It te eeed otst, bvous ha a lo feqenc feld a leel o - DTIC · 2011. 5. 14. · 10 0WT9NSA*4UCV MAMIE 4ADIW gft M8= alw1.SECURITY CL ASS (of We. imai Office of Naval Research UNCLASSIFIED

9CVUATT CLAMPICAOR OF TINS NAGE (000 8u iue______________

WPMT OM ITATSI PAGE w3R=V=Im 0

"AN EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF MODULATED FUNAL

76 HE ELECTRIC FIELDS ON BEH1AVIOR AND EEG OF 6. FGVMMN OM. AW NUMBEMONKEYS. PRASE 2: FREQUENCY MODULATION" N

T.A U0() 9. CONTRACT OR GRANT MU"XMer-

R. Medici, G. Lesser, 5.14. Bavin, W.R. Mday,M. Wakefield, P.M. Sagan end A.R. Sheppard N00014-75-C-1094

9. PGROPORMIN OSNMSATION NAME A" AGOIRIS .PGAjbMI7J& TS

University of California, Lo'i Angeles A:H . wu tNN

Los Angeles, California RR-04 1-01-02

N It- CONW-ftLLIN6 0991CC NMA@ A05 I&. RGPORT DATENaval Electronic Systems Comnd June 1980PHE 110 is. NumOSM OF PACES

(J'Q Wash inston, D.C. 22ZjI*Z 10110 0WT9NSA*4UCV MAMIE 4ADIW gft M8= alw1.SECURITY CL ASS (of We. imai

Office of Naval Research UNCLASSIFIED

800 N. Quincy St. LU~~agpC~o~owmoArliniton, Va 22217 _____________

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of MdO R P.

Uimi. e Th OOS(.~.-~. is mm..ment ha booun apprved

ELF, Bioeectrouagneistriehuvion, Eulieidils.EG rqecyMdlto

>'" . AISTRACUTIO STAwSINCe (6 On~m 060a. SWOI ft.. Me ^d~ it 00N0 *G )N

Unitemed obio11,tth outset, tha lown frqcy foeldsalelsorn~.J changes. Fiels at those levels reeroutnel nCLOterdih oeaon

La. .60a MR" devie et waes of tken~e Ws a f chllng to find a 1)hihl snstieuEL ilecrmgeis behavioral asaEhaolcntricFipld, (2), deey threshlsation

ABTRC t'?1 ahm an7 "ers~oN @9d " 0886o and Isoom AV "ek AN1969~~,' a12 logseis fstdeswreiitaedame t xloig h

possibl effectsY ofiPCAO wea ELFL field on behvio ofmnesi h aoaoyIt eeed bvous a te otst, ha lo feqenc feld a leel o1-10 V/ p- wee nt lkelyto rodce ramtic suden nse, bhavora

changes ..-- Fild t hselees rruinlyeconerdinth--m-ron

Uncla3sified 28

SUNMYy CLAAIMMATION Of rw Dl.. 8me

would allow (3) long exposure durations For example, it seemed vain to thinkthat five minutei aosureto a 435 field at 10 V/s would affect anybehavior at all. A final requ E, based on repeated references in theliterature to reaction time, circadian rnythums, etc., was thst the taski som kind of (4) timin, behavior. These four requirements allinvolve s m i d o 4 ~ iigseemed to be met by employing an interresponse time schedule of reinforcement(IRT task) in which an animal is reinforced fo; pressing a lever once everyN sec within a specified period (9imited holdk . If the animal presses tooearly or too late, the timer recycle In these studies, the animal wasreinforced with a tiny squirt of app e uice for pressing the lever everyS sec within a 2.5 sec limited hold Exposures were four hours long anf testperiods were three hours long. In ipproximately 300 experiments, four 4-houxreplications of each field exposurO plus an intermingled no-field tests weredone for each of five monkeys. EVidence was discovered for a shift in thedirection of shorted inter-respodse timis in the presence of fields of a givenfrequency and voltage within a vange from 1-100 V/m and 7 to 75 Hz.

Four major conclusions weve •aw from this study:

(1) Frequency-specificity. The evidence for a low threshold for 7 Hz ismost intaresting. Analagous frequency-specificity changes in calciumefflux ()in in vitro neonatal chick brains have been observed inour laboratory.

(2) Voltage. raca data suggest some degree of doie-dependency. Results at100 V/z p-p were inconclusive and suggest eithber a voltage-window cf thekind observed by Lalaijn (and in the calcium efflux studies) or a 24-hourcarryover effect.

(3) Duration of exposure. Relatively long exposure durations appear to havecontributed to the systematic array of results.

(4) Behavioral assay. The question of external stimulus control. The IRT tasapparently was adequately s~nsi~ive and reliable. A comparison of our

results with those of other negative primate studies revealed that inthe negative studies, behavioral asseys included more traditional tasks,including reaction time tests, fixed interval tests, match-to-sampletests, etc., typically administered in 15-minute intervals. Animalswere deprived of food and water and exposed to a variety of light andsound cues regulating the various tasks. In the IRT task, the monkeyswere isolated; they were not deprived during testing; there vwre no soundor light cues regulating the±r behavior. It might be said that theanimals were forced, by the nature of the timing task, to pay attentionto their own internal milieu.

Si" 0102- F- 0 14. 6601 O d Unclassified,

sScumITY CLAIFICAIO1 Off T1S PA@549hM DOt Sateoee,.I

a..- . .Q~~-

4 5

i

rA

[:i "AN EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF MODULATED76 Hz ELECTRIC FIELDS ON BEHAVIOR AND EEG OF MONKEYS.

PHASE 2: FREQUENCY MODULATION"

ONR FINAL REPORTContract No. N00014-75-C-1094

R. Medici, G. Lesser, S.M. Bawin, W.R. Adey,

M. Wakefield, P.M. Sagan and A.R. Sheppard

Brain Research InstituteUniversity of California - Los Angeles

June 1980

Acoession For

NTIS GRA&I rDTIC TAB

Di 9h-A eeW 'o t.Im

Ae1*lt Iliv it'sto or

DisI o •

FTugs decumzeat hog beec av~praoed ALfr PubliJ rlooo and .l!.., its

1. INTRODUCTION

Over the past several years, there have been some dramatic resultsreported in observational studies (as contrasted with laboratorystudies) of the role of weak ELF fields in affecting the survivalbehavior of certain species. One example of such a study is thatof Kslmijn (1) in which he demonstrated that sharks us& weak, ELFfields to detect their prey. Inan ingenious series of experiments,Kalmijn demonstrated that sharks detected a flat fish buried in sandat the bottom of a large hold tank on the basis of the weak ELF fieldemitted by the flat fish. Kalmija estimated chis field to be onthe order of .2uV/cm and to cause sloveng of respiratory rhythms.When non-electric cues were systematically eliminated by the useof an agar chamber, the shark continued to dive Immediately to theburied flat fish. However, the introduction of a thick polyethelenefilm placed around the prey attenuated the electric field and succeededin confusing the shark. When the natural field of the flat fishes simulated th a .4/cn field at 5 th produced by tha electrodes

buried in sand at the bottom of the tank, the shark dove immediatelyto the location of the electrodes. In later experiments, Kalmijnobserved a voltage window; i.e., the effect yas not observed if asubstantially higher voltage simulation was used. Special receptors,the ampullae of Lrenzini, were discovered to account for the shark'sperception of the weak fields.

Other observational studies have been done on the homing andmigration of birds. The study of Keeton (2) is especially interesting.Although this study mployed weak magnetic fields rather than electricfields, it is described briefly here because of an important methodologi-cal point. Keeton strapped tiny magnets on the backs of homing pigeonsand observed that their flight was, consequently, disoriented butonly on cloudy days. He concluded that if the sun were present asa salient cue, the pigeons -ould only be observed when strong externalcuer guiding their behavlr were absent.

New evidence for disruption of migration by weak ELF fields hasrecently been offered by Williams, Williams, Larkin and Sutherland (3).They have observed that migratory birds showed a deviatior in flightdirection of 50 to 250 around the Seafarer antenna, when the N-Saxis was energized. Indications were that flight direction was rapidlycorrected. This field was estimated to be .17 V/u rms at 10 meters,perpendicular to the antenna.

These observational studies raise the question of whether theyrepresent merely isolated peculiarities of nature or whether theypoint towards some fundamental prmperty of nervous systems that extendsthroughout the animal kingdom, including man.

In 1969, we began a long series of studies (Gavalas, Walter,Ramer and Adey (4), Gavalas-Hedici and Day-Magdaleno (5)) aimed at

e1

exploring the possible effects of weak ELF fields on behavior ofmonkeys in the laboratory. It seemed obvious, a& the outset, thatlow freqa-ncy fields at levels of 1-100 V/ p-p were noL'ltkely toproduce dramatic, sudden onset, behavioral chances. Fields at thoselevels are routinely encountered in Lhe home around 60 Hz devices.)It was taken as a challenge to find a 1) hiphlv sensitive but reliablebehavioral assay that could, in principle, 2) detect thresholds andwould allow 3) long exposure durations. For example, it seemed vainto think that five minutes of exposure to a 45 Hz field at 10 V/mwould affect any beHavior at all. A final requirement, based onrepeated references in tHe literature to reaction time, circadianrhythms, etc., was that the task involve some kind of 4) "timinG'behavior. These four requirements all seemed to be met by employingIan Interresponse time schedule of reinforcement (IRT task) in whichan animal is reinforced for pressing a lever once very N sec withina specified period ("limited hold"). If the animal presses too earlyor too late, the timer recycles. In these studies, the animal wasreinforced with a tiny squirt of apple juice for pressing the leverevery 5 sec within a 2.5 sec limited hold. Exposures were four hourslong and test periods were three hours long. In approximately 300experiments, four 4-1cour replications of each field exposure plusintermingled no-field tests were done for each of five monkeys.Evidence was discovered for a shift in the direction of shorted inter-response times in the presence of fields of a given frequency andvoltage within a range from 1-100 V/m and 7 to 75 Hz.

