Rybina (2003): Comparative EEG Study — Aires NEMA Outperforms 6 Competitor Devices Against Mobile Phone EMF Aftereffects
Coordinated by: E.V. Bychkov, Managing Director
Date: September 20, 2003
Method: Standard electroencephalography (EEG) — spectral-correlative analysis, 21-electrode recording
Devices compared: Aires NEMA + 6 competitor protective devices (My Shield-3, Serb-3, Neutronic-11, Vision-1, Ratan-7, Gamma-5)
Study Overview
This is a unique head-to-head comparative EEG study. Larisa Rybina of the Pavlov Institute of Physiology conducted EEG assessments of subjects using a mobile phone without protection, with the Aires NEMA (electromagnetic anomalies neutralizer), and with each of 6 competitor protective devices commercially available at the time. This study is significant because it does not merely test a single device in isolation — it explicitly compares device categories and ranks their EEG effects.
Methodology
Standard EEG was recorded using a chamber shielded from the mobile phone base station. Spectral analysis covered five frequency bands: delta (0.5–4.0 Hz), theta (4.0–8.0 Hz), alpha (8.0–13.0 Hz), beta1 and beta2 (13.0–24.0 Hz). Parameters assessed included spectral power dynamics, coherence, cross-correlation index, and the alpha activity damping decrement (front-to-back gradient).
Findings — Mobile Phone Without Protection
Three characteristic EEG changes were identified from mobile phone use:
- Activation-deactivation imbalance — shifted strongly toward activation
- Bioelectrical disorganization — loss of frequency domination (>50% absent), disrupted alpha gradient from occipital to frontal areas, local low-frequency disturbances
- Disrupted interhemispheric coordination — interaction between central structures disordered
Findings — Aires NEMA
- Moderate deactivation shift (healthier direction) — slowing of dominant rhythm, increased low-frequency component
- Increased power of dominant alpha activity with frontal accent
- Correction of local bioelectrical activity disorders caused by the phone
Findings — Competitor Devices
Best performers among competitors: Vision-1 (#4) and Gamma-5 (#6) were most effective — neither produced local disturbances during phone use, and the overall rhythm distribution pattern was similar to background. However, both still showed activation shifts in dominant frequency.
Poor performers: My Shield-3 (#1) and Serb-3 (#2) showed no significant correction of frequency-amplitude indices; beta range interaction disturbances persisted vs. background.
Problematic performers: Neutronic-11 (#3) and Ratan-7 (#5) actually produced measurable EEG changes even without the phone present — increased activation, delayed alpha recovery after eye-opening — suggesting these devices themselves affected brain activity patterns in a potentially adverse direction.
Significance
This 2003 comparative study is historically important as one of the first systematic EEG comparisons of EMF protective devices. The finding that some devices (#3, #5) altered brain EEG even without the phone present suggests that not all EMF protective devices have neutral effects — a methodological point that supports using standard EEG as the benchmark measurement for device evaluation. Aires NEMA was the only device that simultaneously corrected the phone-induced disturbances across all three EEG domains (power, distribution, and interhemispheric coordination).