The phone rings just as we think of someone. The clock shows 11:11 again. Coincidence—or have we already noticed something we cannot yet name?
An author's analytical reflection. “Psychoelectronics” is my expression for the relationship between human perception, our technological surroundings and the way we interpret coincidences. I use it to describe my views; the individual phenomena have their own scientific and technical names.
Let us analyse the data around us
Have you ever thought of a particular person and heard your phone ring shortly afterwards? Or looked at the clock and seen 11:11, 22:22 or 12:34?
These moments make me wonder how much information we notice consciously and how much stays in the background. I imagine the brain as a biological analyser that compares sensory signals, habits, memories and expectations. I call these traces “metadata” figuratively—the context surrounding an event, not necessarily digital data from a device.
For me, “psychoelectronics” names this question: how do a person and a technological environment contribute to an experience we sometimes feel as a premonition?
1. Predictive coding: expectation before perception
Predictive coding is a theoretical framework in cognitive neuroscience. In this framework, expectations based on previous experience are compared with incoming sensory information; discrepancies help update our model of the environment.
This gives me an interesting starting point. If I know someone's habits—when they finish work or usually call me—an expectation might appear before I formulate the reason. I do not need to “see the future” to anticipate a familiar scenario.
A related concept is unconscious processing of sensory information: some processing takes place without clear awareness of every individual signal. That does not mean the brain perceives everything or has an infallible archive.
In my metaphor, the “biological supercomputer” assembles context. Scientific vocabulary refers to perception, memory, expectation and information processing. Review: Forms of prediction in the nervous system.
2. Before the phone rings: a signal, an expectation or a coincidence?
When I feel that the phone is about to ring, I wonder whether I have noticed a change in my surroundings. This is a possible interpretation of mine, not an established universal mechanism. To test it, we need to establish whether a signal existed, whether it preceded the ringing and whether the person perceived it.
Electromagnetic interference—EMI
Electromagnetic interference (EMI) is the technical name for unwanted electromagnetic effects on electronics. Under suitable conditions, it can appear as noise in audio equipment. Hearing that secondary sound is different from the nervous system directly sensing a radiofrequency field.
This leads me to a more precise question: could someone with particularly sensitive perception notice a signal while a phone exchanges signalling messages with the network before ringing? We need to distinguish device power, possible sensory cues and evidence about human perception.
A device as intermediary: a possible indirect signal
Another possibility is that a radio signal affects an electronic device, which then produces an audible sound. Buzzing and crackling caused by radiofrequency interference from digital phones have been documented in some hearing aids. This is hearing sound produced by electronics, not the nervous system directly sensing a radio field. NIDCD: hearing aids and radiofrequency interference; Experimental study of interference between phones and hearing aids.
My hypothesis is this: if a weak but perceptible noise—or an actual vibration with an identified source—occurs in a particular setting, the change might attract attention without the person immediately realising what caused it. Here “subconscious detection” means possible unconscious processing of a sensory signal. Whether that happened before a particular call needs separate testing; interference in a device does not automatically establish unconscious perception or a premonition.
Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) is also considered for medical electronics, but mechanisms and consequences depend on the device. A pacemaker should not be described as a source of warning “micro-noise” or vibration before a call without specific evidence. Radiofrequency interference and the effects of permanent magnets in a phone are different mechanisms; the instructions for the particular medical device apply. FDA: electromagnetic compatibility of medical devices.
The connection with my idea: a possible pathway is “radio signal → effect on a device → perceptible sensory signal → processing and expectation”. Documented interference supports the possibility of electronics acting as an intermediary. The remaining steps—especially the timing before ringing and unconscious processing—remain a hypothesis to test.
Bluetooth headphones and car audio: a familiar faint sound
Bluetooth headphones and car-audio speakers can be considered in this idea too. In certain designs, a radiofrequency signal can enter an audio amplifier and be converted into audible noise through its nonlinearity. This mechanism is described for Bluetooth audio, and similar problems can occur with cellular and Wi-Fi signals. Separately, interference in a wireless link can disrupt audio transmission. These are different mechanisms, and not every crackle has the same cause. TDK: radiofrequency noise in Bluetooth audio devices; Bluetooth SIG: interference and adaptive frequency hopping.
My question is whether we have learned such an acoustic cue through experience: if a faint sound or brief audio change really recurs before calls, we might associate it with the upcoming ringing without immediately identifying why. The scientific concepts are associative learning and unconscious processing of sensory information. This is a possible scenario to test, not proof that headphones or radios always give advance warning. It must also be distinguished from ordinary muting or a notification sound triggered by the connected system itself during a call.
“Ultrasound” is a separate question. A faint or barely noticed sound is not automatically ultrasonic: its frequency matters. Hearing thresholds at very high frequencies vary between people, but this does not establish subconscious recognition of inaudible ultrasound from car speakers before a call. Such an explanation requires measurements of the actual sound and controlled testing of perception. The more precise working hypothesis is a faint, perceptible acoustic signal whose cause we do not immediately recognise. Study: hearing thresholds and airborne ultrasound.
The radio link in the seconds before ringing
Before we hear the ringtone, the phone and mobile network are already exchanging signalling information to establish the connection. This short interval interests me: could a change in the surroundings become a sensory cue?
Transmit power is controlled according to the radio technology and link conditions. GSM standards include classes with different maximum values, including 2 W and 4 W for particular bands and device classes. During pulsed transmission, power within a pulse and average power over time are different quantities.
I therefore consider the entire signal—its power, timing structure and possible effects on nearby electronics. What happens around a particular phone can be established through measurement. ETSI: radio transmission and power control.