Figure I shows the kind of IRT distributions that were observedfor a single 4-hour exposure for a given field condition for onemonkey and compares that distribution with a control, no-field testfor the same monkey. Note the larger sample of responses in eachdistribution and the increasing separation of the distributions asvoltage is increased from I to 56 V/m p-p.

Figure 2 summarizes the result of all of the experiments overall monkeys within the voltage range from I to 56 V/m p-p. The X-axis shows changes in average interresponse times, the Y-axis showsthe three voltage levels tested (1, 10 and 56 V/m; the differentbars represent frequencies tested). It may be seen that at 1 V/m,all differences are in the direction of shorted IRT's but none isstatistically significant. At 10 Vim there is evidcnce for a thresholdchange for 7 Hz but not 45 Hz or 75 Hz. This may represent the biologi-cal relevance of this frequency; it is within the range of hippocampal

*theta for the monkey. At 56 V/m, IRT differences are much largerand significant for both 7 Hz and 75 Hz. Studies of EEG in two implanteImonkeys in this series pointed towards a reduction of power in therange of 1-3 Ha and shift towards higher power In the middle EEGranges of 5-16 Hz. Such data are compatible with heightened arousaland shorter IRT's.

Four major conclusions may be drawn from this study:

2. j

1

* a

e

_ _1) _uenc_-specifct . The evidence for 4 low threshold

for 7 Ha is most interesting. Analsous frequency-specificity changesspa in calcium efflux (6) in In vitro neonatal chick brains have been

observed in our laboratory.

2) Voltage. The data suggest some degree of dose-dependency.Results at 100 V/m p-p were inconclusive and suggest either a voltage-window of the kind observed by Kalmijn (and in the calcium effluxstudies) or a 24-hour carryover effect.

3) uration of exposure. Relatively long exposure durationsappear to have contributed to the systematic array of results.

4) Behavioral astay: The question of external stimulus control.The IRT task apparently was adequately sensitive and reliable. A1. comparison of our results with those of other negative primate studiesrevealed that in the negative studies, behavioral assays includedmore traditional tasks, including reaction time tests, fixed intervaltests, match-to-sample tests, etc., typically administered in 15-minute intervals. Animals were deprived of food and water and exposed

7to a variety of light and sound cues regulating the various tasks.In the IRT task, the monkeys were isolated; they were not deprivedduring testing; there were no sound or light cues regulating theirbehavior. It might be said that the animals were forced, by thenature of the timing task, to pay attention to their own internalmilieu.

A quick reminder note that this is quite analogous to Keeton'ainterpretation o: the pigeon homing data This general finding mightbe paraphrased as follovs: behavioral effects, LZ any, of weak electricfields are more likely to be observed in the absence of strons externalstimulus control.

A similar incerpretation has been made in a number of studiesin the area of behavioral toxicology. Figure 3 shows tho resultsof a study (7) of the effects of amphetamine on a DIIL (difierentialreinforcement of low rates) schedule of reinforcement. This Scheduleis similar to the IRT schedule, but lacks a limited hold. This schedulerevealed a substantial effect of I mg/K of amp'hetamine on both numberof responses and number of reinforcements. Whet. the experiment wasmodified so that a single external stimulus cue (a light) was addedto the onset of correct interval, the effects of amphetaml %tracompletely obliterated.

Similarly, data from Laties ($) In presented In Figures 4 and 5.This study demonstrates that a pigeon worked on a FcNS (fixed consecu-

tive number) schedule of reinforcement showed extremely variableperformance following administration of methyl mercury. Hovever,the addition of a light cue, indicating when the animal should shiftto the reinforcement key, resulted in "normalizing" his behaviorso that the effects of the methyl mercury could no longer be observed.

V.. ....** ,

The subsequent removal of the light revealed that the behavior onceagain appeared perturbed-and Implied that the effects of the mercury

. were still present. Ogden Lindsley (8) has aptly labeled the useof such cues a "behavioral prostheses."

Finally, a similar example of the effect of external stimulicontrol was reported In a recent issue of the Journal of Comparativeand Physiological Psynholoy by Bragglo and Ellen (9). In studiesof brain lesions In the septum, hippocampus, dorsomedial nuclei ofthe thalamus and dorsoventral thalamus they found that behavior ona DRL schedule Is disrupted (over-responding occurs). The authorsnote that adding a light as a timing cue attenuated the symptom and"...eliminates the appearance of any difference between operateda nd normal animals during the cued training period" (p. 701).

The present series of studies utilized the methodological principlesdescribed above to assay possible behavioral and EEG changes associatedwith the presence of weak frequency-modulated ELF fields that closely

* simulated those of Project Seafarer. The techniques, descriptionof the facilities, atc., have been described In detail in an earlierONR Technical Report (Contract No. N0001469A02004037, April 1975)entitled "An Evaluation of Possible Effects of 45 Hs, 60 Mz and 75Hz Electric Fields on Neurophysiology and Behavior of Monkeys. Phase1: Continuous Wave" by R. Gavalas-Medicl and S. R. Magdaleno.

11. HEThODS

A. Field Simulation. Two double bronze screened exposure chamberswere used. Parallel field plates (1 meter square) were spaced 50centimeters apart in each chamber. A closed circuit TV camera wasmounted inside each enclosure with monitor and equipment locatedoutside. There were no AC devices Inside the chambers except forthe well-shielded camera and cables. All blowers, generators, etc.,were kept outside the chamber. The rooms were illuminated with DClight. "Inside" and "outside" temperatures could be read remotely.

Monkeys were trained and tested in Foringer monkey chairs that* had been modified so that as much metal as possible was eliminated* (and replaced with specially fabricated plastic parts).

The frequency-modulated signal was generated by a special device*designed and fabricated by IITRI. The frequency-modulated signal* varied from 72 Hz to 80 Hz with a center frequency of 76 Hz. This

- frequency modulated field was tested at .2 V/m p-p, 10 V/m p-o and5 p -p. Additional testing was done with the same field withlOV-p~ of 60 Hs added on, to simulate the ambient 60 Ha field

*that might occur in the region of Project Seafarer. Other tests*were made at 76 Hz CW so that possible effects could be compared*vith and without the frequency modulation. Tests at 7 Hs CW had

been made In the 1975 studios and those results suggested a distinctly

t4

lover threshold for this biologically relevant frequency (it Is vithinthe range of hippocampal Oeta for the aonkey).

The electric fields were measured before and after the experimentsby UTRI, utilizing their specially developed high Impedance electricfield probe and magnetic field probe. The presence of the fieldwas continuously monitored during testing. At the beginning of theexperiments, this was done by recording the signal on the Grans EEGrecorder (used to record EEG data-from Implanted monkeys). However,this produced a high-pitched, faintly audibli noise from the recordingpens when the higher frequencies (76 Ks, 76 ask) were used. Consequently,the presence of the field vas monitored with an oscilloscope to preventpossible auditory detection of the field by the monkeys. This changein procedure resulted in the inadvertent grounding of one of thefield plates and a resultant Imbalance in the electric fields betweenthe plates. Measuxements anO mapping of the field wer made by 1ITT1at the conclusion of the expiriment.

The voltage levels in the center of the chamber were only slightlyaffected hy the imbalance. Field levels were measured at ± 1OZ ofthe expected value in the region between the plates where the monkeywas positioned.

Conducted current measurements in a phantom monkey indicatedthat these values were substantially higher in the imbalanced fieldthan In the balanced field condition (e.g., 8.3 nanoamps at 10 VIm p-pvs. 0.35 nanoamps). The overall lack of significant behavioral changesdescribed later in this report suggests that, in any case, theseincreased current values did not produce spurious false positiveresults.

A detailed description of the chambers and the field measurementsis included in Appendix 11 ("Electromagnetic Field Measurementsin Support of Primate Behavioral and EEG Studies" by Gauger, J.R.and Robertson, N.C.).

B. Experimental Design - Behavior. Behavioral protocols havebeen described in the ONR 1975 Technical Report and in related publications(see References at end of this report). The rationale for the use ofthe interresponse time schedule of reinforcement as a behavioralassay has been discussed in Appendix B, "Behavioral Assays *f PossibleWeak ELF Effects: Coments and Recommendations" In a 1977 reportof the "Biologic Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields Associatedwith Proposed Project Seafarer" by the National Research Council,Rational Academy of Sciences. (See Appendix 1I, this Report.)

Briefly, this schedule of reinforcement entails training themonkey to press a lever once every N sac (5 sec) within a specifiedtine "vindow" (2.5 sec). As in the Ct studies reported to 1975,animals were trained for approximately 100 days for three hours perday at the same time everyday until performance levels reached about

5.

802 correct. Animals were maintained on a standard laboratory diet(monkey :ho pellets, fruit and water) and correct responses on the

! T ZR task were reinforced with small squirts of apple Juice. Animalsvere tested in adapted Foringer monkey chairs five days a week andreturned to their bhoe cages over the weekend.

in Six animals (two Implanted with EG electrodes and four implanted)were tested In a counterbalanced series of tests at 10 V/m p-p.One Implanted animal died of causes unrelated to the experiment andthe remaining five were t*sted at an array of frequencies at 36 V/u.Testing at 36 V/u and 10 V/u was counterbalanced for the five animals.

At the concluston of these experiments, four animals (two Implantedand two unimplanted) were retrained to the criterion of 802 and thentested at .2 V/u p-ps a level chosen to correspond to field levilsmeasured near the Project Seafarer antenna. Frequencies tested atall three voltage levels included 76 Is frequency modulated, 76 Hsfrequency modulated with 10 V/m p-p of 60 Ix added in, 76 1z CV and7 1: CW. Control (no-field) tests were interspersed vith field testsin a counterbalanced design and no-flold "carry-over" tests followedevery day of field exposure. Monday was routinely considered a practiceday. In all cases, monkeys were exposed to the fields for iour hoursand tested in the behavioral task during hours two, three and four.On control tests, the animals simply sat in the chamber for one hourIbefcre testing began. The protocol for these experiments differedfrom the protocol for the CW studies in th.ee ways: 1) "Carry-over"tests were done in this series of tests and not in the CV tests,2) only two replications of each field condition were performed ratherthan four. 3) conditions were randomly assigned in the CV study andcounterbalanced in the present study.

In addition, preliminary training of the monkeys was done ina nodi ted version of the 7.5 sec IRT 25 sac task. An attempt wasmada to sake the task more sensitive to possible field effects bypretraining the animals on an 18 sec CIRT,12 sec task and testingthem on a 15 sec cIRT> 12 sec task. It was hypothesized that therelatively wide training "window" could allow the animals a larger

* margin of Improvement (markedly shorter WiT's) under appropriafield conditions. However, this technique produced too much va2-.bilityin responding and was discontinued. All animals were then retrainedin the 7.5 sac (<IR-5 sac task used in the 1975 CW studies. Thisfact may be of special significance because UIT values were substantiallysmaller in the present study for all conditions, including controlconditions, than in the CV study.

For all conditions behavioral data were recorded on an FR 1260Ampex tape recorder, The analog tapes were digitized and then analyzed.

• ! Each response of the animal was tilled as a function of time elapsedsince the Inmediately preceding reabonse. Din width for analysiswas set at .1 sac and 175 bins were counted. Rlstograms were printedfor the total three hour sessions and for consecutive 15-minute sessions.Means, medians, modes and standard deviations were routinely calculatedfor each experiment.

6.

Za

C. uierimental Design - 2E2. Two of the animals vee Implantedwith an array of bipolar XEG electrodes (see the April 1975 reportfor a complete description of techniques).

150 data for all experiments at 10 V/m and 56 V/u vte tape recorded,dLigitised and analyrad. Tim did not alloy for analysis of N&G data at.2 V/a. Data were sampled !rom the lest hour of the experiment fora set of 12 or more correct and 12 oi: more incorrect responses.

The nG data were analysed frs the end of the last responsepulse to the onset of the correct or Incorrect response pulse tobe analysed. Samples were drawn from the end of the exposure period.All available samples were used in the analysis with the exceptionof a few with obvious large movement artifacts. Spectral analysiswas done for each response segment; resolution was set at 1 Us andcovered the range 1-32 Ea. The subsets of correct and incorrectresponses were merged for each experiment and then merged acrossreplications of a given field condition or a control condition.

SThis resulted In a sample of approximately 24 or more correct andapproximately 24 or more incorrect responses for each experimentalcondition and approximately 48 or sore of each response for the controlcondition. These merged spectra were plotted as percentages of totalpower, In order to provide an Index of possible changes in total

* power over time.

Brain structures assayed included for animal A: the right hippocampus,left hippoe mpus, and right inygdala at 10 V/s. At 56 V/s, the rightamygdala am' right and left centre median were recorded. Vor animalG: the right hippocampus, right superior colliculus, and right temporallobe were recorded for both 10 and 56 V/m.

Because recordings were made from only two animals, no inferentialstatistics ware calculated. Instead, the complete data set of percentpower graphs is presented in Appendix I.

111. RESULTS

A. Behavior. Mean IRT's, standard deviations, nimber of responses,and percent correct are presented for each voltage level tested inTables 1-6. In all cases, the mean IRT for each replication Is weightedby the umber of responses to that replication. The means and standarddeviations therefore represent weighted mans across replicationsfor each condition for each animal. There Is no obvious orderingof effects at .2 V/m p-p. It may be seen that the control condition(0/0 c) falls in rank I (the shortest lRT) In two cases and in ranks3 and 4 in the other two cases.

At 10 V/m (Table 3) there Is se Indication of a possible effectfor the 76 Us frequetcy-modulated field (76 a) since the nean Mfor this condition falls In rank I for four of the six animals.Uowever, this consistenry is not apparent in the beasuremenut of

* variability.7.

At 56 V/n it may be noted that the 7 Vs CV field to associatedwith a shorter-than-control mean ERT for each of the five animals.The associated standard deviation io maller for four of the fLeanimals.

Descriptive t statistics for no-field sinus field men lIT walutacross animals are presented in Table 7. It say be seen that theonly statistically significant difference occurs at 10 V/ for the76 Is frequency-modulated condition. lovever, in view of the largearray (15) of t tests and the lack of any effect at 56 V/, thisfinding may well be due to chance. It is surprising that so manynegative values appear for the .1 V/4 tests. This may be due tothe fact that this test series followed the others in time. Theanimals were exceedingly well trained at this point and their averagecontrol value was 5.25 sec as compared with a control value of 5.37for the 56 V/m teats and 3.51 for the 10 V/u tests.

Morte positive differences appear at the higher voltage levelsthan the lower levels, suggesting some "dose dependency" In the array.The 7 Vs condition Is associated with relatively large positive differ-ences at 10 V/m and 56 V/m; these differences approach but do notreach statistical sionficance. This fiding would seem to be ingeneral agreement with the 1975 CV studies which indicated an effectfor 7 Hs at 10 V/m and an even larger effect at 36 V/u (see Table 8).The robustness of these earlier findirjo may well be due to the greaternumber of replications (4 vs. 2) In the 1975 study. If the 10 V/sdata for 7 Ha are combined across the two studies, the average differenceIs .082, the standard error In .044, and the t is 1.876 and significantat the .05 level (one-tailed). Similarly. if-data for 7 hz at 56 Vip-p are combined across the two studies, I Is .172, % -12 - .077, Is 2.234 and significant at the .01 level.

Extensive analysis of variance across different subsets of thepresent data set present so surprises.

A simple one-rsy analysis of variance vIthin voltage levels(Table 9) reveals no significant F's at any level. The largest FIs associated with frequency of the field at 10 Ve (f - 1.43) andreflects the t statistic reported for the 76 Is frequency-modulatedfield at that level.

Two-way analyses of variance are shown in Table 10 where fieldfrequeincy and the subgroups of Implanted monkeys A and G versus unimplantedmonkeys are considered within voltage levels. A relatively high F (7.88)occurs for implanted vs. uniplanted animals at the highest voltagelevel (56 v/s p-p). All means reveal that the two Implanted onkeyshave a lonser lM (3.314 see) and the unimplanted have a shorteraverage W (5.294 sec).

Results of three-wy analyses of variance (comparing field frequency,Implanted vs. unimplanted and two voltage levels) are shown In Table 11.

No significant effects are observed for .2 V/s vs. 10 V/m or for.2 V/s vs. 56 V/s. When 10 V/s is contrasted vith 56 Vim, a significantInteraction is observed for field frequency and whether or not themonkey is Implanted, This, again, reflects the fact that the twoimplanted animals appear to be relatively "slow" responders In thisexperiment. At 10 Wa, the avera* IT for the 76 Us modulated conditionto 5.770 for Implanted monkeys and 5.127 for unImplanted monkeys.

* The Nos involved in these comparisons are very small (2 vs. 3 and2 vs. 4). Therefore, these results should not be over-interpreted.

During the long test series, the field was Inadvertently unbalanced,as described earlier. Two monksys (A and G) had already been testedIn the balanced field mode at 10 V/maend one monkey (J) had beentested in the balanced field at 56 V/s. As a precaution, some analyses

- of variance were done on the larger (unbalanced mode group) to beI' sure that this procedural change had not markedly affected performance.

Table 12 summarizes these data. Data at .2 V/a are Identical sinceall monkeys were run In the same mode. At 10 V/. p-p, field frequencyproduces a significant F (3.42). This undoubtedly reflects the shorterIRT's associated with the 76 Hs modulated field that vere describedearlier.

At 56 V/u, the analyses of variance results are approximately thesame with or without the one balanced-field monkey included.

Additional analyses of variance were done with only those monkeysexposed to the unbalanced field. These results are similar to those

* observed when all animals are included in the analysis. k relativelyhigh, but not significant, F Is observed for Implanted vs. unimplantedmonkeys at 56 V/a, with mplanted monkeys shoving slove: scores; thisresult also appeared in the complete data set.

