Lubner · Frontiers in neurology 2020 · literature review · n=?

Review of Audiovestibular Symptoms Following Exposure to Acoustic and Electromagnetic Energy Outside Conventional Human Hearing.

Cited 22 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Narrative literature review summarizing animal models, retrospective case series, and small observational cohorts.

PubMed 32411067 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.00234 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Authors conducted a literature review across PubMed, Embase, and Scopus using relevant MeSH terms, supplemented by citation searching of identified articles. The review evaluated animal and human studies reporting auditory and vestibular signs or symptoms following exposure to acoustic and electromagnetic energy outside the range of conventional human hearing, specifically infrasound, ultrasound, radiofrequency, and magnetic resonance imaging.

What was found

The abstract reports qualitative findings without numerical estimates or statistical metrics. Infrasound from sources such as wind turbines and rocket engines was associated with isolated reports of dizziness, nausea, and tinnitus. Occupational low- and high-frequency ultrasound exposure was linked to broad audiovestibular complaints, whereas evidence regarding modern consumer devices (remote controls, automatic doors, wireless chargers) was noted as less robust. Radiofrequency exposure demonstrated audiovestibular dysfunction in animal models alongside historical human reports with unquantifiable exposures. Proposed mechanisms, such as cavitation theory, remain unverified, and the exposure thresholds (frequency, intensity, duration) necessary to induce pathology are unknown.

Why it matters

This review collates sparse literature across disparate energy modalities, highlighting that public and occupational health concerns regarding non-audible acoustic and electromagnetic exposures currently lack high-quality mechanistic or exposure-response data.

Limits

The abstract reports no study counts or participant sample sizes. The underlying evidence base is restricted largely to retrospective case series, isolated reports, animal models, and small cohort studies frequently lacking quantified exposure measurements.

Cited by