Can a “highly sensitive nervous system” sense the radio field?
There is no reliable evidence that a particularly sensitive nervous system can directly recognise an ordinary phone radio signal before ringing. Sensitivity to faint sound or vibration does not by itself establish sensitivity to a radiofrequency field.
A 2024 systematic review includes 41 experimental studies involving 2,874 participants, including people who identify as electromagnetically sensitive. Under the controlled conditions reviewed, no convincing ability to recognise radiofrequency exposure above chance was established. This concerns the exposures and methods studied; it does not exclude every possible interaction between electromagnetic fields and humans. Systematic review: radiofrequency fields, symptoms and perception.
A real but different mechanism: the Frey effect
The microwave auditory effect, also known as the Frey effect, is experimentally established under certain pulsed radiofrequency exposures. Absorbed pulse energy can cause very small, rapid thermal expansion in tissue, generating an acoustic wave perceived by the inner ear.
This is not direct radio reception by nerves. The effect does not prove that ordinary phone calls cause it or that it explains anticipating a call. Transmitter power in watts alone is insufficient: pulse characteristics, distance, geometry and energy absorbed in tissue matter. Scientific review: mechanisms and thresholds of the microwave auditory effect.
My reading after this check: noticing secondary sensory cues deserves investigation. Direct perception of a phone's radio field by a “highly sensitive nervous system” remains an unsupported hypothesis. I therefore do not use it as an established explanation of my experience.
Acoustic noise from electronic components
Coil whine usually refers to acoustic noise associated with mechanical vibration of inductive components. Some ceramic capacitors can also produce acoustic noise through material deformation as voltage changes. Such sounds should not all be called “ultrasound” or “coil whine” regardless of their source.
For my idea, the question is whether a faint but audible sound could attract attention before we recognise why. That differs from claiming that “peripheral hearing” necessarily detects ultrasound. Murata: acoustic noise in ceramic capacitors.
Tactile and temperature perception
Tactile perception concerns touch, pressure and vibration; temperature perception concerns warmth and cold. These are real sensory processes. Whether a particular phone produces a perceptible change before ringing is a separate question requiring measurement; I do not assume it is proven here.
Chance coincidence remains another possible explanation. Thinking of someone just before they call does not by itself prove that I detected a technical signal.
3. Why 11:11 stays in memory
Repeated numbers illustrate how attention and memory can change our impression of frequency. There is no need to give every mechanism the same name:
- Frequency illusion, popularly associated with the “Baader–Meinhof phenomenon”: after something attracts our attention, we notice it more often and it can seem more widespread.
- Selective attention: some signals receive more attention than others. Symmetrical numbers may stand out from ordinary clock readings.
- Confirmation bias: the tendency to seek or interpret information in support of an existing expectation.
- Selective remembering: impressive matches are easier to remember than many ordinary glances at the clock.
If I remember 11:11 but not 14:27, I am comparing differently remembered moments, not a complete diary of observations. The impression “it happened again” can become stronger than the available data.
4. Time perception: a habit is not a second-perfect clock
Time perception is our subjective judgement of duration and sequence. Habits and environmental cues may help us remember a particular time. This does not mean the subconscious has a perfect timer that always counts exact seconds.
Attention, memory and context contribute to estimating time. Review: Time perception, attention, and memory.
In my interpretation, the familiar rhythm of the day can form part of the context I call “metadata”. Its role in a particular coincidence remains a question, not a predetermined answer.
5. Premonition, intuition and déjà vu are different
Premonition describes a feeling about an upcoming event. An intuitive judgement arises without consciously tracing every reasoning step. Déjà vu is the feeling that a present situation has already been experienced; it is not another name for predicting the future.
Precise words do not make the experience less interesting. They help us ask more precise questions: what did I feel, what did I expect and what actually happened?
6. Machine monitoring: the analogy that inspires me
A real technical principle brings me back to “psychoelectronics”: condition monitoring. A machine may still be running while measurements already show a change from its usual behaviour.
Specialised systems and technical teams monitor vibration, acoustic noise, temperature, electric current, power and other parameters depending on the equipment. Data are compared with previous measurements and suitable limits for the operating mode. Anomaly detection identifies deviations; a deviation calls for analysis and is not automatically proof of a fault.
This approach can support condition-based maintenance and predictive maintenance. In the first, actions depend on the observed condition; in the second, analysis supports forecasts of future deterioration and planning interventions. Not every alarm predicts exactly when a failure will occur.
Examples include vibration and temperature monitoring at SKF and maintenance measurement methods at Fluke. SKF: vibration and temperature monitoring; Fluke: condition-monitoring methods; Fluke: monitoring electrical parameters.
My comparison: could familiar surroundings have their own usual “sound”, and might our attention sometimes notice a change before we explain it consciously?
This is an analogy between detecting changes in machines and human perception. It inspires my reflection but does not prove that the brain measures electrical power or inaudible frequencies, or predicts phone calls. Machines have sensors and recorded measurements; for people, we must separately establish which signal existed, whether it was perceived and how it affected expectation.
My conclusion: curiosity that leaves room for testing
I do not need “psychoelectronics” to be a recognised scientific discipline to enjoy the expression. For me it is a way of thinking about people among technologies—attention, context, memories and coincidences.
Sometimes we might notice more than we can immediately explain. We might also give meaning to chance. I do not want to close the question with a ready-made verdict; I want to make it more precise.
Analysing the data around us means recording both hits and misses. To test a premonition, I record it before the event, define in advance what counts as a hit and track every attempt. This preserves curiosity without turning an impression into evidence.
