research into effects of electrostatic and zero magnetic fields on the psychophysiologic state of...

Research into effects of electrostatic and zero Research into effects of electrostatic and zero magnetic fields on the psychophysiologic state of magnetic fields on the psychophysiologic state of

humanhuman

2005 2005

Radiobiology Laboratory

V.N. BinhiHead of Lab

Whole body EM Whole body EM exposure systemexposure system

nonmagnetic wood frame

Electromagnetic exposition:

f = 0-100 HzH = 0-200 microT

E = 0-1000 V/m

Main characteristicsMain characteristics

• Four coils Ø 1 m, distance between coils is 0.5 m

•System axis is parallel to local Hgeo; the angle to horizon is 70 degrees

• Upper and lower coils are of 40 rings, the middle coils - 26.5 rings

• Impedance is R=1.23 Ohm

• Electrostatic screen is a mesh of copper wire Ø 0.4 mm, cell size is about 3 cm

• Controllable inner electric field is produced by two mesh vertical plates 60х60 cm placed at 60 cm from each other, in the head region

Experiment scheduleExperiment schedule

SUBJECT # GENDER ZERO MAGNETIC FIELD ELECTRIC FIELD 500 V/m1 m 0 (geomagnetic field) 02 m 1 (zero magnetic field) 03 m 0 14 w 0 05 m 1 16 m 0 07 m 1 08 w 1 09 m 0 110 m 1 111 m 0 012 w 0 113 m 1 014 m 0 115 m 1 116 w 1 117 m 0 018 m 1 019 m 0 120 w 0 021 m 1 122 m 0 023 m 1 024 w 1 025 m 0 126 m 1 127 m 0 028 w 0 129 m 1 030 m 0 131 m 1 132 w 1 133 m 0 034 m 1 035 m 0 136 w 0 037 m 1 138 m 0 039 m 1 040 w 1 041 m 0 142 w 0 143 m 1 144 w 1 1

All subjects were different

Experiment timingExperiment timing

duration of a single experiment with a human is 70 min

1st

series

2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

Time

0 10 min 30 min 60 min

Adaptation Determination of Exposure - sham or actual ZMF or actual EF) individual reference levels

Experimental groupsExperimental groups (44 (44 subjects totalsubjects total))

Series

Subject groups

1 series,

0-10 min,

adaptive

2-3 series,

10-30 min

reference

4-7 series,

30-70 min

exposure

1)

3 women, 8 men

(aged 30.2±3.9 y)

- Ref. level Sham (control)

Hgeo = 41.5 microT

2)

3 women, 8 men

(aged 28.9±4.5 y)

- Ref. level ZMF (zero magnetic field)

0±1 microT

3)

3 women, 8 men

(aged 30.2±4.3 y)

- Ref. level EF (electrostatic field)

500 V/m

4)

3 women, 8 men

(aged 33.0±3.8 y)

- Ref. level Combined

ZMF + EF

The original computer program developed to test The original computer program developed to test psychophysiologic state of a humanpsychophysiologic state of a human

START

Letter recognitionLetter recognition ( (modified R. Sheppard testmodified R. Sheppard test))

N*Series ; Weighted Means

N1 N2

2 3 4 5 6 7

Series

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

Tim

e,

ms

Displayed for identification are two letters that are

randomly rotated and one is also mirrored. A subject has to determin which letter is `right’, i.e. not mirrored.

Recognition time, changes in series. Examples for two subjects.

Rec.time (series of exposure)––––––––––––––––––––––––Mean Rec.time (series 2 and 3)

INDEX =

ZMF and EF effects on the recognition timeZMF and EF effects on the recognition time in the letter in the letter recognition test, recognition test, in series, averaged over lettersin series, averaged over letters

Series *Sex *Conditions ; Weighted Means

Current effect: F(9, 3644)=1.8202, p=.05972Effective hypothesis decomposition

Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals

SexWoman SexMan

Conditions: Control

Series:4

56

70.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

Tim

e/<

Tim

e_2-3

s>

Conditions: MF

Series:4

56

7

Conditions: EF

Series:4

56

7

Conditions: MF+EF

Series:4

56

7

ZMF and EF effects (vs sham control) on the recognition ZMF and EF effects (vs sham control) on the recognition timetime in the letter recognition test, in the letter recognition test, averaged over series, averaged over series,