In summary, the data at this point indicate that the frequency-

modulated fields have no effect on monkeys' performance on the IRTtask. A possible exception to this Is suggested by the t test reportedret.o the 76 Rz frequency-modulated field at 10 V/a. Vovever, the lackof any other corroborating evidence makes It rather unlikely that

*this is more than a chance occurrence.

There Is weak evidence for frequency specificity with relatively.* large field-control differences being observed for the 7 Hz condition,- as they were In the 1975 study. The weakness of this effect may* be due to the decreased number of replications (2 vs. 4) or It may

be due to the overall faster performance of the monkeys in the presentexperimental sertes. Tigure 6 shows a comparison of average controlvalues and 7 Ma field values for the 1975 and 1978 studies. It Is

possible that the animals in the present study were performing closeto an asymptotic level of performance (i.e., near the start of thereward period) so that further shortening of lIT's would cause the

. animal to begin to press too early and lose reinforcements. A rank

9.

,

.......................................

order correlation of control IRT's and observed 7 Hz field-produce." difference scores Is shown In Table 14. When the 1975 and 1978 dal

are combined, the Rho Is .62 and significant at the 0.5 level. Thilends support to the notion that large field-produced differencescould be less likely to be seen fn the present series where animals

*had been extensively pretrained.

t In a June 31, 1978 quarterly report, a series of studies on fis]related calcium efflux from neonatal chick brains (S. M. Ravin andV. R. Adey) have been described. As In the 1975 behavioral CW studiELF frequencies within EEC range (6 and 16 Hz in the case of the chit7 Rz for the monkey) resulted In statistically significant changes.For the monkeys, behavioral changes were observed at 7 Hz, 10 V/mand larger changes were observed at 7 Hz, 56 V/i. For the chicks,

A a significant decrease In calclum efflux was observed for 6 and 16 Hzat 10 V/m. Differences of about the same magnitude were observedat 56 V/m p-p (see Table 15).

" Similar calcium studies were undertaken with the ane array offrequency-modulated fields described in the present behavioral studies.

The results are remarkably comparabla to those observed with thes *lRT task. None of the modulated fields produced a significant effect

on calcium offlux. The largest change observed va for the 76 Rzfrequency-modulated field with voltage level set at 10 V/s (see Table16). Thin '."ield condition also resulted In the largest perturbationof behavics In the monkey studies.

3B, EEG Results. In earlier studies, changes in hippocaupalactivity had been noted for some field conditions. In the presentstudy, there Is evidence for somewhat more activity In the 4-16 Hzrange for both animals for all field conditions, relative to thecontrol condition. This suggests a nonspecific heightened arousalduring field exposure similar to that described In the 1975 study.

Behavioral changes In this study were observed during exposure*to the 10 V/s 76 Hz frequency-modulated condition. The EEC graphs

indicate a peak at about 4 Hz for Animal A (R. hippocampus) at 10 V/u.However, this peak does not appear for Animal C.

Other brain structures tested do not present marked changes during* *field exposure. Small changes relative to the control condition

appear to be attributable tn chance. They are not consistent across* voltage levels nor across aaals.

I IV. S@ARY AND COMCLUSIONS

A. F recuenc -Nodulated Fields. With one exception, none of ithe 76 H& frequency-modulated fields (either with or without 10 V/mp-p of 60 Hs added on) produced any significant change in behaviora. measured by an interresponse time schedule of reinforcement.

i l l.. ... . . . . . . . ... ... .... . . ... . . . . . ....

Voltage levels of .2 Wasn 10 Via end 56 V/sp- were assayed. Thepoesible exception Is a reduced inter-response time for the 76 Ismodulated field at 10 V/rn p-p. However* the affect does not appearat either lower or higher voltage levels (see Figure 7) and, Indeed,the observed difference Is in the opposite direction In those tests.Furthermore, analyses of variance data at 10 V/m do not show a fieldfrequency effect.

Data frois the calcium efflux studies are remarkably compatiblewith the behavioral results. No significant changes are observedfor any of the frequency-modulated fields at any voltage level.As in the monkey studies, the largest difference cbserved is for

the 76 Rz frequency-modulated field at 10 V/m p-p.Taken together. these data essentially present a picture of no

effect for the frequency-modulated fields. The possibility of aborderline, near-threshold affect at 10 V/m suggests that more testing(both behavioral and neur-ochealcal) night be performed at that level.However. that Is well above supected field levels around ProjectSeafarer (.2 VI. p-p).

s. cw Fields. An extensive series of studies on CW fields andinterresponse time behavior was reported by this laboratory In 1975.These studies indicated a frequency-specific effect; namely, a lowthreshold for a CW field within EEG range of the perforist monkey(see Figure 8). In the present study, the 7 1: field produced relativelylarge positive changes at both 10 V/m p-p and 56 V/m p-p. These differ-ances approached but did not achieve statistical significance. Ithas been suggested that 1) preerainiag of the animals and 2) reducednumber of replications may have lowered the value of the observeddifferences. If data are combined for the 1975 and 1978 studies,results remain significant at both voltage levels.

* Studies of calcium .1 fluz In neonatal chick brains, again, showa very good concordance with t~he behavioral results. Systematicdecreases In calcium efflux were observed at 10 V/m pm-p and 56 V/rnp-p for ISO range CW field frequencies (6 Hz and 16 Hz) for the chicks.

In conclusion, both the behavioral and neurochemical studiessuggest that the frequency-modulated fields are not likely to perturbbehavior or calcium ef flux at the frequencies and voltages tested.The maximal effect observed was a borderline change at 10 V/u p-pfor the 76 Hz frequency-modulated field.

* The CV studies Interpreted In the context of the earler studies(1970 and 1975) support the general hypothesis of frequency specificityand suggest that IL? fields chat are biologically relevant, ioe,s

* within EEG range, my have substantially lower thresholds than eitherCV fields outside that frequency range or frequency-modulated fieldsoutside that range.

. .

1. Kalaijn, A. J. The electric seas. of sharks and rayr. JJBo1., 55: 371-381, 1971.

2. Keeton, V. The orientational and navigational basis of homing

birds. Advance& in Study of behavior, j: 47-131, 1974.

3. Williams, T. C., Williams, J. N., Larkin, . F., Sutherland, P.and Cohen, B. A radar lnvestigatLon of the effects of extremelylow frequency alectromagnetic fields on free flying migrant birdFinal Report, U. S. Navy, Office of Navel Research, ContractV00014-75-00341, 1977.

4. Gavalas, R. J., Walter, D. 0., Ramer, J. and Mey, V. R. Effectof low-level, low-frequency electric fields on EG and behavior.In Macaca nemestrina. Brain Res., 18: 491-501, 1970.

5. Gavalas-oedici, 1. and Day-Magdaleno, S. Extremely low-frequency,weak electric fields affect schedule-controlled behavior in monkeyNature, 3_j, No. 3557: 256-259, 1976.

6. Ravin, S. X. and May, W. R. Sensitivity of calcivm binding Incerebral tissue to weak environmental electric fields oscillatngat low frequency. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 73, No. 6: 1999-2003, 1976.

7. Caray, R. J. and tritrausky, R. P. Absence of a response-Tate-* dependent effect of d-emphetamiae on a DIL schedule when reinforce-

sent is signalled. Psychonoc!€ Sci., 28: 285-286, 1972.

8. Laties, V. G. The role of discriminative stimuli in modulatingdrug action. Federation Proc., 34, No. 9: 1880-1888, 1975.

9. Aragglo, J. T. and E1en, P. Cued DRL training: Effects on theperformance of lesion induced overresponding. J. Compar. & Ph-vsiol.Psy., j, No, 7: 694-703, 1976.

Additional references ac veak =2 fields from this laboratory:

10. Gavalas-Medict, . and )agdaleno, S. 1. An evaluation of possibleeffects of 45 Rt and 75 Us electric fields on behavior and nesro-physiology of monkeys. GtL Tech. Report, 1975.

' - 11. aovalas-Nediei, 1. end Nagdaleno, S. R. Iffects of veak ELF fieldsem brain and behavior of monkeys. Proc. MS! Conference. Natl.Aced. Sci., 1975.

12. Hedici, 1. G. Iffects of weak electric ftelds on behavior and5= of laboretory bmIa. eMtaesui. ]&. Do. 5U1, , 9. 3,27-35, 1IM7.

13. Medici, 1. 0. and Sa, P. M. Iehsvioral pmecocols and pre-11Iamary observatisa of bleks mposed to Week amplitudemodulated 450 Was fields. Dul Armp. slioleoial Iffectsand Heaurmieat of sdio tequency Klera'eves.s, Rockville, Nd.,Feb. 6-1s, froeeedim, 4-52, 1977.

14. Medici, R. 0. and $San, P. M. Debavo oal assays of possibleweak US effects% Comuts and re ndatims In biologiceffects of electric aud eanetic fields associated with proposedProject Seafarer. Report of Caniuee on aiosphere Iffects of

IU Radiation, Div. of Med. $*l., Asembly of Life Sci., Vatl.Res. Council, Vatl. Aced. Scl., 1977.

1'

13.4

1..

Table 1.

ONR-MH .2 V/uRANK ORDER WEIGHTED MM UT AND STANDARD DEVIAIOK

(ntire Experiment - Last sin Excluded)

Anial A Animal I Animal J (u) Animal N (u)

Cond. z CM. X Cwd I Cond. X

76 N 5.14 o/Oc 5.15 OlOc 5.46 76/60 5.09

76 $.17 76160 5.18 o/Ox 5.46 76, 5.11

o/Oc 5.20 O/Ox 5.20 15.46 O/Ox 5.16

7 5.25 7 5.22 16 5.57 O/Oc 5.18

O/Ox 5.26 76M 5.22 76H 5.60 76 5.21

76/60 5.39 76 5.42 76/60 5.64 7 5.36

Cond. a Cond. a Cand. a Cond. a

7 .83 O/Oc .80 0/Ox 1.14 76M .72

76M .84 76M .83 76)M 1.30 76/60 .73

76 .91 O/Ox .90 O/Oc 1.36 76 .85

O/Ox .97 7 .96 76/60 1.40 0/Ox .93

76/60 1.03 76 1.07 7 1.42 O/Oc .95

O/Oc 1.04 76/60 1.10 76 1.52 7 1.30

(u) indicates uniaplanted animal

14

; 14.

Ir

* ... e . . *

Table 2.

OKRo4SK .2 V/aWK ORDER NGUMER Of RZSPONSES CU)

AND PhRENT CO1ECT (1)

P.n-al A Animal J (u) Aninal N (u) AnImal GCood. N Cond. N Cond. I Cond. N

0/Ox 1149 0/Ox 605 . O/Oc 1689 0/Ox 770

76 988 76 574 7660 1553 7 716

7 947 O/Oc 434 76 1397 761 704

76H 787 761 402 76M 1330 O/Oc 630

O/Oc 780 7660 388 O/Ox 1300 76 579

7660 734 7 385 7 870 7660 561

Cond. z Cond. z Cond. z Cond. 2

7660 88 O/Ox 87 76 78 7 82

76 82 76M 84 76) 78 76M 81

7 81 76 81 0/Ox 76 76 so

O/Oc 81 O/Oc 8 O/Oc 72 O/Ox 77

76M1 80 7660 81 7 70 O/Ox 77

O/Ox 77 7 77 7660 69 7660 76

(u) Indicates unimplanted animal

!1j

1.5.

• ° ., ,-•--+. • ,

* . .. ,• W l. .. ,+1 .*. .+ .•

Table 3.

OR-MSK iC VimrK ORDE WIZT IMIT MEAN IRT AND STANDARD DEVIATlON

(Entire Expetrent - Last Bin Excluded)

Animal A Animal G Animal J(u) Animal H3(u) Animal K(u) Anlmal L(u)X Coed I Cand. Co,.d. X toad. X CoVA. x+

O/Om 5.88 76 5.29 7411 5.29 761 5.19 7611 4.90 7611 5.3:

7 5.89 7 5.34 O/Ox 5.34 o/Oc 5.23 7660 5.01 7660 5.31

76M 5.91 O/Ox 5.37 OOc 5.38 0.Ox 5.26 O.Oc 5.20 7 5.4(

010x 6.00 0/0% 5.45 7 5.41 7 5.27 O/Ox 5.24 76 5.51O/Oc 6,13 7660 5,55 7660 5.51 7660 5.28 7 5.33 O/Oc 5.5:

7"60 6,14 O/Oc 5.62 76 5.57 76 5.31 76 5.36 OlOx 5.5,

76 6.26 76H .63

Cn Cod. Cnd. Cond. a Cond. Cond. a

7 1.37 76 .89 7611 1.12 7 .75 76 1.55 7660 1.2

O/Oc 1.55 7660 .99 O/Ox 1.12 7611 .77 7 1.73 O/Ox 1.3

0/x3 1.55 7611 1.08 O/Oc 1.14 O/Oc ,81 O/Oc 1.80 O/Oc 1.4

76 1.59 O/Ox 1.11 7 1.24 76 .90 7611 1.85 76 1.5

7611 1.63 0/0% 1.11 7660 1.37 7660 .93 O/Oz 1.86 761M 1.5

7660 1.64 7 1.17 76 1.55 O/Ox 1.02 7660 1.99 7 1.5

OO 1.66 O/Oc 1.25

Legend

76 * 76 f1 CW76! a 76 1i frequency modulated7660 - 76 Zz frequency modulated plus 60 s 6 10 V/u p-pO/O , MondayO/Oc - ControlO/Ox,- Carry-over day

* u - unimplanted animal

16.

-- - . . ._"tTi I-

Table 4.

DANK OMR N Or IhSPCOI4shS (M) AIM 1RDC C0MCT(sntire Ixiriprlent - Lost Bin Included)

Anjual A Anmal 0 Animal J(u) Animal (u) Anias ilu) Animal L(u)

76 445 7660 794 76 723 7660 U74 7660 825 76H 663

o/ox 012 / O8 7 402 o/oc 1228 76 1o61 o/Ox 762

3s29 o/oc 7S o/ $20 76 1232 o/Ox 1,12 7 807010M 521 WE0 985 0/0= 890 7 1245 010= 1240 7660 832

O/Oc 540 O/O0 1196 7"0 929 O/Ox 1264 7 1241 76 838

76M 596 7 1201 761 1080 76 1332 76M 1952 O/Oc 883

7660 631 76 1427

Cod. 2 Cond.I C.d. 2 C_1-1o.ond. Z

761( 68 76 75 76Mt 67 761H 76 7660 62 7 7(,,

7660 70 0/1x 77 7660 69 O/Oz 77 76M 63 76M 75

0/0m 71 7 79 76 70 0/Oc 78 76 65 7660 75

010c 79 0/0 so O/0x 70 76 80 0/Ox 69 76 77

7 81 76M 81 O/Oc 70 7 82 7 74 O/Oc 78

76 83 7660 81

76 a 76 Is CW764 - 76 Us frequenCy modulated7660 - 76 1h frequency nodulated plus 60 Us @ 10 V/1 p-p

• Oone Mday

O/Oc CoatrolO/Ox a Carry-over day au - .unwlplanted anmal

17.

* Table 5.

CPl-w6K 56 V/uRANK OR=U WICU!IDU MWN TT AND STANDAIW MVIAOW

Animal A MAuMl G Anial J(u) Animal N (u) Animal K(u)S. . ... J... . xJ Cond. Cood. X Cond.

7660 5.34 0/Oz 5.40 7 5.31 7660 5.18 7 5.150/0. 5.37 7 5.47 7660 5.32 7 5.21 76H 5.18

7 5.38 0/Oc 5.49 0/Cc 5.34 0/0c 5.21 76 5.20

.0 .42 76 5.63 76 5.35 76 5.25 0/0z 5.20

7611 5.50 7660 5.75 0/Ox 5.42 76M1 5.26 0/Ox 5.43

0/Oc 5.61 7611 5.81 7611 5.44 0/Ox 5.28 7660 5.51

0/T. 5.45

Coud. a coud. -0 Cond. aCond. a Cond. a

7 .75 0/Ox .89 76 .74 7 .65 7 1.52

76M .81 0/Oc .93 7 .77 0/Oc .71 0/Oc 1.69

0/Oxt .87 76 1.02 0/Cc 1.02 76M .71 76 1.71

01Oc 1.15 7 1.16 7660 1.10 76 .76 7660 1.71

7660 1.19 76M 1.22 0/Ox 1.12 7660 .80 76M 1.79

76 1.23 7660 2.05 7GM 1.15 0/Ox .85 0/Ox 1.81

* /0. 1.29

*1

!r ............... ,..co* " , Co 18. LI

.. ..a..- . - - . -. - . .t

5605.3 01z 540 5.3. 6605.1 7 5.15

* .. . o.. . . . • . * S

Table 6.

OUR-MSK 36 V/u

Lal 01D1 k4Ui Or ISISES (1) AD PICcI T COlUCT (2)

ARMI Animal 0 Anual J(u) Animal VN(u) Animal K(u)

MA N aa... oud. ICood. 1 COUd V-

761 516 761 240 761M .187 /Ox 964 76 1349

7 593 7 515 Olos 1302 76 1067 7660 1357

7660 602 7660 582 7 1320 7660 1206 /Oc 1425

76 634 76 797 /Ox 1490 761 1295 O/Ox 1477

0/Oc 638 O/Ox 686 O/Oc 1556 O/Oc 1346 76 1557

7660 1591

Coud. I Cond. 2 Conod. 2- Cou d.

7660 80 7660 64 766( 66 76 78 7611 66

76 82 761 76 O/JO 67 7660 78 010c 67

O/Ox 85 7 79 O/Oc 69 7 79 7 68

0/Oc 87 0,'Ox 79 O/Ox 73 O/Oc 79 76 68

761 88 0/Oc 81 7 73 /Ox 81 7660 70

7 89 76 84 76M 73 7 f 86 O/Ox 70

16 -.7

19.

.. .... . . . " -- _..._ _. .._ _..__ _ _ _ .._-_ - 'I

Table 7.

D&UCSIPTIVE t STATISTICS ACROSS 7M0WONCIES

(No-field IiT (X].€ - fteld ZUT (1alm)

(To-tailed tests used for all negative differences)

.2 Va IQI/F-56 V/0

- .075 .075 .066

S, -12 .C,38 .068 .0421 1.975 1.105 1.587

p .204p3.10 .201p>o.15 .104p-.0V

-,.095 028 0.0

76 Hs .065.03

t 1.462 .826

p .30<p.20 .50cp>.40 N.S.

