Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070OPiA7-07-406-10 JENOWN- S Science Applications International Corporation An Employee-Owned Company Presented to: The Scientific Oversight Committee Submitte(I by: Science Applications International Corporation Cognitive Sciences Laboratory 1,010 El Camino Real, Suite 330 Menlo Park, California 94025 10 10 El Camino Real, Suite 330, P. 0. Box 1412, Menlo Park, CA 94025 (415) 325-8292 App mV ed a F ft Re fe t Is W, 2M 08 10 (FT'C I AAb " e-Z&8V t(Yffr6b& 6 ft Vbdo, Palo Alto, Seattle, Tucson Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 ~= - MW W4 WT Science Applications International Corporation Cognitive Sciences Laboratory Memorandum Date: January 6, 1992 To : Pete McDuff From: Earling Degraff Subject:LANL Experimi Reference: ED92-006 Location: Los Alamos Inn Location: Menlo Park Ed asked me to call you, and since you are already on your way to LANL I thought I'd send you this SG1J lovely memo! Please ask the subjects to talk to Wif they have any questions regarding the test results. SG1J =does not want us to share any of the results with his people. Enclosed are the Block Data Sheets for the trials at LANL. Also, enclosed is the Expetiment Schedule. Please feel free to contact me at (415) 325-8292 with any questions. Thank you! enclosure cc: Ed May file 1010 El Camino Rea a 330. loPark California 94025. (4151325-8292 Approve "lieuilease'116100/08108 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 SG1J Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 BLOCK DATA SHEET Receiver: Base ID: Block Type Date Time Stim 0 Run Seed Comments e c rs Ps 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 0.8 09 10 11 H 12 2 , e Ic rs I ps 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Sender: Experimenter 1: Experimenter 2: Others: Base ID iiddmm Full ID = iiddmmtbb.rr Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 PCX St RESULTS OF MEG 1991-2 Receiver 11 (308): Type t Bl Stimulus Stimulus k 0 1 oc P-value Z (2t)n ES P-value Z (2t)n ES (1t) (1t) 1 6 0.0180.0061.800 120 0.6980.021-0.263117 -0.024 2 4 0.0120.0051.978 98 0.30 60.021 .507 31 .044 3 1 0.5480.022-1.305122 0.232 10810.022 0.7960.018 0.006 1.7511103 0.1730.0180.0061.800 124 4 2 0.0960.0130.870 1 0.0800.8300.0170.412 113 5 3 117 Receiver 11 (308): Type s (Paired Sensors) Stimulus Stimulus k 0 1 Bl oc CO#P-value n ES P-value Z (2t)n ES (1t) 2 (1t) Z (2t) t) 1 6 0.2160.0180.171 109 0.6980.021-0.263125 -0.024 1 71 9 500.019 0.000 115 0.000 2 4 .5640.022 1.136 10 : 0.7 36 8 3 1 0.7220.020-0.141116 0 8 80.0180.295 119 0.027 0 ~ 2 123 4 0.9000.0130.841 110 0.0800.3840.022-0.732 2 3 0.5320.022-1.522119 -0.1040.1080.0140.786 115 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Receiver ww (708): Types Stimulus Stimulus Bl 0 1 k oc ES P-value Z (2t)n ES P-value Z (2t)n (It) (It) 1 7 0.2320.0190.090 129 0.0080.0240.0071.665 103 2 6 0.9580.0091.379 -T2-4 2 112 0.9680.0081.52 .114 X. 0 3 6 0.8840.0140.732 105 0.0710.2520.019-0.010124 4 7 0.5120.022-1.978114 -0.1850.0020.0022.653 119 5 6 0.002 2.653 115 0.2471 0.1980.0180.263 108 0.998 ......... .. . Receiver ww (708): Type t (Paired Sensors) Stimulus Stimulus Bl 0 1 k oc P-value Z (2t)n ES P-value Z (2t)n ES (It) (It) ......... 1 7 0.8220.0170.369 128 0.0330.8860.0150.631 108 . 0.01 2 6 0.3420.021-0.478107 80.006 1.800 129 0.158 3 6 0.2480.0190.010 115 0.0090.7820.0190.161 118 4 7 0.25 0.020-0.040112 -0.0040.5340.022-1.491115 5 0.021 -0.524104 1 1 0.1340.0150,619 125 -0.051 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 POL Receiver gg (538): Type s $timulus Stimulus k 0 1 Bl oc P-value Z (2t)n ES P-value Z (2t)n ES (It) (It) 1 7 0.1160.0140.732 114 0.0690.1960.0180.274 116 2 2 0.2700.020-0.100115 -0.0090,0860.0130.946 110 1181 3 2 0.2680.020-0-090113 0.6680.021- -0.039 0.4231 . . 0.4820.022-1.800 -0.164 4 2 ......... 211 .3820.022 0. . 1 Receiver gg (538): Type t (Paired Sensors) Stimulus Stimulus Bl I 0 1 k oc P-value Z (2t)n ES P-value z (2t)n ES (It) (It) 1 7 0.9340.0111.117 114 0.1050.4220.022-1.011119 2 2 0.4640.022-1.461113 -0.1380.0080.0042.145 123 -P 4.. 0.20 243 124 3 2 0.1120.0140.759 106 0 20.018 0. 0.022 ........... 4 2 0.1820.0170.3471114 0.012 0.962 115 0.090 0.084 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 P6- LI Receiver pp (329): Type s Stimulus Stimulus Bl 0 I k oc P-value Z (2t)n ES P-value Z (2t)n ES (it) (it) 2 0.16 0,33 00.021 0.412 16 0.038 T 0,218 0.019 0,2 8 1 2 2 0.3880.022-0.759128 -0.0670.1880.0180.316 109 L2 0. 388 2 0 0.1911121 3 0.021 -0.369111 0.2880.02 0.017 0.322 3 0. 322 4 6 0.021 -0.5241111 -0.0500,7320.0201 -0.0901118 0. 50 6 3 Receiver pp (329): Type t (Paired Sensors) Stimulus Stimulus Bl 0 1 k oc ;~ CX P-value Z (2t)n ES P-value Z (2t)n ES (it) n (it) 1 2 0.1380.0150.594 103 5880.022 -0.931132 -0.081 0. 103 ~ 2 2 0.1540.0160.501 111 0.0480.0480.0101.305 124 :;:,i 111 ,xRO 3 2 .004 .145 31 .0600.011 .1751 06 0.008 .187 37. 6 0,4300.022-1.0801126 1 1 0.0280.0071.590 1 -0.0961 103 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 PO- Receiver ee (041): Type s Stimulus Stimulus Bl 0 I k oc P-value Z (2t)n ES P-value z (2t)n ES (1t) (1t) 1 6 0.4100.022-0.915101 0.629 0.021-0.29 1 2 4 0.7720.0190.110 121 0.0100.6900.021-0.305114 -0.3371110 3 2 0.4940.022-2.258121 -0.2050.3100.021 X 0.356 3 IX: .5180.022 1.800 9 -0.021 0.559116 0052 Receiver ee (041): Type t (Paired Sensors) k 8 Stimulus Stimulus Bl 0 1 oc P-value Z (2t)n ES P-value Z (2t)n ES (1t) n (1t) 1 6 0.7340.020-0-081105 0.4320.022-1.099126 -0.098 XV 105 ~ 2 4 0.1560.0160.490 111 0.0470.7120.020-0.19196 111 3 2 0.91 0.0130.9151112 0.0860.7200.021-0. 1 4:.-:::0.89 3 0.786 92 .9660.008 .4911 10 1: 0.014 .082 IX::: Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Receiver bb (172): Types Bl Stimulus Stimulus k 0 1 oc 2 P-value Z (2t)n ES P-value Z (2t)n ES (It) (It) 1 1 0.9960.03 2.409 128 0.2700.020-0.100103 -0-010 2 3 0.7480.019-0.01087 -0-0010.8880.0140.759 96 7 0.2060.0180.222 122 2 0.7300.020.100 131 -0.009 1 0.7260.020-0.12099 0.0360.0081.461 110 0.139 Receiver bb (172): Type t (Paired Sensors) ck 8 Stimulus Stimulus Bl 0 1 o P-value Z (2t)n ES P-value Z (2t)n ES (It) (It) I 1 1 0.356+0.021-0.559124 0.2020.0180.243 105 0.024 2 3 0.9980.0022.653 122 0.2400.2740.020-0.120112 3 7 0.930+0.0111.0801122 0.2440.0190.030 130 0.003 4 1 0.6380.022-0.5941118 ::::.0.8140.0170.326 113 0.031 1 1 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 P,~-4 6- e- Experimental Condition Remote Pseudo RS-PS df * Stimuli Stimuli t Receiver N P N P ) p ( 0.1160.045578 0.27 0.0500.071576 11.522.079 8 3.56 0.086~0.059577 1.94 0.0560.032575 8.95 2.096 8 3.47 172 0.0810,052445 4.38 0.0300.037431 18.181,598 6 8.06 0.009-0.033440 44.44 -0.0370.049468 74.881.557 6 8.53 0.00020.014449 49.78 -0.0430.011476 82.744.853 6 0.14 041 -0.0800.037414 94.77 -0.0690.047481 93.49-0.368 6 63.71 FRM I 0.0590.028204410.38 1 0.0110.028209530.732.424 2 6.39 Times 10-2 163 '641 Control Condition Remote Pseudo Stimuli Stimuli t(RS-PS)df * Receiver N P N P p %M,- -0.0100.037573 59.460.0340.036588 20.48-1.906 8 95.35 -0.0200,031573 63.39-0.0060.030588 55.79-1.348 8 89.28 172 -0.0040.036476 53.480.0760.056470 4.97 -2.875 6 98.56 0.0530.061462 12.810.0200.055466 33.070.804 6 22.61 0.1120.02 2.925 6 1.32 0 436 0.9680.0140.067500 37.65 041 0.0260.039427 29.330.0230.045441 31.620.101 6 46.16 0.0270.0302044 F1O, 0.0150.009214223.940.766 2 25.96 7 2, Times 1 -2 0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Experiment vs Control Remote Pseudo i Stimuli Stimuli Rece t (E-C)df p* t(E-C) df p* ver 4.836 8 0.06 0.449 8 33.25 3.556 8 0.37 3.161 8 0.67 172 2.688 6 1.81 -1.371 6 89.02 -1.269 6 87.42-1.547 6 91.37 9.159 6 99.99-1.679 6 92.80 041 -3.944 6 98.50-2.828 6 46.16 0.272 2 59.5 1.560 2T 12.59 5 Times 10-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Te&Nf~VPVbfWdT,&fW MMAOUMigili&RDP96-00789ROO3100070001 -0 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................. ii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................... fl, I OBJECTIVE ................................................................ 1 II BACKGROUND ............................................................ 2 III APPROACH ................................................................ 4 1. Experiment Replication ................................................... 4 2. MEG System and Environment Calibration ................................. 10 IV DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................ 1-2 1. Null Result ............................................................ 1.2 2. Significant Deviations ................................................... 13 V REVIEW OF STATISTICAL POWER ......................................... 15 VI RECEIVER INFORMATION ................................................ 17 VII GLOSSARY ............................................................... 19 REFERENCES ..................................................................... 20 APPENDIX ........................................................................ 21 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Te&"v*WJd[omR4Watft9 MOMON!gMiAFRDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Sequence of Events for Stimuli Generation .......................................... 5 2. Phase Calculation for a Single Stimulus ............................................. 7 3. Normal Representation of Statistical Power ........................................ 15 4. Statistical Power for Various Effect Sizes ........................................... 16 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Tee%WM*fbfMWiegWt2EI(K)FNMgBnMRDP96-00789ROO3100070001 -0 LIST OF TABLES 1. Hypothesis Testing for Each Receiver ..............................................9 2. Overview of Hypothesis Tbsting .................................................. 12 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 i8aroroer eMea 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Tm if 0A 0 r Ne MEG Investigation OBJECTIVE The objective of this FY 1991 effort is to replicate an earlier finding: The phase shift of the dominant alpha frequency of the central nervous system changes significantly as a result of a visual stimulus that is sensorially and physically isolated from the receiver! Definitions of terms can be found in Section VII (i.e., Glossary) on page 19. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Agroved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Tec nical Protocol for the MEG Investigation 11BACKGROUND In a series of experiments beginning in 1974, the central nervous system (CNS) of tested individuals was found to respond to remote isolated visual stimuli (i.e., flashing lights).1,2,3* The first experiment, con- ducted by Rebert and Turner,1 involved randornly interleaved 10-second epochs (i.e., trials), during which either a flashing light (16 Hz) or no light was present in a sensorially and physically isolated1room. When the light flashed, Rebert and Turner observed a significant decrease in the occipital a-power of isolated receivers. TWo replications were conducted in collaboration with Galin and Ornstein at the Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute in San Francisco. As reported by May et a]., the results were inconclusive; the first replication confirmed the Rebert and Tarner finding, a decrease of a-power con- comitant with the flashing light, but the second replication attempt found an increase in a-power. 2 Because of the advent of a more sensitive CNS monitoring device known as the magnetoencephalo- graph (MEG), which measures the magnetic field produced by activated neurons, and because of the additional 15 years of anomalous cognition experience, the basic experiment was repeated. May et a]. found significant shifts in the phase of the dominant alpha frequency -similar to what might be ex- pected in direct stimulation.3 A complete description of the MEG experiment is provided in the last paper in the Appendix; however, an overview is given here. Initially, the MEG was positioned over the occipital region at a location cor- responding to the maximurn magnetic field response to a direct light stimulus (i.e., 100-ms sinusoidal gratings in the lower left visual field of tile receiver). For the experimental runs, the stimuli appeared on a TV monitor, which was isolated from the receivert (i.e., the monitor was approximately 40 m from the shielded MEG room). A block, ten runs of 2 minutes each, contained approximately 100 remote stimuli (RS) (i.e., the grating) and 100 pseudo stimuli (PS), which were blank screens. A second individual, who was known to the receiver, acted as a "sender" by observing the remote monitor throughout the 20-minute block. Each stimulus was analyzed from -0.5 second before to +0.5 second after its onset. At the dominant a-frequency, which was determined from the average power spectrum, the relative phase shift during the same time interval was computed by standard fast fourier transform (FFT) techniques. The root- mean-square (RMS) phase, which was computed over the block separately for each stimulus type, was the dependent variable for the experiment. Because brain-wave data are not statistically stationary, a Monte Carlo technique was used to deter- mine if the observed RMS phases were exceptional. Since each 20-minute data set contained only 100 seconds of stimulus-derived data, this technique was considered as a within-block control. * References may be found at the end of the document and are included in their entirety in the Appendix. t Note that the stimulus is different from the earlier investigations. In stead of the 16-Hz, 10-second epochs, this experiment used sinusoidal gratings lasting about 100 ms. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Technical Protocol for the MEG Investigation The combined result for the RS for all 11 blocks in the experiment was 2a from the Monte Carlo mean chance expectation (z = L99,p < 0.024) for a trial effect size of 0.060 ± 0 030. The combined result for the PS also deviated from chance (z = 2.92, p < 0.002) with an effect size of 0.092 ± 0.030. The PS were initially conceived as an additional within-block control; however, there was no significant difference between the RS and PS, and thus the interpretation of these results is difficult. The results from both stimulus types exhibited significant deviations from the preponderance of the rest of the data (i.e., between stimuli time). The purpose of this replication attempt is to determine the cause of these putative effects. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 3 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Technicall Protocol for the MEG Investigation III APPROACH 1. Experiment Replication In this section, we provide details of a proposed replication of the earlier study. 1 .1 Number of Trials We assume that the observed trial effect sizes that were reported for the previous MEG study result from a putative AC effect. (See "Observation of Neurornagnetic Fields in Response to Remote Stimu- li" in the Appendix.) Under the remote stimulus condition we found that at the trial level the effect size was 0. 060 ± 0.030. The number of blocks was eleven and the approximate number of stimuli was 1,100. To determine the number of trials necessary to provide a confident replication of the previous experi- ment, we conservatively use the observed effect size minus one standard deviation (i.e., 0.030). Using traditional statistical power analysis,* we find that the probability of observing a significant AC effect in only 1100 trials is 0.258. Conversely, if we reCILtire 95% confidence that a significant AC-effect could be observed, approximately 12,026 trials, or approximately 1.20 blocks of 100 trials each, are needed. Welve individuals have been identified as receivers for the formal replication. If we ask each of them to contribute ten blocks, then the probability of a significant replication over the total of 120 blocks is 0.95. In this case, a given receiver has a 60% chance of dernonstrating an independently significant result if the AC hypothesis is trite. 1.2 Receiver Selection TWelve experienced receivers, who either participated in the earlier MEG study or are known to be "good" receivers from other investigations, will contribute ten blocks each in the formal replication study. Each receiver will contribute one block each clay during a five-day visit to the MEG laboratory. The remaining five blocks will be obtained during a second five-day visit not less than two months after the first visit. 1.3 Sender Selection Each receiver wil I chose a "sender." 1.4 Stimuli The stimuli will be generated by a PC. Since each stiniulLis will occupy only a small, center portion of a standard TV image, most of the image is zero. * A review of statistical power analysis is provided in Section V beginning on page 14. Approved For Release 2000/08/08: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 4 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Technical Protocol for the MEG Investigation 1.4.1 Remote Stimuli One high spatial-frequency and one low spatial-frequency sinusoidal grating are available as remote stimuli. The one that produces the maximum CNS response,. when it is shown explicitly to the receiver, will be used as a remote stimulus throughout that receiver's ten blocks. Thus, the stimulus may be dif- ferent for different receivers. 1.4.2 Pseudo Stimuli All data bytes corresponding to the pseudo stimuli will be zero. Thus, the entire video image will corre- spond to a blank screen. 1.4.3 Stimulus Choice and Presentation An HP workstation controls the collection of data and the presentation of the stimuli. Using a multiple congruent pseudo random algorithm (i.e., R,+ 1 = ao x R, + b0, where ao and b0 are constants, and 0 :5 R < 1.0), the nth + I stimulus is generated 3.0 + 4.5 x R,+ 1 seconds after the nth stimulus. The algo- rithm is seeded from the system clock. The HP notifies the PC of the type and time for a stimulus. The PC waits until the next vertical retrace signal from its hardware-video-output board; switches pointers within the retrace cycle from the blank inter-stimulus (IS) frame buffer to one which contains either the RS or PS; and resets the buffer pointers after 100 ms (i.e., the stimulus duration = 100 ms), Figure 1 displays this sequence in graphical form. Main HP IBM PC Monitor Stimulus Buffer Pointers Standard 30 Hz 7IYpe RS/PS RS Buffer Interleaved Stimulus Initiation I IS Buffer 4 Output Buffer PS Buffer r Figure 1. Sequence of Events for Stimuli Generation 1.5 Placement of the Seven-Sensor MEG Array The placement of the seven-sensor MEG array is determined by an individual receiver's response to a direct light stimulus. While being stimulated by randomly interleaved low and high spatial-frequency gratings, sufficient stimuli (e.g,, 30 to 50 of each type) will be collected to produce good signal-to-noise responses. The position of the sensor array, relative to head-based coordinates, will be recorded manu- Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 5 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Technical Protocol for the MEG Investigation ally on a skull cap, so that the array can be repositioned accurately during subsequent blocks. The array position that will be used during the RS blocks is determined by the maximum response to these direct stimuli. See Section 1.6.1 for additional details. 1.6 Session Protocol 1.6.1 Location of MEG Array: Direct Stimuli All receivers will be measured for their responses to direct stimuli. For this portion of the experiment, the stimuli will be generated three to four times faster (i.e., - one per second) than in the AC portion of the experiment. (1) The receiver is briefed about the experiment and is prepared for the session (i.e., removes metal, watches, etc.).* (2) '16 a trained observer, the initial location of the array might be found within a few minutes; however, to arrange for the maximum response to be located as close as possible under the centermost sensor, the search might require an hour. Once found, sufficient data (i.e., 30 to 50 stimuli of each type) will be time-averaged so that the responses may be quantitatively defined, and the sensor positions are marked on the receiver's skull cap. 1.6.2 Anomalous Cognition: Remote and Pseudo Stimuli We assume that the optimum sensor location has been determined. (1) The receiver is briefed* about the experiment and is prepared for the session (i.e., removes metal, watches, etc.). (2) Using the marking on the skull cap, the MEG array is repositioned as close as possible to the origi- nal calibration location. (3) Its position is confirmed with direct stfillLili, and adjustments are made, if they are necessary. (4) The designated sender is positioned in front of the remote monitor, which is located approximate- ly 40 m from the receiver. (5) The video monitor, which presents the direct stimuli, is turned off. (6) The receiver is instructed to relax with eyes closed. In addition, the receiver is given a few possible strategies that include focusing attention on the display that the sender is observing, the sender, or on both! (7) The receiver is notified, by intercom, that the run is about to begin. (8) The run begins and seven channels of MEG data and one channel of stimulus data are collected for two minutes. The raw data are saved to disk, and the appropriate parameters for the next run are entered into the log book and the control program. (9) After 5 runs, an experimenter quietly enters the MEG room, checks the MEG position, and readjusts it, if necessary. (10) Five additional runs are collected. (11) At the end of the block, th e receiver e n ters th e con tro I room an d is shown a computer display of the results of the last run. The experimenter points out interesting portions of the display, but cau- tions that the final results require careful analysis of all the runs, not just the last one. Please see the material that will be distributed to each receiver in Section V1 beginning on page 16. Approved For Release 2000/08/08: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Technical Protocol for the MEG Investigation 1.7 Controls TWo types of controls will be used in this experiment: ~ Within-block: The data in the inter-stimulus times (IS) will be used as a within-block control. ~ After-block: After each 20-minute experiment block, an additional block of ten runs will be taken under the same conditions as the experiment block, but without the receiver under the MEG. The sender, however, will be "sending" as before. 1.8 Data Recording Along with the experimental parameters, eight channels of 200 per second data will be digitally re- corded for later analysis (i.e., seven channels of MEG data and one channel of stimulus data). 1.9 Analysis 1.9.1 Overview A block of data is ten, 2-minute runs. Each block contains approximately 100 RS and PS stimuli, respec- tively, from each of the seven sensors. The following will be computed for each stimulus type and for each sensor: ~Time averages for 0.5 second prestimulus to 0.5 second poststimulus. ~Separate average power spectra for the prestimulus and poststimulus time. The dominant alpha fre- quency will be determined from the centroid of the peak with the largest area above "background" for experiment blocks, and 10.0 Hz will be used for the after-block controls. ~Averages of the phase shift observed at the dominant a-frequency. The relative phase shift for a single stimulus is defined in Figure 2, and the RMS average is computed over the total number of stimuli in the block. Prestimulus: x(t) Poststimulus: Y(t) X(t) Y(t) X(V) = rFT 1X(O] H(V) = AV) Let: T11en. X(V) Y(v) = FFT fy(l)l Gain = IH(v)l Phase = IF(y) tan - Re H(v) ,OW Figure 2. Phase Calculation for a Single Stimulus The RMS average phase will be the dependent variable for the block. A Monte Carlo calculation will be used to determine the degree to which the observed phase shifts are deviant. If n is the number of stimu- li in the data set, then each Monte Carlo pass will compute the RMS phase over n random entry points into the same 20-minute data set. The timing algorithm will be the same one used during the data collec- tion; however, a new seed will start the process on each pass. Statistics (e.g., p-values, z-scores) will be computed from the distribution of RMS phases derived from the Monte-Carlo-pass distribution. Approved For Release 2000/08/08: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 7 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Technical Protocol for the MEG Investigation Conceptually, a 2-tailed z-score will be calculated from a Monte Carlo distribution of phase shifts in the following way: Let 1xiv and aip be the mean and standard deviation of the Monte Carlo phase shift dis- tribution, and To be the observed RMS phase shift. Since the distribution of averages is approximately normal, compute: 00 Z=1W0_jU1 and P= e - 0.5g2dg . f Z Since we have not specified a direction for a change in phase, the p-value for the block is given by: p = 2 X P, and the two-tailed z-score, is computed from the inverse normal distribution for P In the experiment, the empirical value of P will be used. That is, the number of Monte Carlo-derived RMS phases that are greater or equal to the observed RMS phase is divided by the total number of Monte Carlo passes. Therefore, the 1-a error estimate in P will be computed from the binomial distribution for proportions. Or 1-a error in P /P _(1- P) V M where M is the number of Monte Carlo Passes. For this replication, the analysts will be "blind" to the identity of the receiver, the date, the condition (i.e., experimental or control run)*, and the stimulus type. We propose that SAIC and the MEG labora- tory personnel carry out independent analyses of the same data. 1.9.2 Details Let zijt be the 2-tailed z-score, which is derived from the Monte Carlo distributions for stimulus type i, block j, sensor s, and receiver t. Let the total number of trials (i.e., stimuli) for this condition be njjj~ which is independent of sensor. Then the effect size in the experimental condition is defined as: z (e) 1 E,,,, (e) = =:= ± a,,, (e), where u,j, (e) = Fni j, (e) ~n, -,,(e) There is a set of effect sizes, which is derived from the experimental condition, Eijsl (e), and a set, which is derived from the after-block control condition, Eijj (c). As was discussed in Section 1.9.1 above, the sensor (i.e., the value of s), that is used in the analysis of the experimental condition is the one that measures the largest prestimulus average a-power. The sensor for the after-block control condition will be the same one chosen for the experimental condition. Thus, Z (C) -'ijst(c) === ± aij,(c), where aij,(c) Fn,,, (c) These effect sizes will be used for all the hypothesis testing. * By looking at the average power spectra, it may be possible to recognize a control condition from an experimental one. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 8 IMIR _Rj%fDP96-00789R003100070001 -0 _JIp rerAg%§9P%JA&I?IWg§tiC 1.9.3 Hypotheses Testing Let N, be the total number of blocks for receiver t. The overall effect size for the experimental condition is a weighted average over blocks. Or Nt (e) nij, (e) Ti, (e) I Wip (e) Eij,, (e) ± sdi, (e) where wij, (e) = Ki (e) and j=1 N Nt (e) (e))2 I Wijt(e) (rije) - Cipt _ sd,, (e) j=1 N, (e) 1 F The overall effect size for the after-block control condition is similar: Nt nij, (C) Ti, (C) Y Wip (c) c,j.,, (c) ± sdi, (c) where wij, (c) = y- j=1 and N N, (C) E Wip (C) (Zi,(C) eij~"(C))2 sdi, (c) i-I N, (c) F_ (2) The Xit in Equations 1 and 2 are the the total number of i stimuli over Nt blocks for the experimental and control conditions, respectively. Iable 1 shows the hypotheses that will be tested for each receiver. The experiment and after-block con- trol conditions are indicated by e and c, respectively, and each hypothesis is tested against its chance expectation. Thble I Hypothesis Testing for Each Receiver Hypothesis Test Test Quantity 1. RS(e) have no effect.Z_score~n_,, _(e) _c., (e) 2. PS(e) have no effect.z-scorein-,,(e) Eje) 3. RS(c) have no effect.z-scoreX0 I _(C) -C.' (C) 4. PS(c) have no effect.z-score~_n,_Jc) _C1,(C) 5. No RS(e)/RS(c) t Zo, (e) - T, (c) difference. I a,, ( N" + I L_ I :0) F(I) + R, _(C) Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 9 A groveo For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001 -0 I TdA Ical rotocol for the MEG Investigation Table I (continued) Hypothesis Testing for Each Receiver Hypothesis ~+ TeDL Test Quantity (e) - (c) 6. No PS(e)/PS(c) t difference. 