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
Current effect: F(3, 3484)=18.746, p=.00000Effective hypothesis decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
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
Current effect: F(21, 3484)=2.3076, p=.00063Effective hypothesis decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
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
Current effect: F(6, 3484)=7.1475, p=.00000Effective hypothesis decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
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
N*Series ; Weighted Means
Wilks lambda=.98387, F(10, 1884)=1.5377, p=.11992Effective hypothesis decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
N1 N2
2 3 4 5 6 7
Series
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Col
N*Series ; Weighted Means
Wilks lambda=.98387, F(10, 1884)=1.5377, p=.11992Effective hypothesis decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
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
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
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
Current effect: F(9, 13919)=3.1375, p=.00088Effective hypothesis decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
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
Current effect: F(3, 13919)=8.1417, p=.00002Effective hypothesis decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
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
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
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.