Author:

Keywords:

Science & Technology, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Environmental Sciences, Public, Environmental & Occupational Health, Environmental Sciences & Ecology, Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, IEI-EMF, Nocebo, Attribution, Predictive processing, Electromagnetic Fields, Humans, Hypersensitivity, Perception, 1117 Public Health and Health Services, Toxicology, 4202 Epidemiology, 4206 Public health

Abstract:

We highly welcome and appreciate the paper of Dieudonné, 2020 ( https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-00602-0 ) on the important but frequently neglected topic of hypersensitivity towards electromagnetic fields (EHS). We agree with the author that the electromagnetic hypothesis (that EHS is caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields) appears scientifically largely unfounded and that other theoretical approaches focussing on psychological processes are more plausible and promising. In the view of the author, two such approaches exist, namely a "cognitive hypothesis" (derived from the comprehensive model by Van den Bergh et al., 2017) and an "attributive hypothesis" as suggested by the author. In this commentary, we want to argue (a) that the distinction between the cognitive and the attributive hypothesis is inaccurate at the conceptual level; (b) that the distinction is also misleading at the mechanistic level, due to an incorrect interpretation of the evidence related to the cognitive hypothesis; and (c) that, by using the term "cognitive hypothesis", the existing comprehensive model is inappropriately narrowed down without fully appreciating its explanatory power for the phenomena subsumed under both the cognitive and attributive hypothesis. Therefore, the original term "comprehensive model" should be used rather than the label "cognitive hypothesis".