0 + w7tw t7 T,,,(e) 7. No RS(e)/PS(e) t 0" (0) FN,(,) + difference. In Table 1, up is the square root of the pooled variances and is given by: (N, (e) - 1) sd' (e) + (N, (c) - 1) sd 2 (C) 2 19P W i I N, (e) + N, (c) - 2 2. MEG System and Environment Calibration 2.1 Empirical For empirical calibrations, the MEG system is examined under the same conditions for the experiment, except there will be no CNS under the sensors. 2.1.1 Number of Blocks In the experimental case, the number of blocks required was based upon an assumption that the pre- viously observed effects were due to AC. For the empirical calibrations, we assume that those effects are primarily due to some unknown artifact. To achieve a 95% confidence level of seeing a significant arti- fact, the total number of blocks required is 120. 2.1.2 Types of Calibration We propose that four types of calibration be done. Each calibration will involve 120 blocks of approxi- mately 100 remote and 100 pseudo stimuli per block in each of the following conditions: (1) No sender and no receiver. (2) One sender and no receiver. The after-block control runs can be used for this calibration. (3) One sender and a tissue equivalent receiver (e.g., saline solution). (4) One sender and a selected, non-brain receiver body part (e.g., leg). The total time required for this activity is 80, 3-hour days. 2.1.3 Analysis The analysis of these data will be identical to that done for data collected under experimental condi- tions (see Section 1.9 for details). Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 10 T&VjoaypOrOFpr IWOerag 2 -, CIA RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 IC oco e aRW78108 I~n nvestigat 2.2 Physical Calibration Using the appropriate hardware, the electromagnetic radiation due to computer or other potential electromagnetic-interference sources will be measured inside the shielded MEG room. The time re- quired for this activity is approximately 5 days. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 11 sp a 108 :41A RDP96-00789ROO3100070001 -0 Tam 0? rJR 0 r r,02AB18 C04 nVest amn 0 OM IV DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS This replication attempt consists of 120 blocks of experiment data and 120 blocks of after-block control data; thus 240, two-tailed effect sizes are available for global analysis (i.e., Equations 1 and 2 on page 9). As shown in Tible 2 (i.e., a portion of Tible 1), we propose various z-score and t-tests. Since a number of results are possible from this experiment we describe each and suggest conclusions and further actions to be taken. In Tible 2, the experiment and after-block control conditions are indicated by e and c, respectively, and each hypothesis is tested against its chance expectation. Table 2 Overview of Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis Test 1. RS(e) have no z-score effect. 2. PS(e) have no z-score effect. 3. RS(c) have no z-score effect. 4. PS(c) have no z-score effect. 5. No RS(e)/RS(c) t difference. 6. No PS(e)/PS(c) t difference. 7. No PS(e)/PS(e) t difference. 1. Null Result At the 95% confidence level, no statistically significant deviations are observed for the remote stimuli or the pseudo stimuli summed across all 12 receivers-that is, the combined z-score indicated by Hy- potheses 1 and 2 in Table 2 are not significant. If a X2 test for homogeneity of effect size demonstrates that the data are homogeneous (i.e.,p(X2) > 0.05), then we conclude that the experiment failed to rep- licate the original MEG study. We would recommend that no further MEG experimentation of this type be done. If, however, the effect size across receivers is not homogeneous (i.e., p(X2) :s 0. 05), then the data for each receiver will be examined individually. Depending upon available resources and the advice of the SOC, the receivers who may have demonstrated individually significant results might be asked to con- tribute additional data. In behavioral sciences, it is tempting to sum across subjects; however, if exceptional behavior is being studied, summing can be problematical. For example, averaging the high-jumping results of a world Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 12 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Technical Protocol for the MEG Investigation record setter into the data from the general population would not reveal an exceptional ability. Within- subject performance (i.e., homogeneity) is what is important in studying exceptions. 2. Significant Deviations Significant deviations could be observed in both the experiment blocks and after-block controls or in the experiment blocks alone. Each case is discussed below. 2.1 After-block Controls Suppose that, while significant deviations were observed in the experimental conditions, they were also observed in the after-block control data (i.e., no significant difference between experiment and after- block controls by the t-test for hypotheses 5 and 6 in 1hble 2). If no significant artifacts were observed in the calibration blocks, but small amounts of electromagnetic interference (EMI) were observed in the physical calibration, then it may be that human brains respond to weak electromagnetic stimuli directly. This maybe of interest to the general neuroscience communi- ty, but for this program, we would recommend no further MEG activity of this type. If no EMI were observed, then a more subtle artifact likely would be present; however, we would still recommend no further MEG activity of this type. If significant artifacts were found in the calibration, then we would also recommend no further MEG activity of this type. In all cases, we would declare that the observed effect in the original study was most likely due to artifact. 2.2 Experiment Blocks Since we have covered the cases under which "effects" were seen in the various controls, we assume, in this section, that the tests of hypotheses 3 and 4 in Thble 2 were not significant 'Mere are three cases of interest, each of which is described below. 2.2.1 Slignificant Remote Stimuli; Not Significant Pseudo Stimuli Suppose that at the 95% confidence level, statistically significant deviations are observed for the RS summed across all 12 receivers and not for the PS. Consider two cases: (1) A t-test for the effect sizes of the RS and after-block controls was significant (i.e., Hypothesis 5). In this case, we have replicated the earlier study, and would recommend extensive follow-on work be done in accordance with the advice of the SOC. We would conduct a X2 test for homogeneity of effect size and recommend additional MEG work for the "outliers." (2) A t-test for the means of the RS and after-block control distributions showed no significance. We would recommend that further work might be appropriate depending upon the individual tests for homogeneity and the magnitude of the differences between the means. In this case, a judgment would be necessary and there would be no "exact" guidelines. 2.2.2 Significant Pseudo Stimuli: Not Significant Remote Stimuli Suppose that at the 95% confidence level, statistically significant deviations were observed for the PS summed across all 12 receivers and not for the RS (i.e., Hypotheses 2 and 1, respectively). For this dis- cussion, we assume that no "effects" were seen in the calibration studies, thus the interpretation of this Approved For Release 2000/08/08: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 13 CBR,ro F ro lea -RDP96-00789ROO3100070001 -0 e J?28'08'08: CIA TGA roto 0 Jjor tte cajW c Investigation outcome is difficult. We would recommend additional -physical calibration of the MEG system and fur- ther experimental trials that are specifically designed to understand the source of the PS deviations. 2.2.3 Significant Pseudo Stimuli: Significant Remote Stimuli Suppose that at the 95% confidence level, statistically significant deviations were observed for the PS summed across all 12 receivers and for the RS (i.e., Hypotheses 2 and 1, respectively). As above, we assume that no "effects" were seen in the calibration studies. One interpretation would be that the stimulus generator arid/or the HP control computer was the source of the stimulation rather than the remote TV-monitor. In this case, since this outcome was the one observed in the first study, we would have replicated that result. In this circumstance, we would recommend a specific modification to the experi- ment apparatus to control for this type of effect. Then the study should be repeated in its entirety. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 14 Te%Rrae,4&%MMh% Ug&MoitigSa-)FDP96-00789ROO3100070001 -0 V REVIEW OF STATISTICAL POWER The power of a statistical measure is defined as the probability of a significant observation given that an effect hypothesis (Hj) is true. Define the value of a dependent variable asX Then, given that the null hypothesis (HO) is true, a significant observation, 4 is defined as one in which the probability of observing x ~: u 0 + 1 . 645cro, where V0 and oo are the mean and standard deviation of the parent Ho distribution, is less than or equal to 0.05. Figure 3 shows these definitions in graphical form under the assumption of normality. The Z-Score is a normalized representation of the dependent variable and is given by: Z = (x - 'U 0) Oro where x is the value of the dependent variable and [Lo and o0 are the mean and standard deviation, re- spectively, of the parent distribution under H0, and z, is the minimum value (i.e., 1.645) required for significance (one-tailed). The mean of z under Ho is zero. The mean and standard deviation of z under Hi are [LAC and oAC, respectively. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 15 Figure 3. Normal Representation of Statistical Power A proved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001 -0 TeAnical Protocol for the MEG Investigation In general the effect size, e, may be defined as: Z (3) fn- where n is the sample size. Let BAC be the empirically derived effect size for anomalous cognition (AC) ThenzAc =IiAC in Figure 3 is computed from Equation 3. From Figure 3 we see that power is defined by: 0.5( g _iUAC)2 Power = _UAC5' f e UAC dg . (4) ZC Let Z YAC UAC Then Equation 4 becomes 00 Power e - 0.5z2dz, where z', Z~ - YAC (5) 5i f 0.1c Zle For planning purposes, it is convenient to invert Equation 5 to determine the number of trials that are necessary to achieve a given power under the H, hypothesis. If we define z(P) to be the z-score asso- ciated with a powe4 P, then the number of trials required is given by: 4z2(P) (6) _c,2C where SAC is the estimated mean value for the effect size under HI. Figure 4 shows the power, calcu- lated from Equation 5, for various effect sizes for z, 1. 645. i,o - zc 1,645J P O.L5 0.6- ef 0.80 0.50 0.25 0.10 0.05 0.4 0.2 0.0 10 100 1000 Trials Figure 4. Statistical Power for Various Effect Sizes Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 16 T".0 rCR a s 000 -RDP96-00789ROO3100070001 -0 or tg02Mffl8108 : CIA lcgorl= 0 o?1e 0? Investigation VI RECEIVER INFORMATION Introduction Here, we provide a brief, non-technical overview of the MEG experiment. After reading this, please feel free to direct any questions you might have to Ed May, Wanda Luke, or Nevin Lantz. We have kept the technical jargon to a minimum; however, the following terms may be helpful: ~ Anomalous Cognition (AC). A form of information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are absent. This includes phenomena that are described in the parapsychological literature as extra-sensory perception, telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition. ~ Magnetoencephalograph (MEG). A device consisting of sensors used to measure, in three-dimen sional space, the magnetic fields produced by neuronal electric currents in the cortex of the brain. Why this experiment? The purpose of this experiment is to replicate an earlier study in which there appeared to be a physio- logical response correlated to AC. This experiment is important not only because it may identify a part of the brain that is directly associated with AC, but also because it may move the scientific study of AC into the mainstream of the science. What is iiiagnetoencephalography? Magnetoencephalography is a noninvasive technique use to measure the magnetic fields that result from electrochemical currents produced by active neurons in the cortex of the brain. That is, neurons that participate in a given activity (e.g., responding to a flash of light) communicate between themselves and ultimately to other parts of the body by a complex combination of electrical signals and chemical interactions. This activity produces magnetic fields that can be sensed externally by a MEG. What does this experiment consist of? I17he major elements in the experiment are as follows: ~ Stimuli. A 0.1-second presentation of a grating that looks like a 5-cm-square white picket fence. ~ Receiver. An individual who, without using known senses, attempts to perceive information about the stimuli. ~ Sender. An individual who, while looking directly at the stimuli, tries to transmit their characteristics to the receiver. ~ Run. TWo minutes of data collection. ~ Block. Ten runs. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 17 T&WkXpprF0p6A?