D - .020 .138 - .067

.051 .049 .07276 HaNod. .391 2.816 .917

p .804p:..70 .05p>.01* .50 p .40

3 - .078 .037 .050

76 3: S71-12 .069 .089 .06Mod.,+

60 Ex t 1.161 .410 .470

p .40cp>.30 .35<p).30 .354p),.30

.5

D - .023 .057 .010

ca-r,.-. .019 .047 .061z , carryp- S1OeWl t 1.165 1.217 .124

p .404p>.30 .15p ) .10 p.90

20.- it5 5 !-

- .4

44

MI Viii0

'.g4 N;

~~C4

t.4"4

'att N. "t4

wv owl I v

S21

tw. 1 0 04

""cc T C; c; c; q c c

0% %.0%0

bt'0'61 kn " N M "

%Gr "I +

go V44 fr

m -0 ' ; C 0 c

I,!

_6 2.

+ + .. . . ..+ " ++ +: • . . .. . . - +- ++ t ' : '+ l + + +" +'r ' : P '+ "' " ' I "+: +: '+ + + + + + '+" + • ' + +' '- 4 +

I A 4

4 i 4;c;4i S

* Ups

bel b* 14 Il i *S S

me~~g 00 IQ 4 ~ s -

.4N 23.

Oelk

'V4.. * P4 A

044-W -tC o6% %9 " v

I-'l

V~~0V4 P4N

N V-~4 m ND 0 .* V-4%c o C 2Il . %O0 Ill ..N NU nf

ON.S f 'A C40 0~I. VOv ON

SV4 0 0o0 0oo 000oo

4J CA S-

11 AlIu a t;

- r4

Iwo 0%

V5 a

U N M PN0 D wen %M0%-4 %

T. 00

ton ec

2 %NI-ft w

~25.

Table 13.

siz~mwam-camCORRELATION COZFFICIT BETWEENCONROLIR's NDCONTROL-7 Hs MEAN Ill DIM7UNCE SCORES

(C n resent Studies Cbned)

mainControl Diff.

"Anal lR ank Scares Rak D2

K(u) 5.20 1 -. 13 1 0 0

E~)5.23 2 -. 04 3 1 1

J~)5.37 3 -. 08 2 1 1

I()5.44 4 .01 5 1 1

L (u) 5.53 5 .13 7 2 4

A 6.13 10 .23 10 0 0

.1 A* 6.58 11 .12 6 5 25

Rho ..62' 5. 6 .21.1

*Frm 176CW study

.26.

-041:: i T-7-- 7,

Table 14. 4SY1C IMUCZ: Comparison of 1976 (N-S) an"

1)78 (N-6) Coetrol Values In 10 V/n Study(Nman-Wbltss U-Test)

1976 1978

III. -Rank in.. frik

6.58 1U 6.13 10

6.03 9 5.62 7

5.87 8 5.53 5

5.58 6 5.36 3

5.44 4 5.23 2

5.20 1

U "7; Pm .089

1976 a U-Rank 1978 a U-Rank

1.73 10.5 1.73 10.5

1.28 7 1.54 9

1.13 3.5 1.37 8

1.13 3.5 1.24 -6

0.89 2 1.15 5

0.75 1

U U; P .268

' 27.

O - O•

- -

*0v

r43 in

04ww

"I,.-;

S. ~0&~ 0 00 00 0 % 0

f44 C4 4" cm f"

3 0

b2 Flo00000

C;C . C;C C C C C

* - 44 44.4 . 444 +1 .44 +14.4 -44.

44~

44- - -I 4f 44 41 + 4 4 4 1 +

U lk00 0c

e440

0 0;C

44 V428.

....--..**....---.* in - ~ ~ ~ *.** -

-r ~o

440 0 so

ow 00l ~

Pi A ~f

~ 4 ~g. . 4s2*.

• -. - a s ar .... e+.e - +0 -

FIGURE 1.

.'V/M Tl . IOV/M 7H9 soV/M ?"a

"r Ia *1A,j •

U41!... *seW "" g

1"TIt"'SPONSE T1M" (No" M)

IRT-OJ~tlmeslonse tinel) histo&TaaI ar~e shown f~or a sinleaubj}ect 0Nacaca Amestrin) are shown for field (filled circles):and no-fleld, contol, (open circles) sessions at 1, ;0 and56 V/s p-p with 8&'7 Its modulation frequency. Each histogramwans constructed f rom,,Vie data f rov a single ezperientalsession. The veral .bas8 Inicate the meas of eachdisatribution, Reprrluced from (5).

3.63 I3.30.

-- - 1 -W T -. a .. e .

FIGUM 2.

FrASTER RESPONDING LWRRSODN

K gat ~-A

E360H

DUIGEPOUET FI SOINCESN OTG

The i ISeU ifrnc ewe il ndcnrlssin

~31.

FIGURE 3.

0

jAMPMTAMINE (mg/kg)

IMCI

The effects of externl stlalus control. In the form of a"behavioral prosthesis," on performance on a DUL schedule

amphetamine are abolished wihen the external stimlus mdi -

cating reinforcmnt availability toIntroduced. Reproduced 32

.- *32.

FIGURE 4.

ttm of mathybhmpeu OR w P~fmofo, a e pierk* aA~g a Seed.inm-80-9 I-Omh~v (MN CW;J* aeeR. umck asi wtm ofa& IWA e aim mpas'S Wfed a*A*n~ Pomakl "WWhasm We a aftm5 p.. as a 1eegad haW. WOe WAdewb sheep ueembemd vitb dwe my' odhew. tua hqm) The dark ben Olid MOO aeluf um eeweaMo noseis mewed mbs wAiL Dm agiuggme tS mg Hog by moolk dedy Masiop

dWhW4* YWOVe 1W Iwk OWd U 01Hgrbj MeAbp OWd ffilk7 uhsAsW.

'75 +4

50 +9250

0

The effects of sethy.1 gercury on pigeous working on an TCZI 8 or 9schedule. Reproduced from (8) * data frOM (7)

33.

-p. . -....... • . .... ..... °- - 1.lq- -

TIGUM 5.

-'39

0

0173

! tmed 5) 'T. ummd.b . sw mv sE~bam sf.dew."s ~ A

25.d Soe -e~~i I~A s a

iLThe effects of an external disc:iit&Ye& T StimUalUS (SD) On

performnC5 on an 7C~N or 9 schedule follovilIS aintn?5ti0loii -- f uethyl ucecury, In this extension of Pigure I., t can be

t seen that the itnrodhCtoO of an external dtscriliUativ@

, ~au u l s s ~ heaol ou o sa~ u e ef ct fthe methyl mercury and the removal of the external discr~mT'&-.tix~ve stulus leds to thei:r reappe4ne" Repoduced frau (8),"et. *A weI "",

... .. Z. .

IIN

........... t. ...*-4'Az=,e~S- .

_--u I. -

77.

. . . . . . . ...- . . .

74* z' r-: ___-r -1 .:

........................ ...................................... ................ - 2.

.... .-......

'00

U~~~~~.. ..:.J : S .....~ C

~+--

77

K r Z00w 0 z

W~~U WIU) U

S..

0

60 4D ....... i

00 W0 4

W 00

CD)

0 +

0.-

-L -I.- LT W- AZ-------

-o. 1"o. o-,-

- - - r

*C >

Lm L.

-~ LLZ

o- W 0 .

U) a

0 01 a. QJ-

a.'

w *

Cl) 00

q37.

APPENDIX I.

EEC POWER SPECTRA

Anmal A. R. HiDpocampus

Control: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/u Series 1

7 iz: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/u Series 2

76 Hz: Correct, Incorrect, 10 V/n Series 3

MSK (76 lz, frequency-modulated): Correct,Incorrect 10 V/u Series 4

MSK + 60 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/m S ties 5

SL. HippocampusSControl: Correct, Incorrect 10 Vim Serie- 6.

7 6z: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/m Series 7

76 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/m Series 8

K (76 Hz, frequency-modulated): Correct,Incorrect 10 V/u Series 9

7SK + 60 Hz: Correct, ncorrect 10 V/m Seres 10

: R. Asaygdala

Control: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/ Series 11

Control: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/m Series 12

7 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/m Series 13

7 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/m Series 14

K 76 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/ u Series 15

76 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/ u Series 16e.. MS1: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/u Series 17

. 1S1K: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/a Series 18

".: MSK + 60 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/m Series*

i MSK + 60 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/m Series 19

RCM4• .Control: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/cm Series 20

7 liz: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series 21

*Data lost.

I.~

ii76 R: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series 22

KSK: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series 23

MSK + 60 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series 24

LOI

* Control: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series 25

7 #z: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series 26

76 liz: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series 27

* 76UK: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series 28

MSK + 60 Iz: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/m Series 29

Animal G. R. Rippocaupus

Control: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/u Series 30

Control: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series 31

7 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/u Series 32

7 iz: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series 33

76 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/m Series 34

76 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series 35

MSK: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/m Series 36

MSK: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/m Series 37MSK + 60 Rz: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/m Series 38

MSK + 60 lz: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/m Series 39

R. Superior Colliculus

Control: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/u Series 40

Control: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/m Series 41

7 lz: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/m Series 42

7 lz: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series*

76 Hlz: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/u Series 43

76 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series 44

iSK: Correct, Incorrect 10 We Series 451SK: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/u Series 46

MSK + 60 Hz: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/m 47.

