Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Final Report (Rev.)-Task 6.0.2 9 Januwy 1990 OBSERVATION OF NEUROMAGNETIC FIELDS IN RESPONSE TO REMOTE STIMULI Prepared by: Edwin C. May Wanda W. Luke Virginia V. Trask Thane J. Frivold SG1J Prepared for: ontract ng cer s Technical Representative SRI Project 1291 Approved by: Murray J.13aron, Director Geoscience and Engineering Center 333 Ravenswood Avenue e Menlo Park, CA 94025-3493 9 (415) 326-6200 FAX: (415) 326-5512 Telex: 334486 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 ABSTRACT We have conducted a conceptual replication of an SRI/Langley Porter study in which a single subject's central nervous system (CNS) responded to a remote, and isolated flashing light. The CNS activity of eight remote viewers was monitored by a seven-channel magnetoencephalograph (MEG). Visual stimu- li were randomly presented to an isolated individual who acted as a "sender" while MEG data were col- lected from a viewer (receiver). The stimuli were 55--cm square, linear, vertical, sinusoidal gratings lasting 100 ins (remote stimuli). Time markers were randomly inserted into the data stream as control points (pseudo stimuli). The dependent variable was the root-mean-square (RMS) average phase shift of the dominant alpha frequency. Using a Monte Carlo technique to estimate p-values, we observed signifi- cant (combined across all viewers) RMS phase shifts resulting from the remote stimuli (Zs - 1. 99, p:!!~ 0. 024, effect size - 0. 599). Similarly, the combined statistic for the pseudo stimuli was also significant (Zs - 2 92, p :5 0.002, effect size - 0. 924). The phase shifts from the remote and the pseudo stimuli are independently not characteristic of the data at large. This result was unexpected, and suggests that we may have observed a CNS response to an unintended stimulus (i.e., electromagnetic interference, EMI, from the computing hardware). However, in the SRI/Langley Porter study, EMI had been eliminated, thus, it remains possible that the CNS changes resulted from an anomalous form of information transfer. Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................ ii LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................... V I INTRODUCTION ............................................................. I 1.Physiological Correlates to Psychoenergetic Functioning: A Brief History ......... 1 2.Tbchnological Background .................................................. I II METHOD OF APPROACH .................................................... 4 1.General Description ....................................................... 4 2.Protocol .................................................................. 4 3.Data Analyses ............................................................. 6 4.Monte Carlo Calculations ................................................... 6 IIIRESULTS ..................................................................... 8 1.Calculations ............................................................... 8 2.Monte Carlo Estimates of Significance ...................................... 14 3.Results: Button Presses .................................................... 15 IV D ISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................... 16 1.Root-Mean-Square Phase ................................................. 16 2.Viewer Dependencies ..................................................... 18 3.Pseudo Stimuli ........................................................... 19 REFERENCE ................................................................ 21 Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 LIST OF TABLES 1. Results of Monte Carlo Calculation for RMS Phase .................................. 15 2. Data Schema for Interval Conditions ............................................... 15 3. Button Pressing Results ........................................................... 15 4. Comparison Between Monte Carlo Phases and Theory ............................... 17 Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli IV Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 LIST OF FIGURES I. Schematic Timing Protocol-Single Run ............................................. 5 2. Sensor Position Relative to the Inion (0,0) for Mewwer 002 ............................. 5 3. Idealized Results for a Single Stimulus ............................................... 6 4. Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Time Average ...................................... 8 5. Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Power Spectra of Time Average (RS) ................. 9 6. Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Average Power Spectra (RS) ........................ 10 7. Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Average Power Gain (RS) .......................... 10 8. Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: RMS Phase (RS) .................................. 11 9. Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Time Average (PS) ................................ 11 10. Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Power Spectra of Time Average (PS) ................ 12 11. Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Average Power Spectra (PS) ........................ 12 12. Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Aver-age Power Gain (PS) .......................... 13 13. Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: RMS Phase (PS) .................................. 13 14. Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: RMS Phase: Sensor: 2: RS - 118 ................... 14 15. Idealize Distributions for Relative Phase Shifts ...................................... 17 16. Phase Distributions for Viewer 002: 8/25/88 ......................................... 18 17. Phase Distributions for Viewer 007: 3/29/89 ......................................... 18 18. Phase p-values for Viewer 002: 8/25/88 ............................................. 18 19. Sequence of Events for Stimuli Generation .......................................... 