%p1Ve2AM98108 L Ql~,,-RDP96-00789RO03100070001 -0 Avestiga ion The receiver will be monitored by a MEG in a specially designed magnetically shielded room while a sender, who is located down the hall, is looking at the flashing stimuli. What will be expected of me? What is expected of you during the experiment depends on whether you will be a receiver or sender; you may be asked to serve as both. You need not memorize all of this information now, because we will review the instructions at the time of the experiment. Receiver You will be asked to remove all metal from your person (e.g., belt buckles, jewelry, coins). Women may want to avoid wearing under-wire bras on days when they serve as receivers. In addition, you will be fitted with a skull cap so that we can mark the position of the MEG sensors. You will lie prone, face down on a bed-like structure beneath the MEG device. There are pillows and a large opening so that you can see and breath comfortably. The MEG will be lowered into position over the back of your head; you may feel slight pressure. Note: At all times on the MEG table, please try to lie as motionless as possible; muscle movement can be sensed by the MEG and interferes with the brain-wave data. The first task is to properly position the MEG. (A sender is not required for this part of the measurement.) We will place the MEG sensors at a place that corresponds to the location that produces the largest brain response to a light flash that you can physically see. All you have to do is to lie quietly, and passively observe the random light flashes. Initially, a number of runs that last a few minutes might be necessary to identify the proper location. Once identified, it will be marked on a skull cap that will only be used by you. Each day that you visit the laboratory, we will position the MEG according to the cap markings and perform a brief run to confirm the proper position. During your visit to the laboratory, you will be a receiver for one block a day for five days. An experi- ment block consists of ten runs of 2 minutes each, during which six to twelve stimuli will be shown to your sender. As before, you should relax with your eyes closed. After five runs, an experimenter will quietly enter the room and check the position of the sensor, If needed, it will be readjusted at that time. We are not sure how you can become an accomplished AC receiver. There are a few strategies that have been successful in the past. Choose one or invent your own, but stay with the same strategy throughout the entire block. Passive Attention. Before a run begins, give yourself the mental suggestion to "observe" the remote stimuli. When the run begins (i.e., you will be told over an intercom), relax and do not "try" to sense the signal directly. Rather, be aware in the back of your mind that you want to "receive" the AC signal. 41, Nothing. In this technique, you simply relax and "let it happen." 40 Active Attention. This strategy involves choosing a target (i.e., either the sender, the remote stimuli, or both), and concentrating on that mental image throughout the 2-minute run. Sender The sender will simply sit in the isolated room and concentrate on the occasional stimuli. They should appear relatively infrequently. You may attempt to "project" what you see to the receiver using any mental strategy you wish. Approved For Release 2000/08108 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 18 Te6imrmq4&EAct"% ?LMIWgitiggll%i~DP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 V11 GLOSSARY Not all the terms defined below are germane to the MEG study, but they are included here for com- pleteness. In a typical anomalous mental phenomena (AMP) task, we define: ~ Anomalous Coenition ( 'AQ-A form of information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are absent. Th at is, some individuals are able to gain access, by an as yet unknown process, to information that is not available to the known sensorial channels. ~ Receiyer--An individual who attempts to perceive and report information about a target. ~ AgmA-Aji individual who attempts to influence a target system. ~ D-Me-t-An item that is the focus of an AMP task (e.g., person, place, thing, event). ~ 1hrget De~j,gn_atj!DL-A method by which a specific target, against the backdrop of all other possible targets, is identified to the receiver (e.g., geographical coordinates). ~ Sender/Bea.CQn-An individual who, while receiving direct sensorial stimuli from an intended target, acts as a putative transmitter to the receiver. Moni=-An individual who monitors an AC session to facilitate data collection. Skui=-A. time period during which AC data is collected. o-W-c-Q-1-A template for conducting a structured data collection session. Pb &apam--Material that is produced during an AC session in response to the intended target. Feedback-After a response has been secured, information about the intended target is displayed to the receiver. * An&st-An individual who provides a quantitative measure of AC. * apgLi&4-A given receiver's ability to be particularly successful with a given class of targets (e.g., people as opposed to buildings). Approved For Release 2000/08/08: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 19 TdWppreNq*jft&*,aM ?M&%Wg§t:6h%-I~,DP96-00789ROO3100070001 -0 REFERENCES L C. S. Rebert and A. Turner, "EEG Spectrum Analysis Techniques Applied to the Problem of Psi Phenomena," Physician's Drug Manual, Vol. 4., Nos. 1-8, pp. 82-88 (1974). 2. E. C. May, (Consultant), R. Targ, and H. E. Puthoff, SRI International, "Possible EEG Correlates Tb Remote Stimuli Under Conditions of Sensory Shielding, "Electro 77 Professional Program, Special Session: The State of the Art in Psychic Research, IEEE, New York, NY (April 1977). 3. E. C. May, W L. W Luke, V. Wftask, and T J. Frivold, "Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields in Response to Remote Stimuli," The Proceedings of the Presented Papers of the Parapsychological Association 33rdAnnual Convention, National 4-H Center, Chevy Chase, MD (August 1990). Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 20 T9"pjMq4di0t;&qW" M/Wpiii~gf6irDP96-00789ROO3100070001 -0 APPENDIX This appen&x contains the full reprints of the following three papers: (1) "EEG Spectrum Analysis Techniques Applied to the Problem of Psi Phenomena" (2) "Possible EEG Correlates To Remote Stimuli Under Conditions of Sensory Shielding" (3) "Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields in Response to Remote Stimuli" Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 21 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 EEG srECTRUM ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES APPLIED TO THE PROBLEM OF Psi rHENOMENA1,3 Charles S. Rebert, Ph.D. Stanford Research Institute Menlo Park, Callfornin 94025 Ann Turner, M.D.2 Agnews State Hospital San Jose, California ABSTRACT Electroencephalographic techniques were used to study unusual sensory capabilities. One S, the "sender," of a pair of Ss was stimulated with 10 sec duration" trains of-flicker at 6,or 16 fps, randonrly interspersed with periods of no flicker. EEGs were recorded from another S, the "receiver," to determine it EEG driving or alpha block would be otvideni-on trials when the sender was stimulated, compared to when the sender was not stimulated. Differential alpha block on control and stimulus trials was observed reliably in one receiver, in- dicating some information transfer. The Ss overt indications of which stimulus (Occurred were not different from what wo~'d be expected by chance. The physical Parameters by which the EEG effect was mediated were not determined. INTRODUCTION The suggestion has been made previously that com- munication through unidentified channels (so-called telepathy or clairvoyance) might be detected by the measurement of physiological responses when overt re- sponses (e.g., verbalizations) provide no evidence of such communications. For example, Dean (1966) re- ported that plethysomographic responses could be used In such a manner, and Tart (1963) observed significant changes in a measure of EEG "complexity" in naive Ss when Tart (or a resistor) was, unknown to the Ss. given intense electric shock. The Ss' overt responses indicated no awareness of the occurrence of shocks. Duane and Behrendt (1965) reported on the occurrence of extrasensory IZ EG induction between identical twins, and Kamiya, Lindsley, Pribram, Silverman, Walter, and others have suggested that EEG responses such as evoked potentials (EPs), spontaneous EEG, and the contingent negative varfation (CNV) might be sensitive indicators of communication not mediated by usual sensory processes (See Cavanna, 1970). Silverman and Buchsbaum (1970) attempted, with- out success, to detect EP changes in one S while an- other S Was stimulated with a single strobo;copic flash. Kamiy-a (1970) suggested that because of the unknown temporal characteristics of psi phenomena, it might be * TO One _S not included in this investigation, a warning tone followed by a train of flashes or a null period were presented Ir to determine if he would generate CNVs. They occurred prio to flashch but not before null trials. The effect was not repl cated in that S, but influenced the design of the present study. more appropriate to use repetitive bursts of light for several minutes to increase the probability of detecting information transfer. An investigation was undertaken by us to determine whether augmented perception could be evidenced by CNVs or by the spontaneous EEG, using averaging techniques and spectral analysis of occipital EEGs. The design of the investigation was based partly on a previ- ous, but unreplicated, result concerning the CNV in one S, and on the fact that normal individuals exhibit alpha desynchronization and photic driving when direct- ly stimulated with flashing lights.* It was assumed that psi mediated perception would result in EEG changes similar to those produced by normal stimulation-i.e., evidence of photic driving and/or alpha desynchroniza- tion was sought in one S when another was stimulated. CNVs were obtained just before a period when a second stiz~ulus might or might not appear to deter- mne whether characteristics of the CNV were predic- tive of the occurrence or non-occurrence of the second stimulus. METHODS Four female and two nutle adult Ss were studied. One S, the receiver, was semd in a sadard Industrial Acoustics EEG chamber that had been used in other EEG investigations (e.g., Rebert and Sperry, 1972). Recordings were made from the vertex and occipital pole on the midline with Grass and Beckman AS-AgCl electrodes, referenced to linked mastoids. Potentials Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 EEG Spectrum AnalYsis of PSI Phemonema-Rebers, elal. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R00.3jQQ27.0,100 were amplified with Grass 5P-1 preamplifiers and asso- spectra trom mcuvi ua tri'Ass, and &-lermining low and ciated. driver amplifiers in a Grass Model 5 polygraph. high alpha limits from the average with a cursor pro- The 0.8 tc low frequency setting, with an actual time gram. For any given S, the same limits were used in all constant of 2.5 see., was used for the vertex recording, analyses. The decimi value of each data point in the whereas the 0.1 te low frequency setting was used for alpha band was printed gut for spectra of each trial the occipital lead. Upper frequency was limited by the and four scores were derived. Average power - the 120 per sec mechanical chopper. average value of all the data points within the alpha Identical measures were obtained simultaneously band. Peak power - the maximum value within the from a second S, the sender, who was seated in another the alpha band on eacb trial. Peak position - the room approxim' ordinal position of the largest valuetin the alpha band ately 7 meters from the EEG chamber. A second Grass Model 5 polygraph was used for these (an indication of alpha frequency). Synchrony - the recordings. Amplified scalp potentials from the two Ss ratio of peak power to average power. wererecorded on magnetic tape with an Ampex SP-36"O recorder (no cross talk was detectable). Because of channel limitations on the SP-300, electro-oculograms were not measured. Ss were run in pairs. Usually, one would act first as receiver, then as sender. A Grass PS-2 photostimulator was used to present flash trains of 10 sec duration (20 sec in one session) to the sender at 6 or 16 fps. On any given trial during each experimental set of 36 trials, either one of the flicker trains could be presented or an equivalent null (no flash) period would occur. The null period constituted a within-S control condition. Twelve trials each of the 0, 6, or 1Z fps conditions were given in pseudo randorn order, generated beforehand by the experimenter. On each trial both the sender and receiver were pre- sented a 100 msec, I KHz tone burst I sec before ons!1 of the photostimulus to provide the receiver information about when a flash train (or null period) would occur, and to induce CNVs. After termination of the flash train or null period, the receiver was cued by a click over an intercom to guess whether 0, 6, or 16 fps had been presented to the sender. The receiver tapped a telegraph key once, twice, or three times to so indicate. Time-locked digitizing of EEGs was done off-line with a Linc-8 computer, Eight sec of occipital EEGs associated with the midportion of the 10 sec flash trains or null periods were stored in two consecutive 4 sec epochs on two consecutive Linc tape blocks. Epochs of 2.5 sec duration, beginning 1800 msec be- fore the flicker, were obtained from the vertex deriva- tion for CNV analysis. CNVs were scored in a typical inan"er-i.e., the average amplitude 250 msec before the second event (flicker or null period) was compared to a baseline established before the warning stimulus. T~e occipital EEG was quantified by spectral anal- ysis using the Fast Fourier transform. Spectra covered the frequency range of 0 to 25 Hz. Alpha activity was scored by first identifying alpha bands for each S independently by averaging across RESULTS Overt responses indicating the receiver's conscious estimates of the type of stimulus presented to the sender (0, 6, 16 fps) did not differ from chance. Also, no differences in CNVs associated with the occurrence or nonoccurrence of flicker were found-i.e., the CNV was not predictive of imminent flicker stimulation or its absence in senders or receivers. Data from the second 4 sec occipital EEG epoch was selected for primary analysis on the assumption Lu ir 4~c HZ Figure I Average spectra for 0 and 16 fps conditions from out sender showing alpha blocking and photic driv- ing in response to flicker. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 5 10 15 16 20 Approved For that considerable dme might be involved in the per- as sender are shown in Figure 1. 71c examples are ceptual processes under consideration, and to mini- averages of 12 spectra. the EEG desynchronizing action of the warning No evidence of EEG driving at either 6 or 16 Hz, cue. or other frequencies was obtained from any receiver. Photic driving was obtained when the Ss were direct. 1y stimulated with the strobe. Examplies of spectra associated with 0 and 16 fps trials from one S acting Uj 0 CL 5 10 15 Hz Figure 2 Average spectra for 0, 6, and 16 fps conditions from one receiver and differences between the control (0 fps) trials and trials with flicker. LU 0 CL. Figure 3 Superimposition of spectra from 12 individual con- Lrol trials in two Ss, showing the great consistency Of S H.H.'s alpha activity. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 For purposes of visualfzing results, spectra were L 5 10 15 Hz Approved For averaged, and averaged spectra associated with flicker trials were algebraically subtracted from null trials by computer. Alterations of activity in the alpha range were indicated by that procedure in some Ss. Examples from one receiver of such spectra and their differences are shown in Figure 2. 7hree Ss exhibited rather poor alpha activity and evidenccd7,no obvious differences among conditions so their data were not subject to further detailed analysis. Another S who was run on several occasions sometimes showed well-developed alpha, but difference scores among conditions were very inconsistent. Of the two remaining ~s, one had relatively robust alpha and there was an apparent increase of alpha when the sender was stimulated with 6 fps. However, preliminary statistical analysis of the single point of maxim= difference between the 0 and 6 fps spectra showed the difference to be nonsignificant (t - 0.92). The remaining S had extremely well-developed alpha of high amplitude i;id stability. Figure 3 contrasts this S with another who had relatively gooa alpha. Because of the difference between null and flicker trials suggested TABLE I Average Values (12 trials) of Four EEG Spectrum Measures in Eight Experimental Sets (Subject H.H.) (Second 4 see EEG Epoch) Flash Frequency (fps) SESSION SET 0 6 16 AVERAGE POWER (A) or Y a SENDER 1 94.8 50.6 84.1 33.0 76.8 37.7 J.L 1 41.3 16.7 45.5 17.4 37.0 21.4 R.T. 2 25.1 21.3 35.7 20.8 28.2 21.4 None (informed) 3 54.2 31.4 55.3 14.9 44.8 18.5 J.L 4 56.8 28.9 50.9 36.0 32.3 19.6 J.L 1 39.8 33.4 24.9 20.2 30.3 32.8 R.T. 2 86.0 60.5 53.0 48.6 52.1 51.2 None (uninformed) 3 64.5 32.4 76.0 44.4 68.6 34.3 R.T. (feedback) PEAX POWER (P) 1 1 357.7 246.6 392.2 159.8 289.6 192.7 2 1 160.7 68.1 161.0 85.7 125.0 81.4 2 87.5 86.9 95.7 70.5 81.7 61.6 3 191.4 134.1 170.5 63.4 149.3 60.4 4 240.6 138.7 178.0 174.7 104.6 77A 3 1 145.2 145.0 74.2 73.3 122.1 153.5 2 318.1 215.6 180.6 167.8 202.3 224.3 3 240.8 186.0 270.3 198.4 217.3 123.0 PEAK POSITION 1 1 9.3 1.1 10.2 2.5 9.5 2.2 2 1 9.6 2.3 7.3 2.7 8.7 1.2 2 7.6 3.3 7.5 2.8 8.6 4.1 3 7.7 1.6 9.0 1.9 8.0 2.1 4 7.8 2.6 8.3 3.7 7.2 3.1 3 1 7.8 3.9 8.8 4.4 9.6 3.7 2 8.3 3.1 6.0 3.3 7.0 3.8 3 9.6 2.0 8.9 3.7 9.2 3.5 SYNCHRONY (P/A) 1 1 3.5 1.1 3.8 0.6 3.5 0.9 2 1 3.8 0.8 3.5 0.9 3.3 0.6 2 3.3 0.8 2.9 0.8 3a 0.5 3 3.4 1.0 3.1 1.0 3.4 0.8 4 4.2 0.7 3.3 1.1 3.1 0.7 3 1 3.5 1.1 3.0 1.0 3.3 IA 2 3.3 1.3 3.5 0.7 3.7 0.9 3 3.5 1.0 3.4 0.8 3.1 0.5 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For ReleasSaBiWOMAtMAiRORSIS-MQZMRW3)t~MATQM-0 by the data shovm in Figure 2 this S was tested in two additional experimental sessions of 1 and 3 sets of 36 trials respectively. Her sessions were done on 8-3-73, 11-12-73, and 11-29-73. Three sets of experiments with this S were atypical mi thefollowing wa s. On session 2, set 2, the sender was Y removed from the experiment with the knowledge of the receiver. On session 3, set 2, the sender was re- moved without the knowledge of the receiver. On ses- sion 3, set 3, the sender was present, but verbal feed- back regarding the actual flash frequency or null period f was given the receiver after each trial. During all o session 3 the flicker was 20 sec rather than 10 sec in duration. Mean values for the four scores obtained from each experimental set for this S are given in Table 1. Peak power associated with t6_e 16 fps condition was less than that associated with control (null) trials in all eight experimental sets. The 6 fps condition showed less peak power in four of the eight sets. Although obtained from a single S, there was no rationale for matching particular nulf-trials with par ticular flash trials so the individual trial scores were treated as independent variables and a two-tailed t approximation to the nonpararnetric randomization test was used to evaluate the data (Siegel, 1956). The five comparable sets of data (all those including a sender, 0 except the one with verbal feedback) formed the pri- Mary basis for statistical analyses. Means and standard deviations over these five sets for the several scores and conditions are presented in Table 2. For the five comparable sets, average power and peal: power in the second EEG epoch were significantly 250 200 Z = 150 e M LU 100 it 0 CL le < LU so 0 fps 1st 4 sec 2nd 4 see EEG EPOCH EEG EPOCH Figure 4 Average peak power in the three stimulus conditions for consecutive EEG epochs, in S H.H. less in this receiver when the sender was stimulated with 16 fps than when no Bashes occurred (t. - 2.09, df = 118, p < .05; tp - 2.16, df - 118, p < .05). The 6 fps condition did not differ significantly from the control condition in terms of any measure. Relative peak power in the three conditions based on all the data are displayed graphically in Figure 4i When all TABLE 2 Overall Average Values for 5 Comparable Sets of Four EEG Spectr= Measures (Subject H.H.) EEG Block EEG Block 1 2 FPS 0 6 16 0 6 16 60 56 60 60 56 60 46.8 48.5 45.0 57.6 51.9 44.20 AVERAGE POWER 34.2 35.8 30.7 38.4 32.3 31.3 158.7 166.6 151.5 219.1 183.4 158.1 PEAK POWER 127.1 143.7 121.1 170.3 147.2 137.7 _X 8.0 8.4 8.2 8.5 8.7 8.6 PEAK POSMON 3.4 2.8 3.2 2 3.3 2.7 6 Cr . X 3.28 3.26 3.31 3.67 3.37 3.33 SYNCHRONY 03 0 0 0 94 1.40 1 86 91 97 0 a . . . . . significantly different from 0 fps (p < .05) Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 0 6 16 0 6 16 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 EEG Spectrum Analysis of PSI Phemonema-Rebers. etal. characteristics of the stimulus train. Interpreting the lesser EEG efftct in the 6 fps condition as due to a leas energetic stimulus suggests that the S may have been unusually sensitive to minute magni-tic or static fieUs that might have been differentially produced in her environment by the two stimulus frequencies. This suggestion is reinforced by the fact that no sender was required to obtain the alpha suppression. The sender was absent during session 3, set 2 (Table 1) without the re=ivees knowledge, yet a large effect on the EEG was still produced. A similar result was reported by Tart (1963) who also obtained effects in a "control" condi- tion, where a resistor rather than a person was shocked. However, our S's inability to overtly indicate, above chance levels, ilether null or stimulus trials occurred indicates that supraliminal cues associated with flicker were not responsible for the effect. Also, high gain recording of electrical noise in the environment of the S revealed no energy increment associated with the on- set of flicker. Recordings from saline with the introduc- tion, of a 501AV, 10 Hz signal also indicated that the alpha reduction was not a consequence of system arti- facts modulating the alpha signal. This investigation describes a procedure that ap- peared to be a sensitive technique for detecting the oc- currcnee of information transfer that was not mediated by physical par,=eters that could be easily identified. This is not to suggest that the effect seen was in any way unnatural--only that it suggested some modality of extreme Perceptual sensitivity that is unidentified and =explained. Data from just one subject can only be suggestive, but this study, using rigorous and objective evaluative techaiques, supplements other previous studies with similar suggestions (Dean, 1966; Tart, 1963). Such findings, if valid, have important implica- tions for theories of perception and nervous system functions. However, the investigation of unusual sen- sory capacities has always been fraught with unreliabil- Ity and our findings certainly need replication and ex- tension. The use of longer foreperiod, and multichan- nel recording would be useful procedural alterations of our method. Cerebral localization of the effect would inherently involve a control against artifactual produc- tion of the effect. KEYWORDS Perception, psL EEG, alpha, spectrum. REFERENCES L Dun, EJD. Plethymnograph records as ESP mponseL In'. J. Neuromchiat-, 2:439, 1966. 2. Tart, C.T. Physiological correlates of psi cognition. Int. J. ftraPhYchol.. 5:375, 1963. 3. Duane, T.D. and Behrendt, T. Extrasensory electroence. phalographic induction between identical twinL Science, 150:367, 1963. 4. Cavanna, R. (Ed.) psi Favorable States of Consciousness. N.Y.: Parapsychology Foundation, 1970. 5. Silverman, J. and Buchsbaum, M.S. Perceptual correlates of consciousness; a conceptual model and its technical im- plications for psi research. In: R. Cavanna (Ed.) Psi Favorable States of Consciousness. N.Y.: Parapsychology Foundation, 1970, pp. 143-169. 6. Kamiya, J. Comment to Silverman and Buchsbaum. In: R. Cavsk-sk (Ed.) Psi Favorable States Ot Consciousness. N.Y.: Parapsychology Foundation, 1970, pp. 158-159. 7. Rebert, C.S. and Sperry, YLG. Subjective and response- related determinants of CNV amplitude. Psychophysiol., 10:139, 1973. S. Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sci- ences. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1956. FOOTNOTES 'This research was supported in part by a Psychiatric Resi. dent stipend to Dr. Ann Turner from the State of California D--partment of Health through Agnews State Hospital; and in- tmal funds from the Department of Psychobiology and Phy- siolosy, SRI, to Q ReberL The authors express their appreci- ation to R. Targ and H. Puthoff for their support and encour- agement of this work and discussions of experimental protocols and results. 2Cunent Professional address for private practice is 555 Middlefield Road. Palo Alto, California. BA brief summary of this work was reported in Nature, Oct. 18,1974. Printed In U.S.A. Reprinted from Physician's Drug Manual, Volume 5, Numbers 9.12, Volume 6, Numbers 1-8, January 1974-December 1974. Pages 82-88. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 POSSIBLE EEG CORRELATES TO REMOTE STIMULI UNDLR Approved For Release 2990MfflW9=AbFWMVS9RM100070001-0 E. C. may, Russell Targp and H, E, Puthoff Stanford Research Institute., Menlo Park, California 94025 ABSTRACT We have investigated the ability of certain individuals to perceive remote (faint) stimuli at a noncognitive level of awareness. To inves- tigate this we have looked for systematic changes in a subject's brninwave (EEG) produc- tion occurring at the same time as light flashes are generated on a random schedule in a remote laboratory. Although we have found In this in- vestigation that significant correlations appear to exist between the times of light flashes and the times of brainwave alterationsy we consider these data to be only suggestive, with a defini- tive result requiring further experimentation. INTRODUCTION In a number of laboratories evidence has been obtained indicating the existence of an as- yet-uniftntified channel wherein information is coupled from remot(c, electromagnetic stimuli to the human nervous system as indicated by physio- logical'response., aven though overt responses such as verbalizationS or key presses provide no evidence for such :information transfer. Physio- logical measures have included plethysmographic responsel and EEG activity.223 Kamiya, Lindsley, Pribram, Silverman,, Walter, and others have hk'99C-Sted that a whole range of EEG responses such as evoked Potentials (EPs), spontaneous EEG, and the contingent negative variation (CNV) might be sensitive indicators of the detection of remote stimuli not mediated by usual sensory process(.s.4 A pilot study was therefore undertaken at SRI to determine %hether EEG activity could be used as c reliable indicator of information transmission between an isolated subject and a remote stimulus. Following earlier work of others, we assumed that perception could be in- dicated by such a measure even in the absence of verbal or other overt indicators. To aid in selecting a stimulus, we noted that Silverman and Buchsbaum attempted, without success, to detect EP changes in a subject in response to a single stroboscopig flash stimu- lus observed by another subject. Kamiya sug- 90sted that because of the unknown temporal characteristics of the information channel, it Might be more appropriate to use repetitive bursts of Light to increase the 6probability of detecting information transfer. Therefore, Consultant to SRI. in our study we chose to use repetitive light bursts as stimuli.7-9 PILOT STUDY AT SRI In the design of the study it was assumed that the application of remote stimuli would result in responses similar to those obtained under conditions of direct stimulation. For example, when normal subjects are stimulated with a flashing light, their EEG typically shows a decrease in the amplitude of the resting rhythm and a driving of t~8 brain waves at the frequency of the flashes. We hypothesized that if we stimulated one subject in this manner (a putative sender)p the EEG of another subject in a remote room with no flash present (a receiver), might show changes in alpha (8-13 Hz) activity, and possibly EEG driving similar to that of the sender,- either by means of coupling to the sen- der's EEG, or by coupling directly to the stimulus. We informed our subject that at certain times a light was to be flashed in a sender's eyes in a distant room., and ifthe subject per- ceived that event, consciously or unconsciously, it might be evident from changes in his EEG out- Put. The receiver was seated in a visually opaque, acoustically and electrically shielded double-walled steel room Located approximately 7 m from the sender's room. We initially worked with four female and two male volunteer subjects. These were desig- nated "receivers." The senders were either other subjects or the experimenters. We decided be- forehand to run one or two sessions of 36 trials each with each subject in this selection proce- dure, and to do a more extensive study with any subject whose results were positive. A Grass PS-2 photostimulator placed about 1 m in front of the sender was used to present flash trains of 10 a duration. The receiver's EEG activity from the occipital region (Oz), referenced to Linked mastoids, was amplified with a Grass 5P-L preamplifier and associated driver amplifier with a bandpass of 1-L20 Hz. The EBG data were recorded on magnetic tape with an Am- pex SP 300 recorder. On each trial, a tone burst of fixed fre- quency was presented to both sender and receiver and was followed in one second by either a 10 s train of flashes or a null flash interval pre- sented to the sender. Thirty-six such trials were given in an experimental session, consisting -I- Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 of 12 null t ii the tone-- Wn~ ~R'freffe f Ol' iW s V1 as e a %S?7 -RDF%qr%'V, 12 tr 09042 CIA trials of flashes at 16 f.p.s., all rand-naly in- termixed, determined by entries from a table of random numbers. Each of the trials consisted of an 11-s EEG epoch. The last 4 s of the epoch were selected for analysis to minimize the desyn- chronizing action of the warning cue. This 4-s segment was subjected to Fourier analysis On a LINC 8 computer. Spectrum analyses gave no evidence of EEG driving In any receiver, although in control runs the receivers did exhibit driving when physically stimulated with the flashes. But of the six sub- jects studied initially, one subject showed a consistent alpha blocking effect. We therefore undertook further study with this subject. Of our six subjects, this one had by far the most monochromatic EEG spectrum. Figure 1 shows a typical occipital EEG spectrum of this subject. 0 2 4 8 10 12 14 16 rMOULNCY HI FIGURE I TYPICAL POWER SPECTRUM AVERAGED OVER TWENTY B.-SECOND EPOCHS Data from seven sets of 36 trials each were collected from this subject on three separate days. This comprised all the data collected to date with this subject under the test conditions described above. The alpha band was identified from average spectra; then scores Of average power and peak power were obtained from indi- i:lual trials and subjected to statistical anal The final analysis showed that power rures were loss in the 16 f.p.S. case than in 6he 0 f.1p.s. in all seven sets of peak power measures and in six out of seven average power measures. Siegel's two-tailed t approximation to the nonparaynotric randomization test 11 was applied to the data from all sets, which included two sessions in which the sender was removed. Aver- age power on trials associated with the occur- rence of 16 f.p.s. was significantly less than when there were no flashes (t = 2.09.9 d.f = 1183* P < 0.04 7he secon ensure peak power, was 11 M-19 the'16 f.p.s. condi- tions than in the null condition (t = 2.16y d.f. = 118, P < 0.03). The average response in the 6 f.p.s. condition was in the same direction as that associated with 16 f.p.s., but Lhc ef- fect was not statistically significant. As part of the experimental protocol the subject was asked to indicate conscious assess- ment for each trial as to which stimulus was generated. The guess was registered by the sub- ject via one-way telegraphic communication. An analysis of these guesses has shown them to be at chance, indicating the absence of any supra- liminal cueing, so arousal as evidenced by sig- nificant alpha blocking occurred only at the noncognitive level of awareness. Several control procedures were undertaken to determine if these results were produced by system artifacts or by subtle cueing of the subject. Low level recordings were made from saline of 12 kQ resistance in pla 'ce of the sub- ject, with and without the introduction of 10 Hz, 50 4V signals from a battery-operated generator. The standard experimental protocol was adhered to and spectral analysis Of the results were carried out. There was no evidence in the spectra associated with the flash fre- quencies, and the 10 Hz signal was not perturbed. In another control procedure a five foot pair of leads was draped across the subject's chair (subject absent). The leads were con- nected to a Grass P-5 amplifier via its high impedance input probe. The bandwidth was set 0.1 Hz to 30 kHz with a minimum gain of 200,000. The output of the amplifier was connected to one input of a C.A.T. 400C "averager." Two- second sweeps, triggered at onset of the tone, were taken once every 13 seconds for approxi- mately two hours? for about 55o samples. No difference in noise level between the fore- period and the onset of flicker was observed. REPLICATION STUDIES AT LANGLEY PORTER Tlie next effort was directed toward rcpli- cation by an Independent laboratory of the original SRI study of EEG response to remote strobelight stimuli. Arrangements for replica tion were made with the Langley Porter Ncuro- psychiatric Institute, University of California Medical Center, San Francisco. As a special precaution against the poSsi- bility of system artifacts In the form of elec- tromagnetic pickup from the strobellght dis- charge or associated electronic equipment (0-9-1, through the power lines), SRI developed an entirely battery-operated package for'use as a stimulus generator for the EEG experimentation. It consists of a battery-driven incandescent -2- Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 LIGHT CHOPPER MOTOR RUNS, CONTINUOLJSLY ~0 2000/08 CIA-RDP9 LIGHT HALLWAY BETWEEN ROOMS 0789ROO3100070001 -0 EEG CHANNELS 1. 2. 3.4 (~) & TIMING CHANNEL 5 2 wc WARNING 10 sec LOCKING TONE CIRCUIT CONTROLS LAMP F BUFFER AMP I I,H? TONE GrNLFIIXTOR 2 sec E! EFORE EACH TOTAL PERIOD (001, os NU L,4hil 10 HZ TIMING GENERATOR SHIELDED ROOM SA 4640 11 FIGURE 2 SCHEMATIC OF THE REMOTE SENSING EEG EXPERIMENT lamp, Whose CW Output pnsses through a mechani- cal choppcr continuously driven by a battery- driven motor as shown in Figure 2. A 10-11[z timing generator (computer triggered) controls the generation of a 1-kilz warning tone two see before onset of thc experimental period, and also drives a locking circuit that determines the prvisencc or absence of the ten-sec light stimuli, again all battery operated. Thus evcrything on the left of the diagram of Fig- ure 2 is I)attcry operate.i and therefore inde- pendent of the power line system. Further$ rcpl.1CLT,iont of the arc-discharge strobelamp by nn incandescent lamp eliminates the possibility of direct stibliminal pickup of audio or elec- tricnl signals from possible transients associ- ntod with the arc discharge or associated clectrrinics. Description of the EEG Processor A hardware single channel power spectrum analyze." was constructed from a commercial band- pass filter with corner frequencies of 9.0 and 12.0 Hz ', and 48 dB down at 8.0 and 13.0 Hz. Analogm-ultipliers convert the filter output to -3- a signal proportional to in-band power. To con- firm that this system is equivalent to the stan- dard FFT analysis used in the pilot study, the analog data of the pilot study was reanalyzed, and the result was found to be consistent with the earlier analysis. Experimental Protocol Each experimental session consisted of 40 trials, 20 each for the 0 (no light) and 16 f.p.s. of the remote light stimulus. A trial is defined as a warning tone followed by a 10 sec- ond period consisting of a 2 second wait, and two 4 second data collection periods. The trial rate was one trial every 30 ± 1 seconds. The trial sequence was randomized subject to the following conditions: (1) in each group of 10 trials there were equal numbers of each condi- tion, and (2) no more than three In a row of a single type were allowed. Seven 40 trial se- quences were made according to this prescription and recorded separately on audio tape. During the session, trials wore generated from one of these tapes and the sequence was unknown to the experimenters since the sequence tapes were Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 generated one month in advance of the experi- ments. As i4pVrvNa&cFcmFeJ9n&aDPQM/16 : CIA accordance witb preestablished criteriap certain trials were deleted after the session for three reasons only: artifact, logic circuit failurey or abnormal EEG power. If a trial was rejected) a trial of the Opposite stimulus condition was rejected at random from the particular set of 10 trials in question. If more than 10 trials of of in-band EEG power (p r. 0.037, using an F -RDR16t60TMREi69ffMMW 1&0 two-way analysis of variance). In considering the experiment as consisting of the combined 212 trials in each stimulus condition regardless of the overt re- sponse contingency, we find a statistically Sig- nificant decrease in in-band EEG power (p 0,011, using F ratio test as above)* a given type were rejected from a sessionp the entire session was deleted. (This occurred twice in each experiment.) Six channels of EEG and one logic channel taken from the sequence tape were recorded on a multiplexed FM analog tape recorder. The logic on the tape differentiated the trials between flashing and nonflashing conditions. In pretesting the equipment, we ran the experiment using unselected subjects such as laboratory personnel, In order to test the adequacy of the experiment and to determine whether there were any correlated electronic or mechanical discharges from the apparatus. In 20 sessions of data acquisition, of 40 each (800 trials) there were no significant differences between the null and 16 Hz conditions. RESULTS Using the above protocol, two experiments were conducted during a throe-month period. For half of the sessions., the subject was asked to pruss a button when she felt the light was flashing. For the six sessions (105 trials each for the 0 and 16 f,,p.s. conditions when she was not asked to overtly indicate her feelings about the light, there was a slight decrease of in- band EEC; power measured over the left occipital region of the brain. Similarly, for the six sessions (107 trials each for the 0 and 16 f.p.s. conditions) when silo was asked to respond overt- ly, there was this time a significant decrease During the second experiment, three months later, a different contingency was added to de- termine if a "sender" was necessary to produce the effect we had observed earlier. For a given session, a random procedure (with equal trials) was used to determine it a person (called the it sender" person) would be looking at the photo- simulator. There was no one present with the photo-stimulator otherwise. For the 7 "non- sender" sessions (121 trials each for the 0 and 16 f.p.s. conditions) we find a statistically significant increase of in-band EEG power mea- sured over the mid-occipital region of the brain (p < 0.039 using an F ratio test as above). During the "sender" sessions (123 trials in each stimulus condition) there was a slight increase of in-band EEG power. All togethert there was a statistically significant increase of in-band EEG power when the 244 trials were analyzed regard- less of "sendee' condition (p < 0.008 using an F ratio test as above), and there was no Signifi- cant difference found between #I sender'Y' no- sender" conditions. For both experiments, we considered In- band EEG power for the 0-4 second and 4-8 second time periods independently to determine if the effects were time dependent. Although some of these isolated sub-intervals were statistically significant, no systematic relationship emerged. Thus the effect appears to be cumulative over the 8 seconds. The 0-8 second results are sum- marized in Table 1. Table 1 SUMARY OF RESULTS OF THE REPLICATION EXPERIMENTS SHOWING POWER MEANS AND STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR THE VARIOUS EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS Experiment Experiment I II GuessingNon-GuessingCombinedSender Non-GuessingCombined SessionsSessions Sessions Sessions No light flash957 704 832 854 766 810 Light flash 873 647 761 860 844 852 F ratio 4.39 2.20 6.47 0.017 4.33 7.03 df 1; df2 1; 202 1; 198 1; 400 1; 232 1; 228 1; 460 P :5. 0.037 0.14 0.011 0.90 0.039 0.0083 -4- Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 DISCUSSION have been found. Thus, although our filter selection was nre the collection of any Al thou&pp=m0diEQr&11MWnVQWW t1QA-R DPVftQ97&R . Q-2 might have reasonably 90=3 replication studies all showed significantchosen other criteria for frequency selection. changes in LTG Production correlated Thereforep although we have found statistically with the presence or absence of a remote light significant evidence for EEG correlates stimulusy to re- the sign of the systematic change in mote light flash stimuli power in , we consider these data the third study was opposite to that . of the to be only suggestive, with a definitive result first two. We therefore undertook a requiring further experimentation. detailed frequency analysis of the EEG data tapes from the Iasi, two experiments, since the REFERLNCES pilot ox- periment had already been subjected to fast- Fourier-transform (FFT) analysis. We of Nouropsychiatry, cOnJec- 1. E. D. Dean Int j tured that the observed power change . in these . L? Vol. 2, p. 4391 1966. experiments might be the result of a very small frequency shift, which could become 2. C. T. Tart, Int. J. of Parapsychology, translated into a large amplitude change due to Vol. 5, p. 375, 1963. discrimi- nator action of the alpha-band filter. In a chapter on alpha blocking, Kooi, In 3. T. D. Duane and T. Behrendt, Science, his Funda- Vol. mentals .. of Electroencephalography 150, p. 367, 1965. says, for ex- L:.,.)Ie, . . . attentiveness is associated with a rvduction in amplitude and an Increase4. R. Cavannal Ed., psi Favorable States in aver- of age frequency of spontaneous cerebral Consciousness. New York: Parapsychology poten- tials. . . The center frequency of Foundation, 1970. the alpha rhythm may be influenced by the type of Ongoing mental activity. Shifts In frequency 5. Ibid pp. 143-169. may be highly consistent as two different tasks are performed alternately." The FFT analysis6. Ibid., pp. 158-159. for the second experiment showed that the average peak EEG power occurred most often 7. R. Targ and H. Puthoff , Information near 8 Hz, Trans and thus fell slightly below the hardwaremission Under Conditions of Sensory sum- Shield- ming window (13 dB at 8.7-12.4 Hz) ing," Nature, Vol. 252, No. 5476, pp. enhancing a 602- possible discriminator effect. The 607, October 18, 1974. FFT analysis further showed that there was an overall in- crease Lin frequency of peak power 8. C. Rebert and A. Turner, O'EEG Spectrum but the shift was statistically nonsignificant. ThisAnalysis Techniques Applied to the slight Problem shift of 0.11 Ift could possibly accountof Psi Phenomena 'It physician's Drug for the Manual,, observed power increase due to the Vol. 51 Nos. 9-12, 6P Nos. 1-8, highly, non- linear discriminator effects. In examiningpp. 82-88 , January-December 1974. other portions of the spectrum for 1 further ef- fects, we found that systematic amplitude9. H. Puthoff and R. Targ, "A Perceptual Chan- changes are highly dependent upon wherenel for Information Transfer Over Kilometer in the frequency spectrum 'the power sum is Distances: Historical Perspective and taken. This Is to be expected since almost all Recent Research," Proc. IEEE, Vol. EEG phenomena 64, are known to be strongly frequency No. 3, pp. 329-354-,-March 1976. dependent. In the pilot study the frequency region for analysis was centered about the subject's domi- nant EEG output frequency with bandpass deter- mined by the full width ten-percent power points. In the two replication studies we used hardware filters at this same frequency. FFT analysis showed clearly thnt if other filter bands had been chosen, significant correlations would not 10. D. Hill and 0. Parr., ElectroenCephalo- graphy: A symposium on its Various Aspects. New York: Macmillan, 1963. 11. S. Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavior Sciences. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1956, pp. 152-156. _5- Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000108108: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 19 OBSERVATION OF NEUROMAGNETIC FIELDS IN RESPONSE TO REMOTE STIMULI by Edwin C. May, Wanda W Luke, VIrginia V T17ask, and Thane j. Frivold SRI International, Menlo Park, California 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 aaivity of eight remote viewers was monitored by a seven-channel magnetoencephalograph (MEG). Visualstimu- li were randomly presented to an isolated individual who acted as a "sender" while MEG data were col- lected from a viewer (receiver). ne stimuli were 5-cm square, linear, vertical, sinusoidal gratings lasting 100 ms (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 (Z - 1.99, p < 0. 024, effect size - 0,599). Similarly, the combined statistic for the pseudo stimuli was also significant (Z - 2.92, p < 0. 002, effect size - 0. 924). 'Me 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. 168 Approved For Release 2000/08/08: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 I INTRODUCTION 1 . Physiological Correlates to Psychoenergetic Function- Ing: A Brief History Evidence from several laboratories has indicated the possible e-,dstence of an as-yet-unidentified channel wherein information is coupled from re- mote electromagnetic stimuli to the human nerv- ous system. Usually, the coupling has been indicated by physiological responses, even though there was no evidence of cognitive awareness of these stimuli. Physiological measures have in- cluded a plethysmographic responsel* and elec- troencephalogram (EEG) activity.2,3 Kamiya, Lindsley, Pribram, Silverman, Walter, and others have suggested that the whole range of EEG ac- tivity, including evoked potentials, spontaneous EEG, and the contingent negative variation (CNV) might be sensitive indicators of responses to any remote Stirntili.4 In 1974, SRI International conducted a pilot study that investigated a single remote viewer's central nervous 7stem (CNS) response to a remote light stimulus. In this experiment, the viewer was in asked to focus attention on a remote flash' 9 (16-hertz [H[z]) Ught. Control periods (no light flashing) were randomly mixed with effort periods (light flashing), The viewer was further asked to register when het perceived the flashing light by pressing a button. During this pilot experiment, the viewer showed a sianificantt decrease in alDha rnoduction when the remote light was flashing, compared with when the light was off. His button presses were random, however, indicating he was not cogni- tively aware of the flashing light. TWo replications of this experiment were conducted with the same viewer at Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric Insti- tute in San Francisco by Drs. David Galin and Robert Ornstein.6 In the first of two experiments, the viewer continued to show a significant de- crease of occipital alpha production only under the remote flashing light condition. In a second experiment conducted 3 months later, however, the viewer demonstrated a significant increase of occipital alpha production. I Although we found that significant correlations appear to exist between the times of light flashes and CNS activity, we considered this result to be only suggestive, with a definitive conclusion re- quiring further experimentation. With the advent of more sensitive CNS monitoring equipment, known as magnetoencephalography QvMG~ and with an additional 15 years of remote viewing experience, SRI conducted an experiment to eVIore possible correlations between CNS activ- ity and remote stimuLL This experiment is the sub- ject of this report. 2. Technological Background ~&gnetoencephalography is a noninvasive tech- nique used to measure, in three-dimensional space, magnetic fields produced by new-onal electric cur- rents in the cortex of the brain. A magnetoen- cephalography device (MEG) can determine the spatial distributions of specific groups of neurons participating in a given activity and their patterns of activity over time. This technology has been used in research ranging from evaluating how normal brains process Won-nation to diagnosing clinical conditions such as epilepsy and dementias.7 Neurons that participate in a given functional ac- tivity communicate between themselves and ulti- mately other parts of the body by a complex 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 mag- netic fields (predominantly dipole) that can be sensed externally. The 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 superconductor 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. 'ne * References are at the end of this report. t 1b keep the identity of theviewer3 confidential,we use the pronounshe andhis throughout this report, rcprdlessof theview- er's gender. * Throughout this report, the word "significant' conforms to the standard definition; p :5 0.05. Observation of NeuromagneVc Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP46900789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 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- d uccd 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. Tle use of an alumi- nurn 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-equivalent 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), ncuronal 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 SQUr.D. Searching for a closely packed group of neurons can be a slow and tedious process. Due to techno- logical restraints, a maximum of seven sensors can be used simultaneously 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, in ion, and earlobes to serve as a head-centered coordinate system. To 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 magneticfields. A Icast-squaresproce- dure is applied to the observed fields to estimate the location of neuronal sources and orientation of the equivalent current dipole.8'17he estimated location of 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 SQUTD 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 ifor long-term monitoring of a subject. These 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 wavefonn can be correlated with perceptual and cognitive processes. The most conunonly 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 Ile 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 brain and are often used as complementary tech- nologies. In some areas, however, the MEG tech- nique has definite advantages over the EEG: (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 proxirWty 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. ObserVation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuff 170 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 (2) EEG procedures are occasionally costly and can be invasive: EEG electrodes must be at- tached directly to the skull or to the bra-in of the subject, whereas MEG sensors are ex- tracranial 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. 11 METHODS OF APPROACH Our go,al 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 Descriptlon 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. T"he following definitions may be helpful: ~ Yj~,=-An individual who attempts extrasen- sorimotor communication with the environ- ment (e.g., the perception of remote stimuli). ~ Direct Stimuli (DS)-VLsua1 stimuli occurring w* . ithin the normal visual sensory channels, ~ &ndu- An individual who, while receiving di- rect stimulL acts as a putative transmitter to a remote individual (i.e., viewer) who is attempt- ing to receive the same information via ex- traserisorimotor communication. 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 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 'Me 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 ~ RemateStimuli (RS)-Visual stimuli occurring outside the normal range of known sensory channels. ~ Pseudo Stimuli (IES)-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 pqriod, 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 Run Timing 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 Observation of Nepromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-6~96-00789RO03100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 4.5--second window thereafter. The sender was presented with a minimum of 9 and a ma)dmum of 15 IDS 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 witliin-run control. A viewer was never presented with direct stimuli except in lo- cating the ma)dmal response to the visual areas (see Section 11.2.2.4). Pseudo Stimuli t t t t t 0 Remote Stimuli 120 see Figure I Schematic Timing Protocol-Single Run 2.2.3 Instructions to Viewers In all sessions, the ,iewers 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 CaUbra- 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 vaUd: 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 neceswrily 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 (i.e, 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 possi- tion that optimized his response to the DS. Once found, the array position was marked on the cap for subsequent repositioning. 4 3 5 2 7 1 4 Distance 2 (cm) _0 3 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: 9 Collect approximately 10 minutes of back- ground data with- no viewer or sender present and the MEG in fun operation. 0 Isolate the sender with the stimulus display de- vice. 9 With the viewer on the table, position the sen- sor array at the calibration point. * 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. a At time < 120 seconds, present 9 to 15 remote and 9 to 15 PS to the sender. a At time > 120 seconds, allow the viewer to re- lax for about 2 to 5 minutes without leaving the table. 11isbreak generally consists of the send- er entering the shielded room to engage the viewer in conversation. * Collect nine additional runs with the same pro- cedure while the viewer remains positioned on the table under the MEG. Observation of. Neuromagnetlc Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli Approved For Release 2000108108: CIA-Rq~16-00789RO03100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08108: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 3. Data Analyses If cur initial ass=ption about sensor positioning is true, and if the eariier results are repUcated, 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 visiW ERFs. Figure 3 is an ideadzed illu=tion of these expected results in the time-series data. Mimes less than zero are prestimulus; times greater than zero are poststi- mulus. The stimulus lasts 100 ms. (8) The "power spectra" of the prq- and post- stimulus time averages were computed. (We recognize that a power spectrum of a time 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 fad 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, non theless, 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. '1b 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 whicii the observed phase shift is exceptional, given the available data sample. 717hus, 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 stimuli, where U is the number of original RS. (2) For each pass (I ... N), compute the RMS phase shift averaged over M remote stimuli. (3) Sort the resulting N values to form the RMS phase shift distribution in the given data sam- pie. (4) Compute the probability that the observed value would be as large (or larger), given a re- peated random sample of the data. Note that Ew~ked Re"aw Docreawd low Al* 5DO 160 Mme 6(IM) 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) 7be 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. 'Me transfer function is defined as the ratio of the FFr of the Post- stimulus period divided by the FFT of the pre-stimulus period. (4) One thousand ms of time-series data (i.e., 500 ms pre- and post-stimulus) was sepa- rately deLrended and filtered (40 Hz lowpass). In addition, the following averages were com- puted across aU RS and PS, respectively: (5) The aver-age 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. Observation of Neuromagnetle Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 173 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 this p-value is not the probability that the measure is as large, given a different data sample. We have used this technique to compute p-Yalues for the RMS phase shifts throughout this report. III RESULTS 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 531, had not previously participated in remote viewing experiments. Viewer 454 . had participated in novice remote viewing training and has produced sigrifficant evidence of remote viewing abUity. I - Calculatlons 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 (fernto lbsla) of the magnetic CNS ac- 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- mul us amplitudes by Vn- where n is the number of stirnuli. Sensor 7 shows a clear change from a slow, regular alpha rhythm during the pre-stimu- ILIS Period, to one of higher frequency, post- stimulus. 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. There was little change of CNS power across the stimulus boundary 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 7 shows this relative RMS phase shift computed from 0 to 40 IU 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 7 are mean- ingful. Thward that end, the identical quantities for the PS are shown in Figures 8 through 11. 'ne "powee, of the time averages for the remote stim- uli differ markedly from those of the PS spectra (Figures 5 and 9). 'Observation of Neuromagnetle Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 174 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 150 75 0 V -75 -150 ........ I Remote Stimuli I^JV -300 0 300 Time (MS) L"Igure 4 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Time Average co ote Stimuli 1!7 1 9.0, IM I 4.5-- L 0.0 A I IM --1AAAA 0 10 20 30 40 rreq ucncy (112) 1;r,ul,-S Viewer Date &25i88: Session i: rower 01 Time Average Observation 6f Neuromagnetlc Fields In Response to Remote stimuli 175 Approved For Release 2000108108: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 W Remote Sli u1 M 6'. I~A, 3- 0. 010 20 30 40 Fmquency (Hz) Figure 6 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Average Power Observation of Nedromagriletic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 176 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 rigure. i viewer L: iiate tsiL5/88: Session 1: RMS Phase ~IA MMr3Qr- -nn7RaPnnn1 nnn70001 -0 ease Luvuluo-j- Pseudo Stimuli 74 75 Q AY mi&~n CL E -75-1 -3UU 0 3.00 Time (M3) rigure o viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Urne Average LZ CO Pseudo Stimuli 74 l'O' L4 0.5.. 0.0 -A 0 10 20 30 4b Frequency (Hz) Figure 9 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Power of Time Average Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote SUMUII 177' Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 CO Pseudo Stimu 74 L I A,11~ .1. L. I 6 LWU 31, 0. L 0 10 20 30 40 Frequency (Hz) Figure 10 Viewer 2: Date 8125/88: Session 1: Average Power Observation of Neuromagnettle Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 178 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 i-eigure 11 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: RMS Phase Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 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- scribed in Section U.3. The resulting 500 Monte 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. (ne p,-value is bounded on the low end by 1/5K) Figure 12 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 12). 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. 1hble 1 shows the viewer identification, date, sensor chosen for analysis, and the p-value (as deaed above) for the RMS phase shift for the remote and pseudo stimuli~ respectively. The p-values shown in Table 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 Tible 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 1.01 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 I I sessions shown in Uble 1. There is statist i- cal evidence that the data within ± 0.5 seconds of the RS are not characteristic of the data at large (Z - 1.99, p :5 0,024, effect size - 0.599). Simi- larly, the combined statistic for the PS indicates that these data are also not characteristic (Zs - 2.92, p :!~' , 0.002, effect size - 0.924). Therefore, there appears to be some statistical anomaly asso- ciated with the RMS phase shifts f6i both stimuli V ypes. 0.50- Key Passes: 500 P-Values ---- Real: 0.002 Pseudo: 0.846 0.40- 7 0.30 0.20 0.00 40 64 88 112 136 160 RMS Phase (deg) Figure 12 Viewer 2: Date 80/88: Session 1- RMS Phase: Sensor: 2: RS 118 Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli Approved .For Release 2000108108: CIA-Rpfo6-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Thble I Results of Monte Carlo Calculation for RMS Phase P-Valu (1-tail) Z-Sco (2-tail) I.D. Date Sensor Remote Pseudo Remote Pseudo 009 06/24/88 6 0.650 - -0.524 - 002 08/25/88 2 0.002 0.848 2-653 0.513 08/26/88 6 0.904 0.966 .0,871 1.491 372 10/19/88 7 0.094 0.168 0.885 0.423 374 03/29/99 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 05/24/89 5 0.260 0.016 -0.050 1.852 05/25/89 4 0.120 0.922 0.706 1.011 531 05124189 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. The 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 d'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 Table 2, the fractional hitting rate is p, - A1(,4 + B), and the fractional missing rate isp2 - CI(C+D). The total number of I-second inter- valsisN - (A+B+C+D), and the total stimulus rate is po - (A+ C)IN. Table 2 Data Schema for Interval Conditions Stimulus Yes No Responseyes A B No C D 'Men, udder the null hypothesis, the following statistic is appro)dmately normally distributed with a mean of 0 and a variance of 1: (p, -P2) 2 7hble 3 showsNpO,pj,A, 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. 7hble 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 OD9 1280 0.091 0.068 0.094 -0.978 0.836 -0.027 372 1089 0.157 0.119 0.160 -0.996 O.W -0.030 Observation of Neurom-agnetIc Fields In Response to Remote stimuli 180 Approved For Release 2000/08108: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 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 (Zs - 1.99, p :!~; 0.024, effect size - 0.599). The 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 ::5, 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-Mean-Square 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 Tbmer6 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 10-11z peak during the 16-Hz epmhs. 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, 10 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 reiponse acts as a trigger stimulus which temporarily synchronized a certain percentage of the neural elements normally under the influence of an intenud pacemaker ... Desynchronization of the elements participating in the evoked response would occur as the elements are brought back under the influence ofart 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. Th 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." '17herefore, 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 M 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 1'stimulV 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, Tr]. 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 13 is a schematic representation of these models. Continuous Alpha Remote Stimulus Monte Carlo Figure 13 Idealized Distributions for Relative Phase Shifts * Values of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 correspond to small, medium, and large effects, respectively. Observation of Neurorriagnetle Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 181 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 As a first step in testing these models, we com- puted the expected variance for the RMS phase, given that the individual phases are uniforrnly dis- tnbuted on [?T, 7T]. Using a 7hylor Series expan- sion for RMS phase, the variance is given by:1 I* 1 2 0~ 7T;r (rod') , or n 30n 2160 (deg'), n where n is the number of individual phases. Thble 4 shows the viewer identification, the two- tailed z-score from Table 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 al I I I sessions gives an overall significant result (X2 - 5121.5. df - 5489, p ::9 0.0002). 11is 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. Table 4 Comparison Between Monte Carlo Phases and Tbeory I Z-Score Number Variance X2 V D of of RMS l Phase P . - . (RS) RS TbeoreticalObserveddf - 499 a ue D09 -0.524 96 22.50 25.46 564.6 0.978 002 2.653 118 18.31 13.63 371.5 4.9x10-6 0.871 76 28.42 24.43 428.1 0.010 372 0.885 90 24.00 23.2S 483.4 0.316 374 0.501 102 21.18 18.64 439.2 0.025 D07 1.555 93 23.23 18.66 400.8 4.640-4 389 -0.191 97 22.27 23.35 523.2 0.790 -0,050 92 23.48 22.29 473n 0.214 0.706 98 22.04 20.22 457.8 0.093 531 0.274 101 21.39 21.05 491.1 0.408 454 -0.090 52 41.54 40.48 487.3 0.363 We must conclude that a uniform distribution for the phase is not a good assumption. Th determine what the phase distribution was for the RS, we constructed histograms from the raw data. Figure 14 shows the distribution of phases for the RS and Monte Carlo stimuli for viewer 002- While the RS distribution is enhanced near ±180 degrees and suppressed near 0 degrees compared to the Monte Carlo distribution, the differences are small (X2 - 10.62, df - 8, p::5 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 15 shows the same distributions for viewer 007. In this case, the RS distribution is nearly uni- form on [-180,1801 degrees, but it differs only slightly from the Monte Carlo distribution (X2 - 9.47, df - 8, p :!5 0.304). We thank Professor Jessica M. Ults, Statistics Dcparimcnt, approach. From the data shown in Uble 4, we see that the X2 indicates significant overall differences between the theoretical and observed phase distributions. However, Figures .14 and 15 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 results for 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 University of California, Davis, Gilifornia, for suggesting this Observation of l4uromignetIc Fields In Response to Remote StInWII 182 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 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 vieww ers. ne 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. Th determine if there were any "obvious" spatial dependencies that might indicate a more optimal array placement, we computed a complete set (a sensors) of Monte Carlo distributions for one ses- sion for -viewer 002. Figure 16 shows the single- tailed p-values for the RMS phases for the RS and PS. They are displayed in the standard sen- sor-an-ay 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 16. Remote Stimuli Pseudo Stimuli F o-8-4 0.002 2 0.126 31 8 21 0,710 31 1 0.036 '1 0.128 j 0.184 0.924 71 OL854 0.668 0.572 61 0.238 '1 1 0.684 61 _1722 - _ __.j Figure 16 Phase p-values: for Viewer 002: 8/25/88 I Pseudo StImull It was initially thought that the PS would act as a within-run control. The 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. The 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. The 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 Observation of Neuromagnetlc Fields In Response to Remote Stimup 183 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Figure 15 Phase Distributions for Viewer OG7: 3/29/89 Figure 14 Phase Distributions for Viewer 002: 8/25/88 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 at 30 Hz, to provide a standard interleaved video signal. Sce Figure 17. When the HP computer signals the PC to provide the appropriate stimulus, the following sequence of events are followed (see Figure 17): (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) The interface board automatically sends this pittem interleaved at 30-Hz. (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 statisti.cally identical, and independently, both were significantly different from the Monte Carlo distributions. 71a raises the question as to whaat constitutes the target stimulus. Our result is un- expected given the target was considered to be what was displayed on the remote monitor. 4~~A~ Stimulus 30 Hz Inter- Type RS/PS leaved Video U Fr me M Stimulus Initiation Buffer Frame Buffer [~M71 Figure 17 Sequence of Events for Stimuli Generation 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 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 Iremains 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. During the SRI/Langley Porter study in 1977, SRI developed an entirely battery operated stimulus generator as a special precaution against the pos- sibil.ity of system artifacts in the form of E.M pickup. They reported significant CNS responses to remote stimulL nonetheless-6 Therefore, it re- mains possible that we have observed an anorna- 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. Observation of Neuromagnetle Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli 184 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 Main HP IBM PC Monitor Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0 REFERENCES I. Dean, E. D., International Jounud of Neuropsychiany, Vol. 2, p 439, 1966. 2. 7hrt, C. T, international Joumal 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 Con.sciouv=, Parapsychology Foundation, New York, 1970. 5. Rebert, C. S., and Ibmer, A., "EEG Spectrum Analysis T~-chniques AppLied to the Problem of Psi Phenomena," Physician's Drug Manual, Vol. 6, Nos. 1-8, pp 82-88, 1974. 6.'Ihrg, R., NUy, E. C., Puthoff, H. E., Galin, D.., and Ornstein, R., "Sensing of Remote .EM Sources (Physiological Correlates)," 'Final ' Report, Project 4W, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 1977. 7. Sutherling, W. W., Crandall, P. H., Cahan, L. D., and Barth, D. S., 'Me Magnetic Field of Epileptic Spikes Agrees with Intracranial U>calizations in Complex Partial Epilepsy," Neurology, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp 778-786, May 1988. 8. Aine, C. J., George, J. S., Medvick, P A., Oakley, M. T, and Flynn, E. R., "Source Localization of Components of the Vsual-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 185 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3100070001-0