* *Data Lost.

I,-.. -*.

* &

R. TgMoral Lobs

Control: Correcto Incorrect V' V/S Series 48

Control: Correct, incorrect 6, V/u Series 49

7 a: Correct, Incorrect 10 Vi ., Serie" so

7 R: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/V, Series 51

76 R1: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/m Earles 52

76 Rs.: Correct, Incorrect 56 Vm Series 53

15K: Correct, Incorrect 10 V/u Series 54

XSK: Correct, Incorrect 56 V/m Series 55

SK + 60 Ia: Correct, Incorrec: 10 V/a Series 56

WSK + 60 R:: Correct, Incorre..r 56 V/u Series 57

J

. !.

4

1 '

r 7-7=7.czWuISP ~I0519 SLIMSP 965494

Fi.HIPP R.HIPP

25I

4.4

-0.0 A32. 0 0.0 A32.0

49 cases38 cases

49cae

IL - - . . -. - . -

5SUMSP 89627 SUriSP 106689R.NIPP RP

T11T~1TT~ I T000.0 34.0AnimalA. 1O V/M 'Ai) b/7 Ift Correct 7nw~ Ag 10Virrc

2cases 24 litInorec

24~ CAO

.... . ..- 1

SUM5P 88524 SUIS " 113623R.NIPP R.HIPP

I2

6 11S6 c

: 0.0 32.0 0.0 32.USAnimal A 10 V/1 . Animmal A 10 VIM

76 IIz Correct 76 tlz Incorrect28 cases 22 cases

-' ~ -

5UMSP /9516 5UMSP 9571 WR.-IPP RIPP

25_

0.0 32.0 0.0 32.,Da, vll 14 10 V/M An ia l A 10 vim

S Correct KSK Incorrect12 cases 13 cases

A'Glad&

,, am qm ••7 .ie ...iI

SUMSP 36702 MUrSP L4 009O~L.H!PP L.H PP

2 25

Animal A 10 Vol Animal A in VAp 3,Control Correct Control Inicorrect

49 cases 38 cases

SUMSP "12538 SUMSP " 377311

RHI P RHlPP

25 25

I II

L

ii i

.x

i: t

~~~Animal 1 O lia 10 VISMSK*0 It Crrec HS+60litIncorrect

28 cases 21 cases

1~

31221SUriSP 30252L.WItPP L.NIPP

_________ ~25. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I rT1-1 I I II TTTTTvv

32.0 00 32.

Animal A 10 V/M Animal A 10 V/M7 11% Correct 7 11z Incorrect26 cases 24 cases

'II

if_

"J MSP 28f:368 SUMPSP -- 30682iL,HlPP L.HlPP

• 25

I k i l l i,

1 1 1 -I M r -i

III I -

* I

Animal A 10 V/"MA

76 cas Corec 76 Ift Incorrect2- cases-- - - 22 cases

t ! - -

SUMSP 41 4I0' SUMSP : 50641

L.HIPP L.H-IPP_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 25 - ___ ___

4

32.0 0.032.0~~~Animal A 10 V/ nmlA b/

MSbK Correct 13S casesec12 cases 1 ae

SUMSP 544139 SUMSP : 57945L.HIPP L.HIPP

_______ ______ ______ 25.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

32.0 0-0 32.0Animal A 10 V/N Aniual A 10 VAIKSKO lit Crect . JSK.60 11% lIncorrect23 cases ~ cases

5U1SP 8561 SUMSP - 2157FI.RMYG P.RMYG

* "I

rri

32.0 0.0 32.0Animal A i0 V Animal A 10 VI.

Control Correct Control Incorrect

49 cases

*L- a*.- *

* SUMSP 387SUMSP :; 2738F.AMYS. 2..R. AM Y 6.

251

4 1IM II r I II I1f

.0 3241 o~ 32.

AItma 5 AInto CurI nmlA 5 /

CM 1 4 cse

SUMSP 24812 SUriSP 212Z93RAr1YG R-AMYG

25 - _ _ _ _ _ _

4.

It FTrrr~rrI32,0 11

Animal 10 VA

Animal A 10 V/M 7 11z Incorrect7 lit Correct 2 a@26 cases 2 ae

SUMSP 3159 SUMSP - 2561..ARYG. .A ( 6.

ii

(II

A l A '

-ii

ii IU ,

i !ii

* I

7 lilt Correct 7 11z Incorrect24 cases 24 cases

S4 0 4* 0*4* * ~ *~** 4~4- -.. . . . -. -. f l ~ . a"

-qm m .ms.t W t r--4

*• .r-.*

'.UMSP 8 8318 SUL"ISP . 20CJ27f.RMYG .AMYG

- ~~25. _ _ _

rrr~r; I

Ift.

' i- ; il iFill i i I ll t i{I lili il ! i ii I I i1i 111t I i iI i FIjf[ i I I I

32.0 0.0 32.0Animal A 10 V/M Animal A 10 V/M76 lit Correct 76 liz Incorrect

28 casos 22 cases

SUMSP 3025 -UM.,

P.AMY5 R.AMYGORA &25

I-

rr 1 1- 1 1 111 1 1U IM T is l

I.

S

' U:7

" "TT11 9'1T

6. 2(0.0 32.0.VAnimal A 56 W76 li Correct 76.:1? casesj

-~ ~ ,!

SUMSP 1 9243 SUMSP :

R.RMY G H.RMYG

I25

.0 320 003.Animl A 0 WMAniml A 0 VA

~M IUSK Corect V

12 case

- - ---. - w- m

* SUMSP : 373/ SUMSP 3193B.AMY-G . RAM YG.

____25_

Ii

f:,.

I

-I

0.0 321C 0.0 3Z.0Animal A S6 VAI Animal A 56 V/i1SK Correct ?SK Incorrect24 cases IS cases

I

SUM 3P 2611 SUMSP 3174R.Y Amy&. .AM .

25 2c _5! '

!I

UQ

4

I

I

- 111111111

0.0 32.0 0.0 0Animal A 56 V/it Animal A 56 VlIM

1ISIK.6O H: Cozrrct MS.6 II:In@T@s25 cases 2 ae

$US --- -l - MP -- --

IIiU

* .1SUMS : '17SUtISP 0 12

- - - .

::4

* . -S

qI

t 111 F11t ii1 I 11 t tlI II I I' ' I MTI" ,MI'M 1-1 M-1- rrlrli

32.U LI..,kaiml. A St, V/,l AnIMMI A S6 \/MControl Correct Control Incorrect

c. ses 40 caes

caboIs~ II14

* j

S;UiIsp Z77 SUII P 315

:: i 25_

:

.- ,

I'I

- 1

I l T I ''r1T Tr i 11 Ri li liiiIiii I ITrlITIT l-ti I I I I II rT1it

0.0 32.0 0.0 32.0Animal A 56 'JI Aimal A 56 V/M7 lIt Corret I Incorrect24 Cases 5cs

p .I ] "m ..ll _ ' -II -_ .

Anim AR6VM nimAS A

FIIr

III

76 li orca i norc

Sc a s es

II

II

II

'4 -

.tq

\ " _

SUMP 1511 Survisp : 1053

25. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

..0 32.0 0.0 32.0AAIMal A S6 V/RI Animal A 56 A TI

HS#~~US Corc kincorrect24 cas1C~

SUrSP : £20 SUMSP : 1598R.C.M,25..

tI

I

I i I- t

0.0 32.0 0.0 V,* ()Animal A 56 V/M Animal A 56 V/H1SI'60 11z LortCt 14SK60 its Incorrect2S cases 23 cases

- -* . - -. 4.. . . . . . . . . ..

SUMSP :: 1133, '. SU "4J

LCM 5LC.

I

i

I II

. -

* - rrj rm-ii 11 tTTr~rn fillj17rrprrrM-rr-rrri 1 rr

0.0Animal A 56 V/11 ARN&Im A S6 V/IControl Correct Contruol IncorrectSO cases 40 cases

- . - a.. . . .. . .. .

. - .

SUr15 ". 1381 SUM5P : 1393LCM LCM

..25.

AA: 4I

'I1

V.,

TTT1Tfli flfl rflT~l,0 32.0 0,0 32,0

Animal A 56 V/h Animal A 56 V/M7 lIlz CorTOCt 7 IIz Incorrect24 cases 24 cases

UII' 'TP SUtISP " 1LCM LCM

,.J

76 11 orc 611 norc

1c s

II

imi

r i tI 1 inprli 11-jrn I i ii rl n ii i ia.!u~ I Tli ll T1Trl fli rli~ll 1111.0) .0, 00 C •

AnimAl A 56 V/Il Animni A 56 V/M.76 II:* Corroct 76 lli lfncnrtwT~37 enses 38 cn, ,,

SUMP 1601) SUMSP " 1092LCM LCM

25-

SI I I

if.

' III

• I

0 32.0 0.0 32.1Animal A S6 VIlt Animl A 56 V/4MISK Correct MSK incorrect24 cses 1cases

,. °. ol 1.

ISUMS3P :. 3246 SUMSP : 3736LCIA 25

I 1 11111 11 ' Ii IIIT M T

010 32A( 0.0 32L.Animal A 56 V/l AnIRA I A '56 V/MMSK.60 [is Correct IISK+60 11z Inucorect25 cases 23 cuaies

- - - .. a t. . * a .ia- 2ir

SUMtSP -- 9073 ,LI'S 9'

R.1 IIPP P1.I VPP

- \

-I\

- .

S.

SI1Irr'1-| l -T-~II r11r1rrI i- liii 11 1ii IITl-

