.49 W/kg25/5-√74-----
[40]34 (17 M, 17 F)/26.6 ± 4.7 Y3.5 GHz/5G Hz/0.037 ± 0.11 mW/kg25/5--64↑↑↓--
[39]21 (11 M, 10 F)/25.1 ± 3.6 Y900 MHz/0.49 W/kg25-√74-↑---
[41]36 (18 M, 18 F)/18–52 Y920 MHz/2W/kg30-√19-----
[88]36 (18 M, 18 F)902.4 MHz/-15√-16--↑↑-
[89]16 M/18–21 Y900 MHz/10 W/kg10 (1 min ON/OFF)-√10/12↑↑---
[90]20 (7 M, 13 F)/20–51 Y894.6 MHz/2 W30-√2/4--↑--
[91]25 M/20–26 Y900 MHz/2 W/kg30-√2↑↑↑--
[92]12/24.61.8 GHz/-5√-9-↑↑--
[93]30 M/24.1 ± 2.9 Y2.45 GHz/6.4 mW/kg480-√19-----
[94]15 M/20–35 Y900,1950 MHz/-2 and 6-√19-----
[95]50 (27 M, 23 F)/18–60 Y914 MHz 0.19 ± 0.03 W/kg30-√2--↑--
Note: M: Male; F: Female; Y: years old; Frequency; SAR: specific absorption rate; MHz: Megahertz; GHz: Gigahertz; W/kg: Watts per Kilogram; cm2: centimetres squared; ↑ = increased; ↓ = decreased; - = no significant changes; √ = yes.
Table 4. TMS studies investigate the effects of mobile phone exposure on CSE, SICI, and ICF.
Table 4. TMS studies investigate the effects of mobile phone exposure on CSE, SICI, and ICF.
StudyParticipants
Gender
Age Range (Mean)		Mobile Phone Specification
(Frequency/Power/SAR)		Exposure
Time/min		Study Design (Crossover)/BlindingTMS CharacteristicsObserved Effects
Single-Blind Double-Blind CSE ICF SICI LICI
[22]10 (5 M, 5 F)/22–51 Y800 MHz/270 mW30-√200 (The Magstim Co., Ltd., Whitland, UK)-↑N/SN/S
[21]15 F/20–36 Y902.40 MHz/2 W45-√200 (The Magstim Co., Dyfed, UK)-↑↓N/S
Note: M: Male; F: Female; Y: years old; F; frequency; SAR; specific absorption rate; MHz: Megahertz; W: watt; ↑ = increased; ↓ = decreased; - = no significant changes; √ = yes; N/S = Not Studied.
Table 5. Mobile technology, research status, and gaps in the literature.
Table 5. Mobile technology, research status, and gaps in the literature.
TechnologyFrequency BandMain ApplicationsExisting ResearchResearch Gaps
1G/2G~800–900 MHzvoice communicationsExtensive studies on SAR (Specific Absorption Rate), health risk assessmentsLimited newer studies reassessing low-level long-term exposure
3G~1.8–2.1 GHzproviding access to the Internet on laptops and mobile devicesSignificant research on RF biological effects and epidemiological studiesNeed for updated risk assessments based on modern usage patterns
4G~2–2.6 GHz (sometimes up to 3.5 GHz)video conferencing to gaming services, HD mobile televisionGood coverage of thermal and some non-thermal effects, SAR complianceGaps in chronic exposure studies, particularly for high-data applications
5G (Sub-6 GHz)~3.3–6 GHzEnhanced mobile broadband, IoT, smart citiesEarly studies, focusing mainly on compliance testing and exposure modelingNeed more biological studies on non-thermal effects, long-term exposure
5G (mmWave)24–28 GHz, 37–40 GHz, 60 GHzUltra-fast broadband, high-capacity urban networks, AR/VRVery limited; few experimental biological studies, mainly simulationsMajor gaps in biological effects, tissue interaction, long-term health risks, thermal load at skin/tissue interface 
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Torkan, A.; Zoghi, M.; Foroughimehr, N.; Yavari, A.; Jaberzadeh, S. Effects of Mobile Electromagnetic Exposure on Brain Oscillations and Cortical Excitability: Scoping Review. Sensors 2025, 25, 2749. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25092749

AMA Style

Torkan A, Zoghi M, Foroughimehr N, Yavari A, Jaberzadeh S. Effects of Mobile Electromagnetic Exposure on Brain Oscillations and Cortical Excitability: Scoping Review. Sensors. 2025; 25(9):2749. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25092749

Chicago/Turabian Style

Torkan, Azadeh, Maryam Zoghi, Negin Foroughimehr, Ali Yavari, and Shapour Jaberzadeh. 2025. "Effects of Mobile Electromagnetic Exposure on Brain Oscillations and Cortical Excitability: Scoping Review" Sensors 25, no. 9: 2749. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25092749

APA Style

Torkan, A., Zoghi, M., Foroughimehr, N., Yavari, A., & Jaberzadeh, S. (2025). Effects of Mobile Electromagnetic Exposure on Brain Oscillations and Cortical Excitability: Scoping Review. Sensors, 25(9), 2749. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25092749

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop