CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0

4
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0
The Journal of Parapsychology
The Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 58, September 1994
PUTHOFF, H. E., & TARG, R. (1976). A perceptual channel for information
transfer over kilometer distances: Historical perspective and recent research.
Proceedings IEEE, 64, 329-354.
SCOTT, C. (1972). On the evaluation of verbal material in parapsychology: A
discussion of Dr. Pratt's monograph. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research,
46, 79-90.
SPERRY, R. W. (1961). Cerebral organization and behavior. Science, 133, 1749-
1757.
TARG, R., & PUTHOFF, H. E. (1974). Information transfer under conditions of
sensory shielding. Nature, 252, 602-607.
Bay Research Institute
1010 Harriet Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
TARGET AND SENDER DEPENDENCIES IN
ANOMALOUS COGNITION EXPERIMENTS
BY NEVIN D. LANTZ, WANDA L. W. LUKE, AND EDWIN C. MAY
ABSTRACT: The ganzfeld experiments as summarized by Bem and Honorton (1994)
suggest that using dynamic targets produces stronger results than using static ones. Bem
and Honorton, however, only analyzed ganzfeld studies that included the use of a sender.
Because a sender is not a necessary requirement in forced choice trials, we designed and
carried out a study to see if a sender is required in nonganzfeld, free-response trials. In the
first of two experiments, five experienced receivers participated in 40 trials each, 10 in
each condition of a 2x2 design to explore sender and target type. We observed significant
effects for static targets (exact sum-of-rank probability of p ≤ .0073, effect size = 0.248, n
= 100), chance results for dynamic targets (p ≤ .500, effect size = 0.000, n = 100), and no
interaction effects between sender and target-type conditions. One receiver slightly fa-
vored the no-sender condition, F(1,36) = 4.43, p ≤ .04, whereas another slightly favored
static targets, F(1,36) = 5.47, p ≤ .04. We speculate that these surprising results (i.e.,
favoring static over dynamic targets) arose, in part, because of the difference between a
topically unbounded dynamic target pool and a topically restrictive static pool. In a second
experiment, we redesigned the dynamic pool to match more closely the properties of the
static pool. Four of the receivers from the first study participated in at least 20 trials each,
10 in each target-type condition. No senders were used throughout this experiment. We
observed a significant increase in anomalous cognition for the new dynamic targets,
t(143) = 3.06, p ≤ 1.3× 10-3, and a significant increase in anomalous cognition for the static
targets, t(143) = 1.68, p≤.047. We conclude that a sender is not a necessary requirement for
free-response anomalous cognition. A rank-order analysis showed no target-type depend-
encies in the second study. On the basis of an analysis by May, Spottiswoode, and James
(1994b), we believe a fundamental argument suggests that in free-response anomalous
cognition experiments, dynamic targets should be better than static ones.
The ganzfeld database has received considerable attention since Bem
and Honorton's (1994) publication. They reported a significant differ-
ence between static and dynamic targets, although they did not report
significant hitting with static targets.1 None of the 355 ganzfeld trials
analyzed by Bem and Honorton were done in a clairvoyance mode; all of
these trials used senders.
These data inspired two questions:
1. Is a sender a necessary or sufficient participant in the process?
2. Is target-type dependency real?
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 37th Annual Convention of the
Parapsychological Association, held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, August 7-10, 1994.
!It may be that this difference will vanish when other factors are accounted for. In
private communication Jessica Utts reported that she did not find a significant difference
between target conditions when receivers brought their own sender.
284
#9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0

287
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0
Target and Sender Dependencies
286
The Journal of Parapsychology
The answer to the first question is settled for forced-choice. Clairvoy-
ance ESP card studies (Honorton, 1975) show significant hitting-send-
ers are not necessary. But what is the situation for free-response? As part
of a cooperative effort between Psychophysical Research Laboratories
and the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, we asked Honorton to conduct a
meta-analysis of the ganzfeld database to determine the answer (Honor-
ton, 1992). In that review, Honorton examined the ganzfeld studies that
were published in the English-language parapsychology literature be-
tween 1974 and 1991. Besides published reports, the meta-analysis also
included doctoral theses and abstracts of otherwise unpublished studies.
Honorton found that only 12 of 73 studies reported not using a sender,
and their combined results did not reach statistical significance (z = 1.31,
ps.095). The difference was in favor of the sender protocol (Zdiff = 1.49,
p ≤.137).
We agree with Honorton's criticism that the studies do not attempt a
differential comparison between sender and no-sender. As a result, none
of the studies were blind to the sender condition. In parallel to the
experiments we report here, we asked Honorton to design and conduct
such a study. Robert Morris and the research group in the Psychology
Department at the University of Edinburgh have taken over that task.