letters, and anglesletters, and anglesSex *Conditions ; Weighted Means



SexWoman SexMan

Control MF EF MF+EF

Conditions

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

Tim

e/<

Tim

e_

2-3

s>

SS Degr. of MS F p

Intercept 2378.025 1 2378.025 24103.79 0.000000

Series 0.948 3 0.316 3.20 0.022347

Sex 2.042 1 2.042 20.70 0.000006

Conditions 6.305 3 2.102 21.30 0.000000

Series*Sex 0.229 3 0.076 0.78 0.507604

Series*Conditions 1.547 9 0.172 1.74 0.074318

Sex*Conditions 2.626 3 0.875 8.87 0.000007

Series*Sex*Conditions 1.616 9 0.180 1.82 0.059722

Error 359.509 3644 0.099

Multiple-factor analysis of variance Multiple-factor analysis of variance ((MANOVAMANOVA)) for three for three factors (EM condition, Sex, Series) in the letter testfactors (EM condition, Sex, Series) in the letter test

Results show that EM conditions and Sex are statisticallysignificant factors affecting recognition time in the letter test

Sex *Conditions *Grad ; Weighted Means



SexWoman SexMan

Conditions: Control

Gra

d: 45 90 135

180

225

270

315

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Tim

e/<

Tim

e_2-

3s>

Conditions: MF

Gra

d: 45 90 135

180

225

270

315

Conditions: EF

Gra

d: 45 90 135

180

225

270

315

Conditions: MF+EFG

rad: 45 90 135

180

225

270

315

0 45 90 0 45 90 135 135 180 180 225 225 270 315270 315

Angle-dependences Angle-dependences of the recognition of the recognition time under Sham, time under Sham,

ZMF, EF, and ZMF, EF, and combined ZMF+EF combined ZMF+EF

exposureexposure

Sex *Conditions *Letter ; Weighted Means



SexWoman SexMan

Conditions: Control

Letter:0

12

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

Tim

e/<

Tim

e_2-

3s>

Conditions: MF

Letter:0

12

Conditions: EF

Letter:0

12

Conditions: MF+EF

Letter:0

12

Effect of EM exposure Effect of EM exposure on the recognition time for different letterson the recognition time for different letters

00 1 2 1 2

Results of the letter testResults of the letter test

Both ZMF and EF exposure leads to slowing down of the letter recognition. These effects are statistically significant (p < 0.001) and different in value for men and women

Women showed about 20% effect in average, and men 7 - 8%

Maximum effects 28 - 40% were displayed by women exposed to the combined ZMF+EF in tests with letters rotated at 45,90 and 180

The effect of synergistic ZMF+EF exposure is approximately a sum of the effects of ZMF and EF exposures separately.

Color memory testColor memory testFirst: What is proposed to get memorized by a subject is a

randomly generated color Second: the subject has to indicate the color he or she remembered,

after 3-s delay

Color displayed = (R1,G1,B1)

Color indicated = (R2,G2,B2)

What is measured is (i) the error or difference between the two colors: Col = [(R2-R1)2+(G2-G1)2+(B2-B1)2)]1/2

and (ii) time required to indicate color (time lag)

R = 0÷255G = 0÷255 B = 0÷255

Errors and time lag of color definition. Examples for two Errors and time lag of color definition. Examples for two subjectssubjects


Wilks lambda=.98387, F(10, 1884)=1.5377, p=.11992Effective hypothesis decomposition


N1 N2

2 3 4 5 6 7

Series

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Col


Wilks lambda=.98387, F(10, 1884)=1.5377, p=.11992Effective hypothesis decomposition


N1 N2

2 3 4 5 6 7

Series

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

Tim

e, m

s

Time lag of color definitionErrors in color definition

Index = Col (series of exposure)––––––––––––––––––––Mean Col (series 2 and 3)

Index = Time (series of exposure)––––––––––––––––––––Mean Time (series 2 and 3)

Effects of ZMF and EF in the color testEffects of ZMF and EF in the color test

Series *Sex *Cond ; Weighted Means

Current effect: F(9, 13919)=.21802, p=.99205Effective hypothesis decomposition


SexWoman SexMan

Cond: Control

Series:4

56

70.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

Col

/<C

ol 2

-3s>

Cond: MF

Series:4

56

7

Cond: EF

Series:4

56

7

Cond: MF+EF

Series:4

56

7

Series *Sex *Cond ; Weighted Means



SexWoman SexMan

Cond: Control

Series:4

56

70.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Tim

e/<

Tim

e 2-

3s>

Cond: MF

Series:4

56

7

Cond: EF

Series:4

56

7

Cond: MF+EF

Series:4

56

7

Time lag of color definitionErrors in color definition

Effects (vs sham control) of ZMF and EF in the Effects (vs sham control) of ZMF and EF in the color test, color test, averagedaveraged