19 Observation of Neuromagnetle Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli v Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 combination of electrical signals and chemical in- teractions. It is beyond the scope of this report to describe the cellular physiology involved, but is sufficient to say that this activity produces inag- netic fields (predominantly dipole) that can be sensed externally. .I Tle sensing device of a MEG is a cryogenic super- conducting quantum interference device (SQUID) coupled with a gradiometer. SQUIDs currently being used are cooled by liquid helium. At a few degrees above absolute zero, an electri- cal current can flow through a superconduc;tor with no applied voltage. The material of the SQUID consists of superconducting loops with two sections of thin insulating material connect- ing them (Josephson Junctions). This configura- tion is referred to as a DC SQUID. Some electrons can tunnel through this insulation. Tle presence of a weak magnetic field produces a phase difference for the wave function of the magnetic field [and] produces a phase difference for the wave function of the electrons across this barrier. The resulting interference pattern pro- duced by the two different wave functions on each side of the barrier can be used to indicate the strength of these extremely weak magnetic fields. The neuronal magnetic fields from the human brain are only about 10-13 tesla, while the earth's magnetic field is 10-4 tesla and normal urban noise is about 10-7 tesla. Care must be taken, therefore, to assure that the signal-to-noise ratio is favorable. This has been taken into considera' tion by the manufacturer of MEG equipment (BTi of San Diego, California), who has designed highly shielded sensors that use a second-order coupled gradiometer to reduce the environ- mental noise by about 106. The use of an alumi- num and g-metal magnetically shielded room can further reduce the noise by a factor of 103. If used together, these two precautionary measures can reduce the ambient noise by a factor of about 109-equivatent to the internal SQUID noise. Because a MEG responds best to neuronal cur- rents that are parallel to the skull (i.e., currents producing magnetic fields oriented tangentially to the skull), neuronal currents perpendicular to the skull may be missed. In reality, however, few neuronal electrical currents are exactly perpen- dicular to the skull, so some tangential compo- nent is almost always available to the SQUID. Searching for a closely packed group of neurons can be a slow and tedious process. Due to techno- logical r6straints, a maximum of seven sensors can be usedsimultaneously to gather MEG measure- ments. Sensors on a seven-channel MEG are lo- cated on a 2-cm equilateral triangular grid forming the center and vertices of a regular hexa- gon. A subject wears a spandex cap with grid marks lined up with his nasion, inion, and earlobes to serve as a head-centered coordinate system. 7b identify the location of a neuronal-equivalent current dipole, many measurements have to be taken. Isocontour maps of field strength are used to represent the amplitude and polarity distribu- tion of the magnetic fields. A least-squaresproce- dure is applied to the observed fields to estimate the location of neuronal sources and orientation of the equivalent current dipole.8 The estimated locationof the neuronal source can then be iden- tified anatomically with a magnetic resonance im- age scan of the head. Developments in technology may soon allow for enough channels to cover the whole head at once, thereby reducing data collec- tion time and increasing precision. MEG technology is based on a cryogenic SQUID operating in liquid helium. Because the Dewar flask cannot exceed a 45-degree angle, subjects must lie prone beneath the apparatus. MEG sen- sors are not attached to the head, but are lowered into position over the skull; the subject cannot move his head during monitoring without disturb- ing the measurement. For these two reasons, MEG equipment is not suited for long-term monitoring of a subject. Ilese problems may be solved in the near future as new technology, such as high-temperature SQUIDs, develops. A response from the MEG is a complex waveform consisting of a series of negative and positive peaks or components. Specific components of this waveform. can be correlated with perceptual and cognitive processes. The most commonly ob- served response to a visual or auditory stimulus, for example, is a large component occurring ap- proximately 100 ms after the onset of the stimu- lus. One hundred milliseconds appears to be the average latency period between stimulus and the first correlated neuronal activation in the brain.8 The earlier EEG technology measures electric potential, or event-related potentials (ERPs) pro- duced by the electrical activity of the brain. A MEG measures the magnetic fields, or event-re- lated fields (ERFs) produced by the electrical ac- tivity of specific groups of active neurons in the cortex. An EEG and a MEG, therefore, reveal different aspects of the electrical activity of the Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields in Response to Remote Stimuli 2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000108108: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 brain and are often used as complementary tech- nologies. In some areas, however, the MEG tech- nique has definite advantages over the EEG: (2) (1) ERPs taken from the scalp provide little in- formation regarding the precise three- dimensional distribution of the neuronal sites producing the electrical activity. Brain tissues of unknown electrical conductivity and thick- ness, individual variations in skull thickness and geometry, and proximity to openings in the skull all make obtaining such detailed in- formation difficult. The same is not true when using a MEG. Neuronal magnetic fields can travel through brain tissues without being significantly altered; this property, coupled with the dipole model, results in high spatial resolution of the neuronal activity. EEG procedures are occasionally costly and can be invasive: EEG electrodes must be at- tached directly to the skull or to the brain of the subject, whereas MEG sensors are ex- trucranial and are simply lowered into posi- tion against the skull. (3) There is much controversy over the appropri- ate reference electrode in EEG work (a ref- erence electrode is required with electric potential measurements, because only differ- ences in electric potential are measured). There is no such problem with a MEG, be- cause the measurement of magnetic fields is absolute. Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 3 Approved For Release 2000108108: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 11 METHODS OF APPROACH Our goal was to conduct a conceptual replication of the earlier SRI/Langley Porter experiments. Our basic hypothesis is that a viewer's CNS would respond to a remote light stimulus. 1. General Description Using a seven-sensor MEG in a shielded room, we investigated the occipital-cortex neuronal magnetic activity that might occur in response to a remote "visual" stimulus. the length of one run. One session usually consists of 10 runs. 2.1.1 Viewers Eight viewers were selected for this experiment. Four were known to be good remote viewers, and four were staff members with unknown viewing ability. Each viewer contributed a minimum of one and a maximum of three independent ses- sions. 2.1.2 Senders The following definitions may be helpful: ~ Viewe -An individual who attempts extrasen- sorimotor communication with the environ- ment (e.g., the perception of remote stimuli). ~Direct StimulL(M-Visual stimuli occurring within the normal visual sensory channels. ~Sende -An individual who, while receiving di rect stimul4 acts as a putative transmitter to a remote individual (i.e., viewer) who is attempt- ing to receive the same information via ex- trasensorimotor communication. ~Rem tc Stimuli (B~-Visual stimuli occurring outside the normal range of known sensory channels. ~Pseudo Stimuli (ES)-A time marker in the data stream with no associated stimuli. In this report, a direct stimulus to the sender is also considered as a remote stimulus to the view- er. 2. Protocol 2.1 General Considerations To begin a session, a sender is isolated in a room while a viewer is monitored by a MEG in a shielded room about 40 m away. Only the sender is presented with a number of direct visual stimuli at random intervals within a 120-second period, The senders in all sessions were either various staff members who were well known to the view- ers or they were spouses. 2.1.3 Dependent Variable The dependent variable is the root-mean-square (RMS) phase shift of the primary alpha activity as a result averaged over all RS. 2.2 Specific Protocol Details 2.2.1 Stimuli Remote stimuli consisted of a standard video en- coded blank screen with a 5-cm square, linear, vertical, sinusoidal grating lasting about 100 ms. These stimuli (DS to the sender) subtended 2 de- grees in the lower left visual field of the sender. This was maintained by asking the sender to focus his visual attention on a permanent mark on the monitor. During the experiments described in this report, no attempt was made to monitor the sender in any way. Pseudo stimuli consisted of the blank screen without the superimposed grating, and were included as a putative within-run con- trol. 2.2.2 Runnmlng Figure 1 shows a schematic timing diagram for one run. No two stimuli of any type were allowed to occur within a 3-second period of each other. A stimulus may occur, however, any time within a 4.5-second window thereafter. 'Me sender was Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 4 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 presented with a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 15 DS occurring at random intervals within a 120-second period. In all but the first session, a random number of pseudo stimuli (i.e., random time markers with no concomitant stimuli-PS) were added as a within-run control. A viewer was never presented with direct stimuli except in lo- cating the maximal response to the visual areas (see Section 11.2.2.4). Pseudo Stimuli 0 Remote Stimuli 120s Figurel Schematic Timing Protocol -Single Run 2.2.3 Instructions to Viewers In all sessions, the viewers were completely in- formed about the details of the experiments. Prior to their placement on the MEG table, they were shown the location of the RS display moni- tor, and were instructed to place their attention upon it or the sender during the session. For some sessions, the viewer was instructed to press a fiber-optic-coupled button when he felt that he perceived stimuli. Each button press was marked in the data record. Button pressing was retained in this protocol as part of the conceptual replication. 2.2.4 Sensor-array Placement and Calibra- tion We selected the location for the sensor array by optimizing the viewer's response to direct visual stimuli. Inherent in this choice is an assumption that may not be valid: namely, that neurons par- ticipating in a reaction to RS are the same as those that respond to DS. The sensor locations were then marked on an acetate transparency to allow for accurate repositioning of the sensors in later sessions. One such placement (right occipital- minus centimeters from the inion indicate the right hemisphere) is shown for viewer 002 in Fig- ure 2. It should be noted that MEG sensor place- ments do not necessarily correspond to conventional EEG electrode placement. For a calibration, the viewer was fitted with a spandex cap with grid marks aligned with his in- ion, nasion, and earlobes (Le, head-centered co-, ordinate system). The viewer was then placed as comfortably as possible on an observation table beneath the MEG. He must lie face down and look though a hole in the table to view the DS via a system of mirrors. These stimuli were displayed by a projector located outside the entrance to the shielded room. The sensors of the MEG were lowered from above to touch his head over the right occipital lobe. In this configuration, the sen- sor array was moved at the end of 30 DS to a posi- tion that optimized his response to the DS. Once found, the array position was marked on the cap for subsequent repositioning. 3 2 Distance 1 4 (cm) 0, -11 -2- 1-2 -3 4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9-10 Distance (cm) Figure 2 Sensor Position Relative to the Inion (0,0) for Viewer 002 2.2.5 Sequence of Events for a Session The following is the schedule of events for a ses- sion: e Collect approximately 10 minutes of back- ground data with no viewer or sender present and the MEG in full operation. * Isolate the sender with the stimulus display de- vice. e With the viewer on the table, position the sen- sor array at the calibration point. 9 At time - 0, start the monitoring of data with computer-generated trigger. Data are col- lected the entire 120 seconds at a rate of 200 samples per second. * At time < 120 seconds, present 9 to 15 remote and 9 to 15 PS to the sender. e At time > 120 seconds, allow the viewer to re- lax for about 2 to 5 minutes without leaving the table. This break generally consists of the send- er entering the shielded room to engage the viewer in conversation. Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 5 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 9 Collect nine additional runs with the same pro- cedure while the viewer remains positioned on the table under the MEG. 3. Data Analyses If our initial assumption about sensor positioning is true, and if the earlier results are replicated, we expect to see a change in alpha production as a re- sult of the RS. We might also expect an evoked re- sponse similar to visual ERFs. Figure 3 is an idealized illustration of these expected results in the time-series data. Times less than zero are prestimulus; times greater than zero are poststi- mulus. The stimulus lasts 100 ms. Evoked Response Decreased a 1000 -.,k Alpha 7& 0- aft - _100d -500 0 Soo Time (ms) Figure 3 Idealized Results for a Single Stimulus For each session, the following was computed for each RS and PS, respectively: (1) Five hundred ms of pre- and post-stimulus time-series data were separately detrended and filtered (40 Hz lowpass). (2) The power spectrum was computed for each 500-ms pre- and post-stimulus period. (3) The relative phase change of the dominant alpha frequency from pre- to post-stimulus period was computed as the arctangent of the ratio of the imaginary and real component of the transfer function. The transfer function is defined as the ratio of the FFT of the post- stimulus period divided by the FIT of the pre-stimulus period. (4) One thousand ms of time-series data (i.e., 500 ms pre- and post-stimulus) was sepa- rately detrended and filtered (40 Hz lowpass). In addition, the following averages were com- puted across all RS and PS, respectively: (5) The average power pre- and post-stimulus. (6) The root-mean-square (RMS) average phase shift. (7) The 1000-ms time average of the pre- and post-stimulus periods taken as a single re- cord. (8) The "power spectra" of the pre- and post- stimulus time averages were computed. (We recognize that a power spectrum of a fte av- erage is not an accurate representation of the average power spectrum, however it is an in- dicator of phase shift.) 4. Monte Carlo Calculations The analysis of CNS activity has always been prob- lematic, because alpha bursts lasting from 0.1 to a few seconds occur at random intervals. From a statistical point of view, the data fail to satisfy at least two underlying assumptions of the usual sta- tistical methods (e.g., ANOVA and MANOVA). Most standard statistical tests assume that all samples of the data are independent. MANOVA can be configured to remove this particular as- sumption, nonetheless, it and the other tests as- sume that the process under study is stationary; that is, whatever the statistical properties are, they remain constant over time. In other words, the measured properties should not depend upon when the activity is sampled. CNS time series data do not satisfy either of these assumptions. Th avoid these difficulties, and to obtain probabil- ity estimates of the observed RMS phase shifts, we adopted a simple Monte Carlo approach. In the usual statistical analysis, the phase shift is compared to an ideal distribution, or its likelihood of occurrence is computed using some nonpara- metric technique. Both techniques attempt to de- termine the degree to which the observed phase shift is exceptional, given the universal set of all possible data. The Monte Carlo method that we used, however, can only determine the degree to which the observed phase shift is exceptional, given the available data sample. Thus, a new Monte Carlo estimate must be computed for each individual data set. The general Monte Carlo procedure is as follows: (1) Using the same timing algorithm to create the original RS, generate N sets of M stimul4 where M is the number of original RS. (2) For each pass (I ... N), compute the RMS phase shift averaged over M remote stimuli. Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 (3) Sort the resulting N values to form the RMS this p-value is not the probability that the phase shift distribution in the given data sam- measure is as large, given a different data ple. sample. (4) Compute the probability that the observed value would be as large (or larger), given a re- We have used this technique to Compute P-values peated random sample of the data. Note that for the RMS phase shifts throughout this report. Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 7 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Eight viewers (002, 007, 009, 372, 374, 389, 454, and 531) from SRI International participated in the effort. Viewers 002, 009, 372, and 389 were ex- perienced, with strong track records. Viewers 007, 374, and 53 1, had not previously participated in remote viewing experiments. Viewer 454 had participated in novice remote viewing training and has produced significant evidence of remote viewing ability. 1. Calculations To illustrate the reduction of the raw data, we use the 25 September 1988 session from viewer 002. Figure 4 shows the time average over all RS of the amplitude (femto Tesla) of the magnetic CNS ac- III RESULTS tivity of viewer 002's response to RS. The data from all seven sensors are displayed in a pattern that is similar to the physical sensor array. Each sensor is labeled in a highlighted box. The number of stimuli comprising the average (118) is shown in the key. The onset of the 100-ms stimulus is rep- resented at time - 0, so negative time represents the pre-stimulus period and positive time repre- sents the post-stimulus period. The total time pe- riod shown is I second. Because the stimuli are at random times relative to any uncorrelated CNS activity, averaging has reduced random single-sti- mulus amplitudes byln- where n is the number of stimuli. Sensor 7 shows a clear change from a slow, regular alpha rhythm during the pre-stimu- lus period, to one of higher frequency, post- stimulus. 