.0 32.0lastmal G 10 V/11 Auimnll Co 10 V/mContral Correct Control Incorrect47 cases 47 c€ses

.. . . . . ."D'l i ll fl W " + i I ' ' i -

SUM P " 7973 SUMSP = 8133R.NPP R.IPP

.25 _ _25.

TI

A n i m a G 5 6 V / M C n t r l I n5 6 r r e c t

Control correct 40 casSS37 cases

lw .

~UI5I'~. 111SUMSP 67Ul1

.1 j

Animal:1 1 I C V/11 Aniwil C 0 ii V!?I

7 : Correct 3311: litcorreict22cae su

* -Ri.H IPP 25.fHIIPr

Animal G~ 56 V/N Animal C% 56 VPI ~7 Mz Correct 7 11.z Incorrect

12 cases 1 ae

Fit- -- -

fA R I P P L d k -. ), ti- .1 j _ _ _ _

R.H PP

24 cae 24Cae

SUMSP 7277 67UIIP 7q9R.IPP RAHIPP

25,

4I

I

I U

i.0 32.( 0.0 ~

Animal G 56 Vo/l Ants.-% G 56 V/M76 liI Incoret 76 111 Correct

-. 23 case 24 cases

SuMSP *- SUriSP O

M1IP IPP

+9 r~iT' 'I. I

Antsmtl C 10 Y/M Animal 1 )VIWK Correc~t WL Incorrect24 cases 24 cases

SUMSP " 8836 SUMSP :- 83/3R.HIPP A.HIPPS,-- - ... - .:! -.

-11~*r-mr-rr--rr- - nr-nTrrrr-11rmlT-p-

0.0 32.0 0.0 "Ti LII ,Animal G S6 VAI Animal G S6 VAI?1SK Corect PtSK Incorrect21 cases 13 cases

- -- --- w -.-- ~~ -l I

1i.HIPP ~MIPP______ _____ _____25 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ir r"Mnn riTnrTr - mrn1Tviqmr1r,111i011l 32.0 (W.

nAnteal v' 10 V/Il Animal G 10 V/HW SK*60 III Correct MSU660 P& Incorrect24 canes 24 Cases

SUMSP . 3321 SUMSP ~. 3177R.SUPC R.SUPC

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 25 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

LL

"T"'rl,"rM ,111'rM T~r1rrTT~rrr~rT111j111 tuti32.0 00 322.

Anivl G 6 V1 AnmalC S6V/?Cnntol Crrec Cnnrtil Incorec37 cae ae

55

I3,.

Animal G S6 V/\j Anirnnl G 56 V/MH;.c60 1iz Co, rec HMSI.6O lIz Inicorrect24 cas-es 24 cases

SUMSP 3I~~ii319.SLJpC F1.~3 131p C

SI-~r .T1

0.0.AnimAl G 10 V/M Anim~al G 10 V/1-1Control Correct Co~ntrol Incorrect47 cases 47 cases

19 .'SUPC H.SUPCl

-.- T~mIII1~-m-~ ~rr-,, vrr~~~Tnf

0.I3 .00.

Animl G 0 VM AnmalG 10V/?

76 1% Crrec 76Itz ncorec

24 caes 24case

iji

Al ina I -/ nml5 /

76 It: Correct 76 11z Incorrect2.1 cass2 ae

.SUMSP 19I~ S3UMSP 35R.SUPC fi.SUPL

___________25..

lI

-rr-Trf rrrTrrr-rl rr r I -- r~frTr .rr 1n1-M-rrryr rTl(0.0 3 2.0 0.0J

Animal C. 10 V/HAn J al I r 10 VIM MK Incorrect

MSK Correct 24 cases.' ~ 2 cases . . .- -.

-- I .. - II9T " I I l B . .

SUMSP " 3148 SUMSP 3457Fh.5UPC R.5UPC

25

.. ..... 5 .... I _I rII

-i irrjn ll~ il iFI T Inrl~t irr , nrl--p-mr rrrrr'rf

0.0 32.0 0lU U -

Animal G 56 VIAIKSK Correct MSK Incorrect

21 cases 13 cases

.. .... . . .. . . . .i. IF -ii d "1 '

I¢I

A SUMSP : 1302 SUrisi'

KWI

•I l'.'

4mr Trrr TjT7Tpl frtf n-mp1r--rU.0 . 0.0

Animal G 10 VAIi Animal G 10 V/HHSK+60 Hz Correct AIlK*60 IIz Incorrect24 e24 cases

m -o .2

Sii1~ 2~27SUIISP '1262

25 -. . . -

Il 1T1rrTITr~tr~~T r rfnnlC I /

WqK+0 Il Corect nima G $ VAMS*6 li norc

24 caes 24case

FSM suip 330 50M51P AljtM.TF.MP ri. FLMP

S * - ~ f l - - .

I20 0fAnmlG1 / Aia 0V?

Coto1oretCnrl1norc

47 cIIRs 4 cis

• " "" I I Ill - - Ill.I i .i II

I waw, •

SUMSP :: 1217 SUIllSP 1895R. r.tip R. rE.MP

25

.4

, _

l I lr M I I l' l I I I ' I - " rrr r- ' 1 " l r r 1 1 1" i 1 10 32.0 0.0 32.0

Aimal G S6 V/M Animal G 56 V/HControl Correct Control Incorrect A

37 cases 40 cases

.- ,..

SI -[ .. S - -ITE.!"' [R2.TEIP1 25

rT rr I 11 MT TMi "'rr( , n I I IF i

7 C

2 2

- I JI1~ra~ 0 0 f22c;e523Cae

-. . .. * -* tin.. ... , . ..* * . - ..

R. rii ______

0.0 3Z.0

Animual G 56 "/P' 7 If: Ificorrect7 Ii: Correct 12 cases12 cases

," IR.rFLNP Ii. rrl-

-p 2t ~ t -- .

'II

* - rn --- TT-Tm~'T1- rilrrTT nn-p-r, 1i u rrl-r,(iT Tlrrrrr l,

0.0 32.0 0.0

Animal G 10 V/? Animal G 10 V/AI76 1I1 Corroct 76 IIt Incorrect24 cases 24 cases

K

,.UMSP : 190 SUMSP : 724R. rEP FLTEMP

25_

11 rT r T I I'' I I I I' I [ t r y t 1- i I ! , i l i !.32.0 060 F32.0 -

: .limal G, 56 V/m1 An imalI G S6 V/M!

76 i1 Correct 76 lIz lncorect24 casesS 23 cases -

An.... ..... ' I n ma 6 V/ -.

i9. I 1.1'i1 N. T ENP25. . - - a-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

L

24 cae 24 ase

5UrSP "SUMSP " 3 R. rE.-P R.E.r1P

_- TEMP

,hnm : r~ T'TTTynll! rlr-l,-rrpTrrrprrprii

0.0 32.0 0.I

Anieal G 56 V/1 lAnimal G S6 V/NiaSK G6orrect IN ,K Incorrect

21 cases 13 cases

ee~e~mI

SUrISP : 7276 S1IMISP 637ii.TEIIP H.TENP

M* I. *TT P-~MTT1rn---i I

-JJ

SUrISP 7 3199 SUMSP ~1.TEJP R. rEmIp

I0.0

AnmlG 5 VHAln G S /,IIK6 l orc S*0l- norc

24vse 4 ae

Il

'

ii

32

• a

AEIDXn

a.

i

: .S

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD MlASUREENS It SUPPORT

OF PRIMATE BEHAVIORAL AND EEG STUDIES

J.R. GAUGER and N.C. ROBERTSON

a

a

a b,

REPINT OFPUBLISHED MATERIAL

m So

hb

1. GAVALAS-MEDICI, R., and S. 1. DAY-MAGDALENO. Extremely lowfrequency, weak electric fields affect schedule-controlledbehaviour in monkeys. Nature,. Vol. 261, No. 5557, pp.256-2 59,1978.

2. GAVALS-MEDICI, R. Effects of weak electric fields on behaviorand EEC of laboratory animals. Neurosci. Res. Pro&. lull.Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 27-36, 1977.

3. GAVALAS-HEDICI, R., and e. M. SAGAN. Behavioral assays ofpossible weak ELF eff e ce: comenta and recomendations.Appendix B, Biologic Ef-ects of Electric and Magnetic FieldsAssociated with Proposed Project Seafarer. Report of Committeeon BLosphere Effects of Extremely-Lov-Frequency Radiation,Division of Medical Sciences, Assembly of Life Sciences,National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1977.

4. GAVALS-NEDICI, R., and S. R. DAY. Effects of weak ELF electricfields on schedule-controlled behavior of monkeys. In: Selectedpapers of the USNC/URSI Annual Meeting on Biological Effects ofElectromagnetic Waves, Boulder, Colorado, Oct. 20-23, 1975.DREW Publication FDA 77-8010.

5. BAWIN, S.M., and W. R. ADEY. Sensitivity of calcium bindingin cerebral tissue to weak environmental electric fieldsoscillatiug at low frequency. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA,Vol. 73, No. 6, pp. 1999-2003, 1976

• .i