Sex *Cond ; Weighted Means



SexWoman SexMan

Control MF EF MF+EF

Cond

0.86

0.88

0.90

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.00

1.02

1.04

1.06

1.08

1.10

1.12

Col

/<C

ol 2

-3s>

Sex *Cond ; Weighted Means

Current effect: F(3, 13919)=295.08, p=0.0000Effective hypothesis decomposition


SexWoman SexMan

Control MF EF MF+EF

Cond

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

Tim

e/<

Tim

e 2

-3s>

Errors in color definition Time lag

MANOVA results MANOVA results for three factors in the short color memory testfor three factors in the short color memory test

SSDegr. of

MS F p

Intercept11078.11

111078.11

27557.21

0.000000

Series 3.96 3 1.32 3.28 0.019904

Sex 1.31 1 1.31 3.25 0.071555

Cond 2.26 3 0.75 1.87 0.131705

Series*Sex 0.82 3 0.27 0.68 0.565418

Series*Cond 0.37 9 0.04 0.10 0.999582

Sex*Cond 9.82 3 3.27 8.14 0.000021

Series*Sex*Cond

0.79 9 0.09 0.22 0.992047

Error 5595.50 13919 0.40

SSDegr. of

MS F p

Intercept10628.64

110628.64

142028.2

0.000000

Series 1.39 3 0.46 6.2 0.000339

Sex 3.97 1 3.97 53.0 0.000000

Cond 16.94 3 5.65 75.4 0.000000

Series*Sex 0.22 3 0.07 1.0 0.397985

Series*Cond 3.30 9 0.37 4.9 0.000001

Sex*Cond 66.25 3 22.08 295.1 0.000000

Series*Sex*Cond

2.11 9 0.23 3.1 0.000878

Error 1041.62 13919 0.07

Error in color definition Time lag of color definition

TEST

CONDITION

Letter testRecognition

time

Color test Simple motor reflex*

Reaction timeError in color

definition Time

ZMF 11.2%

(p=0.00031)

-5.5%

(p=0.050)

-8.8%

(p<0.000001)

5.3%

(p=0.014)

2.3%

(p=0.22)

3.4%

(p=0.052)

1.7%

(p=0.037)

-0.2%

(p=0.90)

EF 1.7%

(p=0.57)

6.2%

(p=0.040)

23.8%

(p<0.000001)

2.4%

(p=0.22)

7.9%

(p=0.000029)

-1.9%

(p=0.30)

-7.6%

(p<0.000001)

-3.3%

(p=0.0074)

ZMF+EF 20.9%

(p<0.000001)

2.9%

(p=0.24)

13.2%

(p<0.000001)

1.7%

(p=0.50)

8.9%

(p=0.000002)

2.0%

(p=0.050)

-6.3%

(p<0.000001)

-2.8%

(p=0.033)

Value of the effects and significance level in exposed groups vs control group (sham) in men and women

*details are not displayed in this presentation

Results of the color testResults of the color test

Color memorizing/definition is statistically different p << 0.001 in men and women, and for different EM conditions.

Effects of ZMF and EF in color test, at mean value 4-8%, are opposite in direction.

Effects in color test displayed by men, at mean value 3-5%, are opposite from the effects displayed by women.

The time lag parameter showed greater changes and lower variance as compared to errors in color definition, with the effects ranging from 5 to 20%.

The effect of synergistic ZMF+EF exposure is approximately the sum of the effects of ZMF and EF exposures separately.

ConclusionConclusion

For the first time, it has been found that

men may react to EM exposure in the opposite direction from women;

The reaction to zero magnetic field may be opposite than the reaction to the electrostatic field.

In this way, electrostatic fields are shown electrostatic fields are shown experimentally to be as important in experimentally to be as important in magnetobiological effects as constant magnetic magnetobiological effects as constant magnetic fields arefields are.

System for recording System for recording and analyzing of human eye movementsand analyzing of human eye movements

while subject is in testwhile subject is in test

Notice about Notice about upcomingupcoming experimentsexperiments

research into effects of electrostatic and zero magnetic fields on the psychophysiologic state of...

Documents