150 L 75 0 VM -75 -150 .... 0M 01* Remote Stimuli 118 Time (MS) 600 Figure 4 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Time Average Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Figure 5 shows this change of alpha in the fre- quency domain. For each sensor, the power spec- trum of its corresponding time series is displayed from 0 to 40 Hz. The power spectra are shown in- dependently for the pre- and post-stimulus peri- ods (separated by a dashed vertical line). Sensor 7 shows a strong 10-Hz peak pre-stimulus that van- ishes post-stimulus Similar alpha reductions can be seen in all of the other six sensors. The power spectrum of a time series average is not an indicator of the average power spectrum of the CNS activity, because time averages are phase sensitive and power spectra are not. Figure 6 illus- trates this by showing the average power spectra (i.e., calculated on a stimulus-by-stimulus basis and then averaged) for the pre- and post-stimu- lus periods. Remote Stimuli 118 N 9.0, 4.5- 0 -AA, 0 . 0 10 20 30 40 Frequency C&) Figure 5 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Power of Time Average Figure 7 shows the ratio of the post- to pre-stimu- lus power. A dashed horizontal line is shown to in- dicate a gain of 1 (i.e., no change across the stimulus boundary). In this example, there is little change of CNS power across the stimulus bound- ary throughout the frequency range. Because a time average is sensitive to relative phase and a power spectrum is not, these data sug- gest that a relative phase shift occurs between pre- and post-stimulus periods. Figure 8 shows this relative RMS phase shift computed from 0 to 40 Hz for all sensors. As was the case for the time- series data, the RMS average was computed over n - 118 RS. In accordance with the protocol (Sec- tion 11.3), the dependent variable was the RMS phase only at the dominant a-frequency. At this point we are unable to determine if the variations seen in Figures 4 through 8 are mean- ingful. Thward that end, the identical quantities for the PS are shown in Figures 9 through 13. 'n e "power" of the time averages for the remote stim- uli differ markedly from those of the PS spectra (Figures 5 and 10). Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 9 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Remote Stimuli 118 6.. I 3-- 0 10 20 30 40 Frequency (11z) Figure 6 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Average Power Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 10 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Figure 7 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Average Power Gain Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-;RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 ED Ps,,do Stimuli] 74 7 In E -7 -150 0 300 Time (ms) Figure 9 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Time Average Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Figure 8 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: RMS Phase Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 I ID Pseudo Stimu 74 , L 1.0 0.5- - 0.0 Emu 0 10 20 30 40 Frequency (Hz) Figure 10 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Power of Time Average Pseudo Stimu 74 L 6 EO 3- - 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 2 0~O 1 I Frequency (Hz) Figure 11 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Average Power Observation of Neuromagnotic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 12 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 13 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Figure 12 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Average Power Gain Figure 13 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: RMS Phase Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 2. Monte Carlo Estimates of Significance To determine if the changes that are seen qualita- tively are exceptional, we analyzed the data by the Monte Carlo procedure outlined in Section IIA. We simulated the RS by generating 500 sets of Monte Carlo stimuli using the same random tim- ing algorithm and number as in the original data. For each set, the RMS phase was calculated as de- 'bed in Section 11.3- The resulting 500 Monte scri Carlo RMS phases were sorted as a descending array, and the fraction of phases equal to or larger than the observed RS value was represented as a p-value. (The p-value is bounded on the low end by 1/500.) Figure 14 shows a histogram of one such Monte Carlo run, again using the data from viewer 002 as an example. The values of the RMS phase for the remote and pseudo stimuli are marked by vertical lines (see the key in Figure 14). In accordance with the earlier study6 in which we observed changes in alpha power, we established a single criterion for the selection of a sensor for analysis: the pre-stimulus average alpha power above background is larger than it is in any other sensor. Uble I shows the viewer identification, date, sensor chosen for analysis, and the p-value (as defined above) for the RMS phase shift for the remote and pseudo stimuli, respectively. The p-values shown in Uble I are all single tailed (i.e., the area in the upper tail). Because the distri- bution of means is approximately normal, we have converted the empirical p-values to their respec- tive two-tailed z-scores. If the p-value was less than 0.5, the z-score shown in Uble I was com- puted from the inverse normal distribution as- suming a p-value twice the one shown. If the p-value was more than 0.5, we subtracted it from 1.0, doubled the result, and computed the z-score as above. To test the null hypothesis that the com- bined RS phase shifts are characteristic of the data, we computed a standard Stouffer's Z (Z,) for the 11 sessions shown in Uble 1. There is statisti- cal evidence that the data within ± 0.5 seconds of the RS are not characteristic of the data at large (Zs - 1. 99, p :,i!9 0. 024, effect size - 0.599). Simi- larly, the combined statistic for the PS indicates that these data are also not characteristic (Z, - 2.92, p :!9 0,002, effect size - 0.924). Therefore, there appears to be some statistical anomaly asso- ciated with the RMS phase shifts for both stimuli types. 