Key result
Geomagnetic field variations synchronized with resting heart rate in 32% of cases, significantly more frequently than with heart rate variability parameters (9-17%) (p < 0.001).
Why the study?
Biophysical mechanisms and phenomenological patterns linking geomagnetic field variations to cardiovascular responses remain poorly understood, motivating evaluation of the autonomic nervous system as a potential mediating pathway.
Observational (n=47)
Yes
p-value: p=<0.001
The biogeosynchronization effect appears significantly more frequently in heart rate changes than in heart rate variability parameters, suggesting a specific physiological response to geomagnetic variations.
Observational synchronization of heart rate with geomagnetic variations warrants no practice change; leaves open clinical relevance and mechanisms.
BACKGROUND: Geomagnetic field variations are a significant environmental factor influencing human well-being and physiological state, particularly the cardiovascular system. However, both the biophysical mechanisms underlying this influence and its phenomenological patterns across various spatiotemporal scales remain poorly understood. This study continues the investigation of the previously identified effect of synchronization between resting heart rate oscillations and geomagnetic field variations within the millihertz frequency range (periods of 3–40 minutes), referred to as the “biogeosynchronization effect.” AIM: To evaluate the possible role of the autonomic nervous system as a mediating pathway in the human body’s response to geomagnetic field variations. METHODS: From 2012 to 2024, a total of 673 experiments involving resting-state electrocardiographic interval recordings were conducted in two groups: eight healthy volunteers (group 1), each undergoing multiple sessions lasting 100–120 minutes, and a cohort of 39 individuals (group 2), each with a single 60-minute session. The frequency of biogeosynchronization effects in minute-by-minute time series of heart rate and heart rate variability parameters was compared. Cross-correlation and wavelet analysis methods were employed. RESULTS: Across the entire dataset, synchronization between heart rate parameters and components of the geomagnetic field vector occurred in 32% of cases, whereas heart rate variability parameters showed synchronization in only 9%–17%, according to correlation analysis, representing a two-fold or greater difference. Based on wavelet spectrum similarity, heart rate synchronization was observed in 40% of cases and heart rate variability parameters synchronization in 24%–28%. Individual distributions for each subject in group 1 and pooled results for group 2 revealed similar patterns. CONCLUSION: The biogeosynchronization effect appears significantly more frequently in heart rate changes (p 0.001) than in heart rate variability parameters, both in repeated individual recordings and in group-level analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zenchenko et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Healthy (n=47). Geomagnetic field variations vs. Heart rate variability parameters (internal comparison) was evaluated on Frequency of biogeosynchronization effect (synchronization with geomagnetic field variations) (p=<0.001). Geomagnetic field variations synchronized with resting heart rate in 32% of cases, significantly more frequently than with heart rate variability parameters (9-17%) (p < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: