CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
Four-State Electronic Random Number Generator
This study provided an opportunity to determine whether the re-
moto sensing capability could be extended to the perception of the
internal state of a piece of electronic equipment.
For this purpose,
an automated experiment designed around a four-state electronic random
number generator was initiated. The solid-state machine has no moving
parts and provides no sensory cue to the user as to its target genera-
tion.
In order to determine unambiguously whether a result was meaning-
ful, the following strategy was used. First, the randomness of the
machine was verified by over 10,000 pre-experiment trials (details
given below).
Second, the subjects interacted with the machine to
generate the data.
Third, for any subject whose score was significant,
the statistics of the machine during the successful
experiment were
tabulated to insure that the machine had not departed from randomness
in the period in which a significant result was obtained.
Fourth, a
subject generating a good score was asked to repeat the entire experi-
ment after a one-month lag period. Finally, the entire data analysis
was carried out by an independent statistics group at SRI. (Dr. Richard Singleton).
.
The machine configuration provides as a target one of four art
slides chosen randomly (p = 1/4) by an electronic random generator.
The generator does not indicate its choice until the subject indicates
his choice to the machine by pressing a button (see Figure 11) .
(The
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
.

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
FIGURE 11
Four-state electronic random number generator used
in this experiment. An incorrect choice of target
is indicated. Two of the five "encouragement lights"
at the top of the machine are illuminated.
The
printer to the right of the machine records data on
fan-fold paper tape.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
machine has four stable internal states.
A 1.0-Mhz square-wave
oscillator sends pulses to an electronic "scale-of-four" counter which
passes through each of its four states 250, 000 times per second.
The
state of the counter is determined by the length of time the oscillator
has run, that is, the time between subject choices. )
As soon as the
subject indicates his choice, the target slide is illuminated to provide
visual and auditory (bell if correct) feedback as to the correctness
or incorrectness of his choice. Until that time, both subject and
experimenter remain ignorant of the machine's choice, so the experiment
is of the double-blind type. Five legends at the top of the machine
face are illuminated one at a time with increasing correct choices (6,
.
8, 10, ... ) to provide additional reinforcement. The machine choice,
subject choice, cumulative trial number, and cumulative hit number are
recorded automatically on a printer.
Following trial number 25, the
machine must be reset manually by depressing a RESET button.
A methodological feature of the machine is that the choice of a
target is not forced. That is, a subject may press a PASS button when
he wishes not to guess, in which case the machine indicates what its
choice was. The machine thus scores neither a hit nor a trial and then
goes on to make its next selection. Thus, the subject does not have to
guess at targets when he does not feel that he has an idea as to which
to choose.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
Under the null hypothesis of random binomial choices with probability
1/4 and no learning, the probability of observing >k successes in n trials
is approximated by the probability of a normal distribution value,
> (k- - )/31/16
Pre-Experiment Randomness Tests
The design objective was to build a four-state machine, with each
state equally likely to occur on each trial, independent of the past
sequence of states. If the machine meets this objective, it should not
be possible to devise a rule for future play that significantly differs
from chance. A simple example of such a rule would be to select the
machine state observed in the preceding trial; if this strategy were
to produce scores significantly above chance (25 percent hits), we
1
would reject the hypothesis of randomness of the machine under test.
. ..
Before experimentation machines purchased from Aquarius Electronics,
Albion, California, were extensively tested for randomness.
Data were
analyzed on a CDC-6400 computer, and the machine finally selected for
use met established criteria for randomness.
In developing randomness tests, we are guided in part by a knowledge
of the machine logic.
When one of the four choice keys or the pass key
is depressed, the current machine state is displayed; then a brief time
after release of the key, a new machine state is established (but not
shown to the subject) by sampling the instantaneous state of a high-
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
-- --
------------

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
speed four-state electronic counter. For the machine to be random,
the times of dwell of the counter in each of the four states must be
precisely equal; otherwise, the distribution of outcomes will be biased.