0.50- Passes: Key 500 P-Values Real: 0.002 Pseudo: 0.846 7 0.40- 0.30- 0.20 0.10- 0.0 0~_ 0 64 8 112 06 160 RMS Phase (deg) Figure 14 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: RMS P hase: Sensor: 2: RS - 118 Observation of Neuromagnotic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 14 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 7hble 1 Results of Monte Carlo Calculation for RMS Phase P-Valu Z-Sco (1-tail) (2-tafl) I.D. Date Sensor Remote Pseudo Remote Pseudo 009 06/24/88 6 0.650 - -0.524 - 002 08/25/98 2 0.002 0.848 2.653 0.513 09/26/98 6 0.904 0.966 0.871 1.491 372 10/19/88 7 0.094 0.168 0.885 0.423 374 03/29/89 6 0.154 0.810 0.501 0.305 007 03/29/89- 7 0.970 0.180 1.555 0.358 389 05/23/89 4 0.288 0.040 -0.191 1.405 05/24189 5 0.260 0.016 -0.050 1.852 05/25/89 4 0.120 0.922 0.706 1.011 531 05/24/89 4 0.814 0.134 0.274 0.619 454 05/25/89 4 0.732 0.052 -0.090 1.259 , 3. Results: Button Presses In the early SRI study6, significant changes in al- pha production were observed in response to an RS. Ile statistical evidence, however, did not in- dicate that the viewer was able to recognize an RS cognitively (i.e., the viewer's button presses rela- tive to the RS did not exceed mean chance expec- tation). In the current experiment, viewers 002, 009, and 372 were asked to press a button whenever they "perceived" an RS. The total number of stimuli during a session of 10 runs was not known in ad- vance because of the randomization procedure. The null hypothesis is that the probability of a time interval having a stimulus is the same for those intervals with a button press as for those without a button press. In other words, the pres- ence or absence of a stimulus is independent of the presence or absence of a button press. We tested this null hypothesis to determine if a viewer is cognitively aware of the RS. In 74ble 2, the fractional hitting rate is pi - AI(A +B), and the fractional missing rate isp2 - CI(C+D). The total number of 1-second inter- vats is N - (A + B + C + D), and the total stimulus rate is po - (A+ QIN. ThbIe 2 Data Schema for Interval Conditions Stimulus Yes No ResponseYes A B No C D I I Tlien, under the null hypothesis, the following statistic is approximately normally distributed with a mean of 0 and a variance of 1: (PI -P2) Z=- VP0 0 - PO) ( (A+B) + (C+D) 7hble 3 shows Npo, pi, pj, z, p-value, and the effect size, r, for the three sessions for which~ button- press data were collected. As in the earlier SRI study, there is no indication that the viewers were cognitively aware of the RS. Uble 3 Button Pressing Results Viewer N PO pi P2 z p r 002 1210 0.167 0.198 0.164 0.951 0.163 0.027 009 1290 0.091 0.068 0.094 -0.978 0.836 -0.027 372 1089 0.157 0.119 0.160 -0.996 0.940 -0.030 Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli is Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS We have found statistical evidence that the rela- tive phase shift from -0.5 to 0.5 seconds of an RS are not characteristic of the data at large (Z, - 1. 99, p ::!g 0. 024, e ffect size - 0.599). ne com- bined statistic for the PS indicates that the relative phase shift from -0.5 to 0.5 seconds of a PS are also not characteristic of the data at large (Zs - 2.92, p :!!g 0.002, effect size = 0.924). Averaged across all viewers, the magnitude of the results, as indicated by their effect sizes of 0.599 and 0.924, respectively, is considered robust by accepted be- havioral criteria defined by Cohen.9* 1. Root- M ean-Sq uare Phase Searching for a change of phase as a result of an RS is a natural extension of results quoted in the literature. For example, Rebert and Tbrner6 re- port an example of photic driving (i.e., an extreme example of phase locking) at 16 Hz. In their work, a subject was exposed to a 16-Hz visual DS ran- domly balanced with no stimulus during 4-second epochs. The average power spectra showed ap- proximately 10-Hz alpha activity during the no- light epochs, and a strong 16-Hz and no 10-Hz peak during the 16-Hz epochs. One interpretation of their result is that the alpha rhythm was blocked, and the CNS "locked" on to the flashing stimulus. Eason, Oden, White and White,' 0 report a phase-shift phenomenon when a rare stimulus, which is random relative to the in- ternal alpha activity, is presented as a DS: "...when a stimulus flash is presented, the resultingprimary evoked response acts as a trigger stimulus which temporarily synchronized a certain percentage of the neural elements normally under the influence of an internal pacemaker ... Desynchronization of the elements participating in the evoked response would occur as the elements are brought back under the influence ofan internalpacemaker or are affected by neurons not involved in the response. In other words, the internal alpha is momentarily interrupted by an external stimulus, and, in the absence of continuing external stimuli, returns back to its original frequency, but at a random phase relative to its pre-stimulus state. To understand what would be expected in our ex- periment for the distribution of RMS phases dur- ing the Monte Carlo simulations, we examine a hypothetical case. Suppose that the viewer's alpha activity was a continuous wave at a single fre- quency. A phase change is computed between 500 ms before and 500 ms after each Monte Carlo "stimulus." Therefore, regardless of the entry point, the relative phase change would be zero, and the RMS phase over many such "stimuli'. would also be zero. Real alpha activity, however, is not continuous, Rather, it appears in bursts lasting from 100 to 5000 ms. Random Monte Carlo "stimuli" would sometimes occur within such bursts and some- times near the edges. Thus, we would expect a nonzero RMS phase over many such "stimuli," but the individual relative phases would not be uniformly distributed. Depending upon the view- ers' alpha characteristics, the distributions would be enhanced near zero RMS phase. If we assume that Eason, et al., are correct, and that a phase shift is expected as a result of an RS, then the expected distribution of RMS phases is uniformly distributed on [-.Tr, 7r]. In this case, the phase change is related to the relative timing be- tween the external stimulus and the internal al- pha-a completely random relationship. Thus, the variance of the RMS phases in the experimen- tal condition should be larger than those com- puted during the Monte Carlo runs. Figure 15 is a schematic representation of these models. Values of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 correspond to small, medium, and large effects, respectively. Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 16 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Continuous Alpha Remote Stimulus 01 Monte Carlo I Figure 15 Idealized Distributions for Relative Phase Shifts As a first step in testing these models, we com- puted the expected variance for the RMS phase, given that the individual phases are uniformly dis- tributed on [w, Tr]. Using a 7hylor Series expan- sion for RMS phase, the variance is given by: 110 3 , ;r2 _r UY2 = - I - -~-] (rad') , or n I On 2160 (deg2), n where n is the number of individual phases. Thble 4 shows the viewer identification, the two- tailed z-score from Thble 1, the number of RS, the theoretical variance for the RMS phase, the ob- served variance from the Monte Carlo runs of:500 passes each, and the X2 and its associated p-value for a variance-ratio test. Combining the X2 across all 11 sessions gives an overall significant result (X2 - 5121.5, df - 5489, p :5~ 0.0002). This indicates that the Monte- Carlo-derived variances are significantly smaller than the theoretical variances based on uniformly distributed phases. The two viewers who demon- strated the largest z-scores (002 and 007) also show sharply reduced Monte Carlo variances. '&ble 4 Comparison Between Monte Carlo Phases and Theory I Z-Score Number Variance X2 P D of of RMS l Phase V . - . (RS) RS TheoreticalObserved df - a 499 ue 009 -0.524 96 22.50 25.46 564.6 0.978 002 2.653 118 18.31 13.63 371.5 4.9 x 10-6 0.871 76 28.42 24.43 428.1 0.010 372 0.885 90 24.00 23.25 483.4 0.316 374 0.501 102 21.18 18.64 439.2 0.025 007 1.555 93 23.23 18.66 400.8 4.6 x 10-4 389 -0.191 97 22.27 23.35 523.2 0.780 -0.050 92 23.48 22.29 473/7 0.214 0.706 98 22.04 20.22 457.8 0.093 531 0.274 101 21.39 21.05 491.1 0.408 1 -0.090 52 1 41.54 40.48 1 487.3 0.363 454 1 1 1 1 1 We must conclude that a uniforin distribution for the phase is not a good assumption. To determine what the phase distribution was for the RS, we constructed histograms from the raw data. Figure 16 shows the distribution of phases for the RS and Monte Carlo stimuli for viewer 002. While the RS distribution is enhanced near =L180 degrees and suppressed near 0 degrees compared to the Monte Carlo distribution, the differences are small (X2 - 10.62, df = 8, p::!~ 0.224) and, therefore, the random-phase model does not ap- pear to be a good fit to the data for viewer 002 on his 25 September session. Figure 17 shows the same distributions for viewer 007. In this case, the RS distribution is nearly uni- form on [-180,180] degrees, but it differs only We thank Professor Jessica M. Utts, Statistics Department, University of California, Davis, California, for suggesting this approach. Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 17 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 -Tr 0 IT Phase (radians) Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 slightly from the Monte Carlo distribution (X2 - 9.47, df - 8, p < 0.304). From the data shown in Thble 4, we see that the X2 indicates significant overall differences between the theoretical and observed phase distributions However, Figures 16 and 17 show that the differ. ences between RS and Monte Carlo distributions are small. It is most probable, therefore, that the RS coupling to the CNS is weak, in general, and that the position of the sensor array is not neces- sarily optimized to sense the phase changes. 2. Viewer Dependencies Viewers 002, 009, and 372 have produced consis- tent remote viewing resultsfor manyyears-since 1972 for viewers 002 and 009, and since 1979 for viewer 372. Viewer 389 is a recent addition, and has produced examples of excellent remote view- ing in the only experiment in which he has partici- pated; however, he has produced significant results in another laboratory. Whereas viewer 002 produced the largest z-score (Z, - 2.653), viewer 009 produced the smallest (Z, = -0.524). The combined effect size for the experienced viewers is 0.621, and is 0.559 for the inexperienced view- ers. Ile difference is not significant. There are two considerations that prevent draw- ing conclusions about the viewer dependence of the data. The number of independent samples is small, but the most compelling argument against drawing conclusions is that placement of the sen- sor array is a seriously confounding factor. As stated in Section 11.2, we positioned the array in a location that maximized the response to a DS. This may not be the appropriate positioning for everyone. Indeed, it might not be optimal for any- one. 'Ib determine if there were any "obvious" spatial dependencies that might indicate a more optimal array placement, we computed a complete set (all sensors) of Monte Carlo distributions for one ses- sion for viewer 002. Figure 18 shows the single- tailed p-values for the RMS phases for the RS and PS. They are displayed in the standard sen- sor-array configuration. The pattern for the RS suggests that a more optimal positioning of the ar- ray would be in the sensor 2-7 direction as indi- cated by an arrow in Figure 18. Figure 17 Phase Distributions for Viewer 007: 3/29/89 Remote Stimuli Pseudo Stimuli 2 -9 21 1 0.002 0.12~ 0.848 0.710 0.036 '1 0.128 '1 0.184 4 1 0.924 '1 0.854 '1 0.668 4 0.572 61 0.238 51 1 0.684 61 0.700 Figure 18 Phase p-values for Viewer 002: 8/25/88 Observation of Neuromagnetle Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 18 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Figure 16 Phase Distributions for Viewer 002: 8/25/88 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 3. Pseudo Stimuli It was initially thought that the PS would act as a within-run control. Tle results indicate, how- ever, that there was, on the average, a larger re- sponse to the PS than to the RS. While the difference was not significant, it is important to note that both