This co-designed provocation study in IEI-EMF volunteers evaluated whether perceived exposure and symptom reporting tracked actual EMF exposure under double-blind conditions. The abstract reports no consistent alignment between perceived exposure certainty or symptoms and true exposure status at the group level, with limited individual exceptions. Symptom reporting was related to certainty of being exposed for about half of participants, which the authors interpret as supporting a nocebo-type mechanism and motivating refinement of provocation protocols.

This randomized study tested whether viewing alarmist media and participating in an open-label RF-EMF provocation trial influenced non-specific symptoms and salivary cortisol. Participants who believed they were being exposed reported more symptoms than those who believed they were not exposed. The study did not find a replicated effect of alarmist media or open-label RF-EMF exposure on salivary cortisol, suggesting reported symptoms were more related to perception than cortisol-measured stress.

This randomized sham-controlled study in 21 healthy participants tested whether routine-level 5G RF-EMF exposure affects fatigue and EEG power, while manipulating expectancy via correct, false, or no information about exposure order. The study reports no change in EEG power with real versus sham exposure. However, self-reported fatigue varied with the conveyed information about being exposed, suggesting an expectancy/psychological priming effect on symptom reporting.

This longitudinal cohort study examined the temporal relationship between somatization and perceived RF-EMF exposure, comparing the attribution hypothesis with the nocebo hypothesis. Using AMIGO questionnaire data from 2011 and 2015, regression analyses suggested the attribution hypothesis more often explained symptom reporting linked to perceived base station RF-EMF exposure and perceived electricity exposure than the nocebo hypothesis. The authors state this contrasts with prior literature and note that a nocebo effect is not fully excluded.