ArticleScientific reports2015
Effects of concurrent caffeine and mobile phone exposure on local target probability processing in the human brain.
Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Electrical Brain Activity of Healthy Volunteers Exposed to 3.5 GHz of 5G Signals within Environmental Levels: A Controlled-Randomised Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Trial
- Short-term radiofrequency exposure from new generation mobile phones reduces EEG alpha power with no effects on cognitive performance.Scientific reports · 2018Trial
- Acute caffeine ingestion improves sport-specific and cognitive performance in elite badminton athletes.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Effects of RF-EMF on the Human Resting-State EEG-the Inconsistencies in the Consistency. Part 1: Non-Exposure-Related Limitations of Comparability Between Studies.Bioelectromagnetics · 2019Review
- Exposure to Mobile Phone-Emitted Electromagnetic Fields and Human Attention: No Evidence of a Causal Relationship.Frontiers in public health · 2018Review
- Alpha7 Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Play a Predominant Role in the Cholinergic Potentiation of N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Evoked Firing Responses of Hippocampal CA1 Pyramidal Cells.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Millions of people use mobile phones (MP) while drinking coffee or other caffeine containing beverages. Little is known about the potential combined effects of MP irradiation and caffeine on cognitive functions. Here we investigated whether caffeine intake and concurrent exposure to Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) MP-like irradiation may interactively influence neuro-cognitive function in an active visual oddball paradigm. In a full factorial experimental design, 25 participants performed a simple visual target detection task while reaction time (RT) and electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded. Target trials were divided into Low and High probability sets based on target-to-target distance. We analyzed single trial RT and alpha-band power (amplitude) in the pre-target interval. We found that RT was shorter in High vs. Low local probability trials, and caffeine further shortened RT in High probability trials relative to the baseline condition suggesting that caffeine improves the efficiency of implicit short-term memory. Caffeine also decreased pre-target alpha amplitude resulting in higher arousal level. Furthermore, pre-target gamma power positively correlated with RT, which may have facilitated target detection. However, in the present pharmacologically validated study UMTS exposure either alone or in combination with caffeine did not alter RT or pre-stimulus oscillatory brain activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.