of the responses are considered statistically robust (effect sizes of 0.599 and 0.924 for the RS and PS, respectively). A number of viewers' responses appear to produce phases on opposite sides of the Monte Carlo distributions (e.g., viewers 002 and 007), but there is no overall correlation between the RS and PS p-values. A brief description of the hardware and software that is responsible for stimulus generation may help in understanding this outcome. Tle stimuli and their timing are imitated by an HP computer, but are controlled by an IBM PC. Each stimulus type has its own frame buffer within the PC. Our RS consists of a pattern of Is and Os that represent a sinusoidal grating in the center of an otherwise blank field. Tle PS pattern, a blank field that con- sists of all Os, resides in a separate buffer. An in- terface board between the PC and a standard video monitor has its own internal frame buffer, which is automatically and continuously scanned at 30 Hz to provide a standard interleaved video signal. See Figure 19. Stimulus Type RS/PS Stimulus Initiation ------------------ ;;Z4 RS Frame ut Output Frame LFra'i Buffer 4 Buf PS Frame Buffer 'P 4 30 Hz Inter- leaved Video Figure 19 Sequence of Events for Stimuli Generation When the HP computer signals the PC to provide the appropriate stimulus, the following sequence of events are followed (see Figure 19): (1) Phase locked to 60 Hz, the interface frame buffer is loaded with a copy of the appropriate stimulus frame buffer (either RS or PS). (2) Ile interface board automatically sends this pattern interleaved at 30-IU. (3) After a preset time, approximately 100-ms in our experiment, the PC resets the interface frame buffer to zero (blank screen), and waits until another stimulus signal is received. At the video monitor, the PS are indistinguishable from the between-stimuli blank screens. At the PC, however, the PS are distinguishable from the blank screen background, because the PC must copy a frame buffer (albeit all Os) into the output frame buffer. In our experiment, the RS and PS results were statistically identical, and independently, both were significantly different from the Monte Carlo distributions. This raises the question as to what constitutes the target stimulus. Our result is un- expected given the target was considered to be what was displayed on the remote monitor. It is conceivable that the internal activity of the PC, or its companion computer, was acting as an unintended target. If this were true, then there might be an electromagnetic (EM) coupling be- tween the viewer's CNS and the internal elec- tronic activity of the computers. It is well known Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 19 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Main HP IBM PC Monitor Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 that computers radiate EM energies at relatively high frequencies; for frequencies above 100 Hz, the shielded room is transparent. Analysis of the background runs (i.e., data collected in the ab- sence of a sender or viewer) showed no EM cou- pling into the MEG electronics; therefore, it remains possible that the statistical effects we have seen are due to CNS responses to remote bursts of EM energy. Let us assume that the overall RS and PS effects are meaningful. Since the PSs are indistin- guishable at the monitor from the between-stim- uli background but are distinguishable at the IBM PC, then the present experiment demonstrates that the source of stimuli is the IBM PC. Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli During the SRI/Langley Porter study in 1977, SRI developed an entirely battery operated stimulus generator as a special precaution against the pos- sibility of system artifacts in the form of EM pickup. They reported significant CNS responses to remote stimuli, nonetheless.6 Therefore, it re- mains possible that we have observed an anoma- lous information transfer. Before further research is conducted, it is impor- tant to measure the EM radiation, and to see if it is of sufficient strength to be detected (by the ap- propriate hardware) in the shielded room. By adjusting the PC program, the PS internal ac- tivity can be eliminated. It would be interesting to see if the similarity between the RS and PS results persists. 20 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8 REFERENCES 1. Dean, E. D., International Journal of Neuropsychiatry, Vol. 2, p 439, 1966. 2. Tirt, C. T, International Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 5, p 375, 1963. 3. Duane, T D., and Behrendt, T, Science, Vol. 150, p. 367, 1965. 4. Cavanna, R., Ed., Psi Favorable States of Consciouwm, Parapsychology Foundation, New York, 1970. 5. Rebert, C. S., and Thmer, A., "EEG Spectrum Analysis Techniques Applied to the Problem of Psi Phenomena," Physician's Drug Manual, Vol. 6, Nos. 1-8, pp 82-88, 1974. 6. Thrg, R., May, E. C., Puthoff, H. E., Galin, D., and Ornstein, R., "Sensing of Remote EM Sources (Physiological Correlates)," Final Report, Project 4540, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 1977. 7. Sutherling, W. W., Crandall, P H., Cahan, L. D., and Barth, D. S., "The Magnetic Field of Epileptic Spikes Agrees with Intracranial. Localizations in Complex Partial Epilepsy," Neurology, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp 778-786, May 1988. 8. Aine, C. J., George, J. S., Medvick, R A., Oakley, M. T, and Flynn, E. R., "Source Localization of Components of the Visual-Evoked Neuromagnetic: Response," Neuromagnetism Laboratory, Life Sciences and Physics Divisions, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM- 9. Cohen, J., Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (rev. ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1977. 10. Eason, R. G., Oden, D., White, B. A., and White, C. T., "Visually Evoked Cortical Potentials and Reaction Time in Relation to Site of Retinal Stimulation," Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol. 22, pp 313-324, 1967. 11. Rice, J. A., Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis, Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software, Pacific Grove, p 143, 1988. Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 21 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200630001-8