This paper reports on two nonganzfeld experiments that we con-
ducted in 1992 and 1993 to address sender and the target dependencies.
THE 1992 EXPERIMENT
We used a 2 x 2 design to study the effects of sender versus no-sender
and static-versus-dynamic target type on the quality of anomalous cogni-
tion (AC).2 The details of the design, results, and conclusions from the
study are described in this section.
Target-Pool Selection
The static targets were 50 of the 100 magazine photographs that have
been used in our laboratory for many years. By design these targets had
the following characteristics:
2The Cognitive Sciences Laboratory has adopted the term anomalous mental phenomena
instead of the more widely known psi. Likewise, we use the terms anomalous cognition and
anomalous perturbation for ESP and PK, respectively. We have done so because we believe
that these terms are more naturally descriptive of the observables and are neutral in that
they do not imply mechanisms. These new terms will be used throughout this paper.
Topic homogeneity. The photographs contained outdoors scenes of
settlements (e.g., villages, towns, cities), water (e.g., coasts, rivers and
streams, waterfalls), and topographical features (e.g., mountains, hills,
deserts).
Size homogeneity. Target elements are all roughly the same size. That
is, there are no size surprises such as an ant in one photograph and the
moon in another.
Affectivity homogeneity. As much as possible, the targets include only
material that invokes neutral affectivity.
This set was divided into 10 sets of five photographs that were deter-
mined to be visually dissimilar by a fuzzy set analysis (May, et al., 1990)
and fine-tuned by inspection.
For the dynamic targets, we digitized and compressed 30 video clips
from a variety of popular movies or documentaries. With the exception
of cartoons and sexually oriented material, the clips contained nearly
anything. Examples included an indoor motor bike race and a slow
panoramic scan of the statues on Easter Island.
The overall intent of these dynamic targets was to control for cogni-
tive surprise, to provide target elements that are easily sketched, and to
mimic the content of the successful ganzfeld dynamic targets.
Receiver, Sender, and Monitor Selection
We chose five experienced receivers who had produced significant
AC effect sizes in previous investigations. The sender for all of the trials
was the principal investigator (PI), located in Lititz, Pennsylvania. All
trials were unmonitored.
Protocol
Each of the five receivers contributed 10 trials in each of the condi-
tions shown in Table 1. Although 10 trials seems too few for such a study,
we computed that the statistical power within a cell was 80%, given the
"known" historical effect sizes of approximately 0.8 for these receivers.
Target preparation. Prior to beginning the study, an experiment coordi-
nator randomly generated a unique, counterbalanced set of 20 static
and 20 dynamic targets for each of the five receivers.3 Within each target
type, a counterbalanced set of sender and no-sender conditions was also
generated, and all target selections were done with replacement. A copy
3All randomizations were done with a standard computer algorithm, which is based on
a shift-register algorithm by Kendell and has been shown to meet the general criteria for
"randomness" (Lewis, 1975).
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0

289
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0
The Journal of Parapsychology
Target and Sender Dependencies
288
of each target (either a color photograph or a short clip on video tape)
was placed in an envelope and a trial number, 1 to 40, was written on the
outside. Those envelopes containing targets from the no-sender condi-
tion were sealed and those for the sender condition remained unsealed.
Each set of 40 targets was packaged separately and shipped to the PI.
TABLE 1
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Target Type
Sender
Static
Yes
Static
No
Dynamic
Yes
Dynamic
No
Trial schedule. Two of the five receivers resided in California, and the
others resided in Kansas, New York, and Virginia. The experiment was
conducted over a 5-month period Individual schedules were developed
so as to cause as little inconvenience to the receiver's daily routine as
possible. Not more than one trial per day or three trials per week were
conducted.
Session sequence. For each trial and for each receiver, the following
steps were taken:
1. The PI selected the appropriately numbered envelope from the
box of targets for the receiver.
2. In the sender condition, he looked at the selected target for 15
minutes and attempted to "transmit" it to the intended receiver during
a prearranged trial period.
3. In the no-sender condition for the static targets, he placed the
sealed envelope on his uncluttered desk for the 15-minute trial period.
4. In the no-sender condition for the dynamic targets, he played the
video repeatedly for 15 minutes without sound, and with the TV monitor
located in an unoccupied room.
5. At the conclusion of the 15-minute trial period, and after the re-
ceipt of the receiver's response by FAX, he sent a copy of the target
material (either a photograph or video tape) to the receiver by mail.
During each trial, the procedure was as follows:
1. At the prearranged time, the receiver withdrew to a quiet room in
his or her home and sat at a desk.
2. For a period lasting up to 15 minutes, the receiver wrote and drew
his or her impressions of the intended target material.
3. At the end of the trial, the receiver sent a copy of the response to
the PI by FAX machine.
4. By return mail, the receiver obtained a copy of the target as feed-
back for the trial. The target copy and original response were sub-
sequently sent to the experiment coordinator in Menlo Park, CA.
We did not provide specific instructions beyond logistical information
to the receivers, because they were all experienced at this type of task.
They were, however, knowledgeable about the general characteristics of
the two target pools.
When the experiment coordinator received the receiver's response,
all identifying information (name, date, and time of trial) was removed.
Periodically during the course of the experiment, the experiment coor-
dinator provided an analyst, who was blind to the target choice, with a
set of responses and associated target packs for analysis.
Analysis
We conducted two different analyses in this study:
1. Our standard 1 of 5 rank-order technique was used to construct
effect sizes and p values. The targets that were used as feedback for the
receivers were duplicates of the ones used in the analysis.
2. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to address the
2 × 2 questions.
It is general policy in the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory not to com-
bine the data of receivers. In this study, all data combinations are post
hoc; however, all other analyses are a priori.
Rank-order. For each trial, there was a single response and its associ-
ated target pack (either static or dynamic). An experienced analyst, who
was blind to the condition and target for the trial, was asked to rank-or-
der five targets (the intended target and four decoys) within the given
pack.4 This was a forced ranking, so regardless of the quality of match
between the response and targets, the analyst had to assign a first-place
match, a second-place match, and so on for each of the five targets. The
output from this part of the analysis was a rank-order number (i.e., 1 to
5, one corresponding to a first-place match) for the correct target.
4Because the analyst remained in the Menlo Park Cognitive Sciences Laboratory and all
other participants were never present during the 1992 study, he/she was blind to all
conditions.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0

291
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0
The Journal of Parapsychology
Target and Sender Dependencies
290
For each receiver, target type, and condition, we had 10 such rank-or-
der numbers, which constituted a block of data. A rank-order effect size
was computed for a block as:
€ij =
( Ro - Ri,j )
,
N2-1
12
where Rij is the average rank for target type i and sender condition j, and
Ro is the expected average rank, which for this study is equal to 3 for all
cases. Nis the number of possible ranks and is equal to 5 throughout this
study. The effect size reduces to:
3 - Ri,į
Enj = 12
Analysis of variance. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was com-
puted for each receiver. The two primary variables were target type and
sender condition (i.e., ANOVA main effects). Each of these variables
possessed the two states shown in Table 1.
Hypotheses
The overall null hypothesis was: &j will not be significantly different
from zero.
Using an F test, we hypothesized that the quality of AC does not
depend upon a sender regardless of target type. Similarly, we used an
F test to test the hypothesis that the quality of AC does not depend on
target type, regardless of the sender condition.
The ANOVA also tests for potential interactions between the target
and sender conditions. For example, it might be that a sender is re-
quired for dynamic targets and not for static ones. We did not, however,
have a hypothesis regarding interactions.
Effect Size Results
Five receivers completed 40 trials each. Table 2 shows the effect sizes
computed for the 10 trials in each cell. Receiver 009 showed significant
evidence for AC in the static target, no-sender condition (p ≤ .02); Re-
ceiver 372, in the static target, sender condition; and Receiver 518, in the
static target, no-sender condition (p ≤ .05). Combined, the static, no-
sender condition was significant (p≤.02).
TABLE 2
EFFECT SIZES
Static target
Dynamic target
Receiver
Sender
No sender
Sender
No sender
009
0.071
0.636
-0.141
0.141
131
-0.071
-0.071
0.212
0,495
372
0.707
0.141
-0.354
-0.283
389
0.141
0.212
0.000
0.000
518
-0.088
0.530
-0.495
0.283
Totalsa
0.198
0.297
-0.028
0.028
Note: Italicized values indicate significant results using a one-tailed { test.
ªTotals are post hoc.
ANOVA Results
Table 3 shows the results of an ANOVA on these data. Because there
were 10 trials within each cell, the degrees of freedom are the same for
all receivers and are therefore shown only in the column headings. Two
receivers show significant main effects. Receiver 372 showed a tendency
to favor static over dynamic targets (i.e., p ≤ .03), and Receiver 518
showed a tendency to favor no-sender conditions (i.e., p ≤.04). Notice
the italicized values in Table 3; for these receivers, the ANOVA hypothe-
sis that the data were drawn from the same distribution is rejected, and
there were no significant interactions between target type and sender
condition.
Combining results post hoc across receivers, the ANOVA showed no
significant main effect for the sender condition. The main effect for
target type, although not significant, was strongly in favor of the static
targets, F(1,196) = 2.91, p≤ .09.5 We found no significant interactions for
the combined data, F(1,196) = 0.02, p ≤.89.
Because there were no significant interactions, we combined the data
for static targets regardless of the sender condition (i.e., 100 trials). The
sum of ranks was 265 (exact sum-of-rank probability of p ≤ .007, effect
size = 0.248). The total sum of ranks for the dynamic targets was 300 (p
≤ .50, effect size = 0.000). From these data, we concluded that static
targets may be better than dynamic targets.
5We computed a trial effect size of 0.121 given the F for the target-type analysis. Be-
cause the published effect size of 0.159 is generally considered a robust effect for the
ganzfeld (Bem & Honorton, 1994), we are justified in claiming that the static targets are
"strongly" favored over the dynamic ones.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787RC+0300280001-0

-
292
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0
The Journal of Parapsychology
Target and Sender Dependencies
293
TABLE 3
ANOVA RESULTS
Sender Condition
Target Type
Interaction
Receiver
F(1,36)
p value
F(1,36)
p value
F(1,36)
p value
009
0.38
.54
0.68
.42
2.08
.16
131
0.18
.67
1.66
.21
0.18
.67
372
1.01
.32
5.47
.03
0.61
.44
389
0.01
.91
0.33
.57
0.01
.91
518
4.43
.04
0.97
.33
0.06
.81
Discussion and Hypothesis Formulation
That static targets are apparently better than dynamic ones
(t(198) = 1.75, p≤.08, two-tailed) is surprising, not only because it fails
to support the ganzfeld result, but also because it actually suggests the
opposite. There are a number of possible contributing factors for this
outcome. They include statistical artifacts, idiosyncrasies of our receivers
compared to the ganzfeld participants, and procedural differences. An-
other possibility may be that rank-order statistics were used, as they were
in the ganzfeld. We find that absolute measures of AC are better than
relative measures in process-oriented research; and because the target-
type inference was based on relative measures, perhaps this accounts for
some of the result. Please see an expanded discussion of this point in the
following section on the 1993 experiment.
We propose, however, a different explanation: the fundamental dif-
ferences between the target pools in this experiment are, in themselves,
a source of noise and confound the interpretation.
To understand this noise source, we must first assume that AC data
are weak and difficult to recognize. Target pools that contain a large
number of differentiable cognitive elements, in conjunction with receiv-
ers who believe that this is the case, are a source of noise. Receivers are
encouraged to report any imagined impressions, because those impres-
sions might be part of the target. Because AC is assumed to be weak,
most of what is generated is more from the receiver's imagination than
from the signal. This noise is generated from an active imagination
coupled with an agreement not to edit the internal experience. A full
description of these points can be found in May, Spottiswoode, and
James (1994a).
The receivers in our experiments have learned the natural limitations
of the photographs in our usual target pool by experience and by in-
struction. They have become skilled at internal editing and do not
report impressions that they know are absent from the overall target
pool; thus there is less incorrect material in their responses.
We conclude, therefore, that in this experiment, receivers were un-
able to produce significant evidence of AC with dynamic targets. They
produced, what is for us, significant reduced functioning with static
targets. We speculated that this drop of functioning in both target con-
ditions arose because the protocol would not allow the receivers to edit
their internal experience. They were told that the dynamic targets could
be virtually anything, and because they were blind to the static-versus-dy-
namic target condition, they were unable to edit their imaginations,
even for the static targets.
On the basis of this speculation, we developed the following hypothe-
ses for our replication study in 1993:
1. An overall significant increase of AC will be observed for dynamic
targets if the dynamic pool is designed with a similar set of topics that
match the static pool from the 1992 study.
2. An overall increase of AC will be observed for static targets be-
cause the receivers will be able to edit their internal experience.
THE 1993 EXPERIMENT
In this experiment, we included a static-versus-dynamic target condi-
tion to replicate the findings from the ganzfeld, but dropped the sender
condition because it appeared not to influence the results of our 1992
investigation. All trials were conducted with a monitor but without a
sender.
Target Pools
We redesigned both the static and dynamic targets with the constraint
that they all must conform to the topic, size, and affectivity homogeneity
of the original static targets. We identified a large number of videos that
could be edited to produce 50 segments comparable to the static targets.
A single frame from within each video clip, which was characteristic of
the entire clip, acted as its static target pool equivalent.
Thus, we improved the target pools from our 1992 experiment in two
ways:
1. The new dynamic pool possessed a reduced number of differenti-
able cognitive elements as compared with the dynamic pool we used in
1992.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0

1
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0
Target and Sender Dependencies
295
294
The Journal of Parapsychology
-
2. The contents of the dynamic and static pools were nearly identi-
cal, by design.
During the experiment, the targets were chosen randomly and were
counterbalanced regarding static and dynamic target types within receiv-
ers.
All static frames were digitized (i.e., 640 x 480 pixels) for 24 bits of
color information, compressed by JPEG, and stored on-line for feedback
and display purposes. The dynamic targets were digitized at near real-
time rate and stored on three magneto-optical read/write diskettes. The
"video" clips could then be displayed on our full-color Sun Microsystems
computer monitor in real-time.
Receiver, Monitor, and Sender Selection
For the new experiment, we chose four of the five experienced receiv-
ers who had participated in our 1992 study. All trials were conducted
without a sender and were monitored by the PI, who was blind to target
type and content for each trial. ..
Protocol
Three receivers contributed 10 trials in each of the two target condi-
tions, and a fourth (Receiver 372) contributed 15 trials in each condi-
tion.
Trial schedule. The experiment was conducted over a 7-month period,
and all trials were conducted at our laboratory in Menlo Park. One of
the four receivers (Receiver 009) lives locally, but the others traveled to
our facility for one-week visits. All viewers participated in no more than
one trial per day.
Session sequence. Before the session began, and after the receiver and
monitor were sequestered in our AC laboratory, an assistant, who was
otherwise not involved in the experiment, randomly generated a target
(with replacement) in accordance with the target selection criteria (i.e.,
counterbalanced for type within receivers and randomly within type).
During the session, the following procedure was used:
The monitor provided the following tasking statement to the re-
ceiver: "There is a scene that needs a description. Access to that scene is
through the word target."
For a period lasting no longer than 15 minutes, the receiver wrote
and drew his or her impressions of the intended target material, with the
monitor asking for clarification on specific response elements.
When the monitor and receiver agreed that the data were complete,
the monitor halted the session, copied the response material, and se-
cured the original.
The monitor provided computer-based feedback of the intended
target material and emphasized the points of agreement between the
response and target.
We again emphasize that for each trial the monitor and receiver were
blind to the target selection. In this study, there was a single, experi-
enced monitor who was trained only to seek clarification of receivers'
responses rather than suggesting responses.
All four receivers participated in a total of 20 trials with this design. At
no time during these trials was the target material displayed during the
AC session. Instead, the intended target, which existed on a computer
disk, was designated only by name, and a laboratory assistant had exclu-
sive knowledge of that name. Only during the feedback phase was the
intended target displayed to the monitor and receiver.
We asked Receiver 372 to participate in an additional 10 trials that
were randomly counterbalanced between static and dynamic targets. We
used an automated version of the preceding procedure, and, during the
session, the target material was silently displayed on a computer monitor
in another room. The session protocol was identical to the preceding
one except for the automatic target generation and display.
For these 10 trials, the monitor initiated an automatic computer pro-
gram after Receiver 372 had entered the AC laboratory. This program
randomly counterbalanced the target type and selected a single target
for the session. Regardless of the type, the program required that a
specific optical disk, unlabeled with regard to content, be mounted, and
the dynamic version of the selected target was then copied to an internal
hard disk. All static equivalent targets were already resident on the inter-
nal hard disk. Once the transfer was complete, the monitor was in-
structed to initiate the trial. For the next 60 seconds, the computer
screen remained blank, thus allowing the monitor sufficient time to
enter the adjacent AC laboratory and remain blind to the target choice.
At the end of the 60 seconds, the computer program began to continu-
ously display the target regardless of type. The computer program kept
track of all the specific details that were used later during the analysis
phase.
Analysis
We conducted two different a priori analyses in this experiment:
.........
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280004-0
1

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0
The Journal of Parapsychology
296
1. Our standard 1 of 5 rank-order technique to construct effect sizes
and p values.
2. A blind rating from a predetermined rating scale.
Our rank-order procedure was similar to the one we used in our 1992
experiment. The sole difference was how and when the decoy targets
were chosen. In our earlier investigation, the decoys were predeter-
mined using fuzzy set analysis and fine tuning. Thus, they existed prior
to the start of the experiment. In this study, the decoys were chosen by
computer at the time of analysis and did not exist during the actual
trials.
Prior to the start of this experiment, we divided our 50 targets into 10
sets of five targets each. Differing from our earlier approaches, the tar-
gets within each pack were as similar as possible. We were able to identify
five broadly different topic categories (e.g., cities near water, ruins, etc.),
and we created two different packs of five targets for each specific cate-
gory. All decisions about the packs of targets were based on our experi-
ence and subjective assessment.
Decoys were chosen by the computer at analysis time. First, the com-
puter selected the topic set of five packets from which the actual target
was chosen. Then, the computer randomly selected one target from
each of the remaining four target packs for the decoys.
The analyst was the same individual as in the 1992 study. Differing
from that study, however, all the trials were conducted in the Cognitive
Sciences Laboratory. The PI/monitor and the receivers were present
only during the sessions, and the analysis was performed at the conclu-
sion of the data acquisition without the PI or the receivers present.
Otherwise, care was taken to prevent contact between the analyst and
the experiment participants during the sessions.
Blind rating scale. Rank-order analysis does not usually indicate the
absolute quality of the AC. For example, a response that is a near-perfect
description of the target receives a rank of 1. But a response that is barely
matchable to the target may also receive a rank of 1. Table 4 shows the
rating scale that we used to perform a blind assessment of the quality of
the AC responses, regardless of their rank. Even though ranks correlated
with ratings, we feel that rating scales like this potentially reduce an
additional source of variance in correlational or comparative studies.
To apply this subjective scale to an AC trial, an analyst begins with a
score of 7 and determines if the description for that score is correct. If
not, then the analyst tries a score of 6 and so on. In this way the scale is
traversed from 7 to 0 until the score-description seems reasonable for
the trial.
Target and Sender Dependencies
297
TABLE 4
0-7 POINT ASSESSMENT SCALE
Score
Description
7
Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail, with
essentially no incorrect information.
6
Good correspondence with good analytical information and relatively
little incorrect information.
5
Good correspondence with unambiguous unique matchable
elements, but some incorrect information.
4
Good correspondence with several matchable elements intermixed
with incorrect information.
3
Mixture of correct and incorrect elements, but enough of the former
to indicate receiver has made contact with the site.
2
Some correct elements, but not sufficient to suggest results beyond
chance expectation.
1
Little correspondence.
0
No correspondence.
Figures I through 3 (pages 298 through 299) illustrate the applica-
tion of this scale and show that the quality of an AC response is not
indicated by a first-place ranking. All three examples were given a rank
of 1 in a blind analysis from our 1992 study. The response to the waterfall
target in Figure 1 included a number of pages of material about a city
and other manmade elements. In all of our analyses, we strictly adhered
to the concept that any material a receiver deletes from the response
prior to feedback is not counted in the analysis. Because the receiver
deleted the descriptions of manmade elements during the trial, the
response in Figure 1 is considered as complete. This target-response pair
received a score of 7. Figures 2 and 3 show examples of scores of 4 and
1, respectively. In both cases, these responses were not edited by the
receiver.
Hypotheses
The overall null hypothesis was that the effect sizes will not be signifi-
cantly different from zero. A student's t test was used to test the hypothe-
sis that the quality of AC, as measured by rank-order, does not depend
on target type.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300260001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0
Target and Sender Dependencies
299
:
298
The Journal of Parapsychology
1. "City, buildings seems to
be a big leap from what I
am feeling about the target.
I'll restart."
2. "Troubled by city feeling.
Could be that the uprights
are natural rather than
man-made. In which case
the city interpretation is in-
correct and I am feeling
MESA. I'll check verticals."
3. "DELETE lights, struc-
tures, building, and city.
We gots a waterfall, dude."
rocks
water flowing
waterfall
water spray in the air
vertical drop
turbulence
Figure 1. Response with a rating of 7. (Target was a photograph of a waterfall
cascading over rocks into a pool below, with nearby green leaves framing the
waterfall in the center.)
General Data Analysis and Results
The analysis for this study was partially automated. All the trial infor-
mation was stored in a computer file and could be read only by the
analysis program to guard against inadvertent display. An analyst initi-
ated the program and selected which receiver to analyze. Because the
program kept track of the results, it instructed the analyst which re-
sponse to examine for the current trial. If the target for that trial was
dynamic, the program instructed the analyst to insert enough disks,
which were unlabeled with regard to content, so that the target and four
decoys could be copied to the computer hard disk. If the trial target was
static, this step was unnecessary because the static targets were already
present on the hard disk.
white rectangular box like an upside-down
sheet cake
1
short
long
same box
2
two circular shapes in front, like stepping
stones in a garden
long hollow tube, like crashing surf on a
beach - "Hawaii Pipeline"
3
dark interior
Figure 2. Response with a rating of 4. (Target was an aerial photograph of a
housing development in a desert, showing square lots surrounding a dark,
roughly circular central mound and identical houses consisting of three rectan-
gular blocks on each lot.)
BEGIN-10:30 A.M.
"puffy balls - almost cotton-like. Cot-
tony puffy splotches. Movement - whiz-
zing through these cottony puffs fast.
Dampness. A long walkway and metal
girders. "
BREAK
"I keep wanting to say - specifically -
airfield landing strip. Flat land. Big air-
planes would land here like naval carri-
ers. Has a broken white line down the
center of strip and you see it straight on
-
Figure 3. Response with a rating of 1. (Target was a photograph of two long,
narrow, distant waterfalls down down two steeply vertical, dark, vegetation cov-
ered slopes and coming together near the bottom of the photograph to form a
"V" shape.)
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0
-
4. -
..

-
300
The Journal of Parapsychology
A randomized order of the decoys and the target was presented in
tabular form. A mouse click on the target name would launch either the
dynamic or static display of the selected target. By this method, an ana-
lyst could review the entire target pack and rank-order them as usual.
The ranks were entered into an appropriate place on the computer
form. The ratings were done at the same time and entered into the
form. Only after the completion of the analysis for this single trial were
the data locked into a file. The analyst could then, and only then, learn
the correct answer. The results for individual receivers were maintained
in separate files. Three receivers participated in 10 trials for each target
type, and a fourth (Receiver 372) participated in 15 trials per target type.
Table 5 shows the average rank, the effect size, and its associated p value
for the static target condition. We see that the combined data are signifi-
cant and that three of the four receivers produced independently signifi-
cant results.
TABLE 5
RESULTS FOR STATIC TARGETS
Receiver
<Rank>
Effect size
p value
9
2.20
0.565
.037
372
1.87
0.801
9.7 × 10
389
3.10
-0.071
.589
518
1.90
0.778
7.2×10-3
Totals
2.22
0.550
1.1 × 10-4
Rank-order. We observed a statistically significant increase of AC for the
static targets in the 1993 trials compared to that of the 1992 trials
(t(143) = 1.68, p ≤ .047). Three of the four receivers produced inde-
pendently significant results in the 1993 study and improved their results
compared to those of 1992. Thus, the second hypothesis (i.e., an in-
crease in AC for static targets) was supported.
Table 6 shows the same data for the dynamic targets.
Using the preceding rank-order statistics, we saw no difference be-
tween static and dynamic targets in this study. The first hypothesis was
confirmed: We observed a significant increase of AC with dynamic tar-
gets in 1993 over that of 1992 ({(143) = 3.06, p ≤ 1.3 x 10-3).
TABLE 6
RESULTS FOR DYNAMIC TARGETS
Receiver
<Rank>
Effect size
p value
9
1.70
0.919
1.8×10~3
372
1.93
0.754
1.8 × 10-3
389
3.00
0.000
.500
----
518
2.40
0.424
.091
Totals
2.22
0.550
1.1 × 104
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In our first experiment, we found that static targets were better than
dynamic ones. We hypothesized that this difference resulted from a
combination of the target pool design and the receivers' expectations.
Following this idea, May et al., (1994a) define target-pool bandwidth as the
number of differentiable cognitive elements in a target pool. They sug-
gest that a target pool such as our original static pool, which contains
enough elements to prevent guessing and at the same time allows for
some internal editing of receivers' imagination, is optimal for reducing
noise. In the first experiment, the dynamic target pool did not fit this
ideal. When we constructed a better dynamic pool for the second experi-
ment, we observed commensurate increases in the effect sizes. May et al.
suggest that their target-pool bandwidth concept is testable, and it is our
hope that these tests will be conducted in the near future.
In the second experiment, even after correcting possible defects in
our target pool design, we were unable to observe a significant target
type dependency. On the other hand, the direction for a replication is
clear. May, Spottiswoode, and James (1994b) suggest that they have
identified an intrinsic target property that correlates with the quality of
AC (i.e., a gradient of Shannon's entropy). If this is true, then there
might be a fundamental argument that implies that dynamic targets
should be better than static targets, all else being equal. If a dynamic and
static target pool were constructed on the basis of the largest possible
gradients of Shannon's entropy, then we would expect a significant im-
provement of the AC effect size and a result that strongly favors the
dynamic targets.
As we have stated, Receiver 372 participated in 10 additional trials
during which the target material was silently displayed, unattended, in
an adjacent room. In a post hoc analysis, Receiver 372 produced an
average rank of 1.80 (ES = 0.849, z = 2.68, p ≤ 3.7 x 10-3) for these trials
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0
. ..
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0
Target and Sender Dependencies
301

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0
The Journal of Parapsychology
The Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 58, September 1994
302
and an average rank of 1.95 (ES = 0.742, z = 3.32, p ≤ 4.5 x 10-4) for the
original 20. The t score for the difference was 0.276 (df = 28, p ≤ 3.7,
ES = 0.343). Although there was not a significant difference, the effect
size is quite large. Perhaps displaying the targets during the sessions is
helpful, but a new experiment is needed to test this hypothesis.
Finally, we comment on the sender condition. Our results show that,
as in forced-choice AC, a sender is not a requirement. It is reasonable to
expect that if the sender condition is not blind, then some dependencies
might be observed. Robert Morris and the research group of the Psy-
chology Department at the University of Edinburgh are currently con-
ducting a study to answer the necessary and sufficient requirements of a
sender.
REFERENCES
BEM, D. J., & HONORTON, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an
anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18.
HONORTON, C. (1975). Error some place! Journal of Communication, 25, 103-116.
HONORTON, C. (1992). In E. C. May, W. L. W. Luke, & N. D. Lantz, Pheno-
menological research and analysis. Final Report: 6.2 and 6.3. Menlo Park, CA:
Science Applications International Corp. Cognitive Sciences Laboratory.
LEWIS, T. G. (1975). Distribution sampling for computer simulation. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
MAY, E. C., SPOTTISWOODE, S. J., & JAMES, C. L. (1994a). Managing the target-
pool bandwidth: Noise reduction for anomalous cognition experiments. Jour-
nal of Parapsychology, 58, 303-313.
MAY, E. C., SPOTTISWOODE, S. J., & JAMES, C. L. (1994b). Shannon entropy as an
intrinsic target property: Toward a reductionist model of anomalous cogni-
tion. (Submitted for publication)
MAY, E. C., UTTS, J. M., HUMPHREY, B. S., LUKE, W. L. W., FRIVOLD, T. J., &
TRASK, V. V. (1990). Advances in remote-viewing analysis. Journal of Parapsy-
chology, 54, 193-228.
Science Applications International Corporation
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
330 Cowper St., Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94301
MANAGING THE
TARGET-POOL BANDWIDTH:
POSSIBLE NOISE REDUCTION FOR
ANOMALOUS COGNITION EXPERIMENTS
BY EDWIN C. MAY, S. JAMES P. SPOTTISWOODE,
AND CHRISTINE L. JAMES
ABSTRACT: Lantz and colleagues recently reported in the first of two studies that experi-
enced receivers from the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory produced significant evidence for
anomalous cognition (AC) of static targets but showed little evidence for AC of dynamic
targets. This result was surprising: It was directly opposite to the results that were derived
from the 1994 Bem and Honorton ganzfeld database. In Lantz et al.'s experiment, the
topics of the dynamic targets were virtually unlimited, whereas the topics for the static
targets were constrained in content, size of cognitive elements, and range of affect. In a
second experiment, they redesigned the target pools to correct this imbalance and ob-
served significant improvement of AC functioning. We incorporate these findings into a
definition of target-pool bandwidth and propose that the proper selection of bandwidth
will lead to a reduction of incorrect information in free-response AC.
Effect sizes from forced-choice experiments are much lower than
those from free-response studies. For example, in precognition (Honor-
ton & Ferrari, 1989) and real-time (Honorton, 1975) forced-choice ex-
periments, the effect size (i.e., z/Vn) is 0.02, whereas in the free-response
ganzfeld (Bem & Honorton, 1994), the effect size is 0.159. Even if we
consider the ganzfeld response as a "forced-choice" among four alterna-
tives, the It effect size, which converts 1-in-n into an effective binary-
choice hitting rate (Rosenthal, 1991; Rosenthal & Rubin, 1989), is
0.5123 ± 0.0004 for card guessing and 0.5854 ± 0.0287 for the ganzfeld
(t(=2 ×106) = 46.2, p= 0). The large t score is probably due to the large
number of forced-choice trials (i.e., 2 x 106). Considering that the mean
of the forced-choice effect size is 2.50 smaller than that of the ganzfeld,
however, there is clearly a meaningful difference. One potential source
of noise in forced-choice experiments, particularly when trial-by-trial
feedback is given, is memory of the previous trial and knowledge of the
complete set of possibilities. For example, suppose a receiver (i.e., par-
ticipant, subject) is asked to guess if a particular card from a normal
deck of playing cards is red or black. Suppose further that there is some
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 37th Annual Convention of the
Parapsychological Association, held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, August 7-10, 1994.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300280001-0
---
..