The first randomness test is thus based on tallying the number of
occurrences of each of the four states.
This test should detect a
stable bias, yet may miss a drifting bias.
To test for this second
possibility we also tally the distribution of outcomes in each group
of 100 trials, then compute a likelihood ratio test statistic . (see
below) for each group.
Under the null hypothesis of equal likelihood
of the four states, these statistic values are distributed approxi-
mately as chi-square with three degrees of freedom and their sum for
.
m groups distributed approximately as chi-square with three m degrees
of freedom.
This test may also detect stable bias, but is not as
powerful for this purpose as the first test.
Variable bias of still
a shorter period, if substantial, can be tested for by tallying the
frequency with which the previous machine state is repeated; an overall
repeat ratio ("all") significantly above 0.25 is indicative of such bias.
If for any reason the machine were to fail to sample the counter
1
to establish a new state, the previous machine state would be repeated.
To test for this possibility, we tally the number of repeats following
the depression of each key. A repeat ratio significantly greater than
0.25 should be considered a danger signal.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
We also tally the initial machine states following reset and the
1
transitions between states.
In each case, the number of occurrences of
each of the four possible outcomes should be approximately equal. When
repeats are deleted from the sequence of trials ( nondiagonal transi-
tions"), the four states should also be approximately equal in frequency .
In testing the null hypothesis of four equally likely outcomes of
a trial, a likelihood ratio test is used.
The statistic
4
i
In
/n/4'
-2
i=1
under the null hypothesis is distributed approximately as chi-square
with three degrees of freedom, with rejection for large values of this
statistic .*
The computer program used in testing randomness includes
a subroutine for computing the probability of a chi-square value as
large or larger than that observed.
In testing the null hypothesis that the probability of a. repeat
is 0.25, the binomial probability of obtaining the observed number K
or more repeats in N trials is computed.
For K greater than 1000, a
normal distribution approximation is computed, assuming the statistic
K - 1/2
N
0.25)
N
V 3/16
to be approximately normal with mean zero and standard deviation one.
*Alexander Mood, Introduction to the Theory of Statistics (McGraw Hill,
New York, 1950).
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
The typical test pattern used was six passes followed by 25 choices
of one color, repeating this for each of the four colors. In this way
each of the five keys other than reset were given approximately equal
use.
Typically, 2000 to 6000 trials were made in each sitting.
In the
absence of any unusual results in the randomness tests, a minimum of
-
10,000 trials were made before using a machine with experimental subjects.
With 10,000 trials, the expected fraction of repeats is 0.25 with a
standard deviation of 3/200 = 0.00866.
A computer listing of the results of randomness tests is included
in Table 1. No significant departures from randomness were observed.
Subject Data
Data was collected from subjects Sl through S6. Each subject was
asked to complete 100 25-trial runs (i.e., a total of 2500 trials each) .
The results are tabulated in Table 2. (One subject, S3, declined to
complete the 2500-trial run, indicating a lack of rapport with the
machine and, hence, a lack of motivation for the task. )
For the six
subjects, only one (s2) scored significantly above chance. For the
2500 trials that subject averaged 29.36 hits/100 trials rather than the
expected 25/100, a result whose a priori probability under the null
hypothesis is p = 3x10
-7
His scores are plotted in Figure 12.
The statistics of the machine during the successful run of subject
S2 were tabulated for the entire 3488 machine transitions (2500 choices,
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
no significant
departure from random expectation during the successful run, and therefore,
the significant result cannot be attributed to machine malfunction.
At a later time, subject S2 was asked to repeat the entire exper-
iment, and he was able to replicate successfully a high mean scoring
rate (27.88/100 average over 2500 trials, a result whose a priori
probability under the null hypothesis is p = 4.8x10
).
-4
·
We thus conclude from this part of the study that of the six sub-
jects tested, one subject (S2) generated a significant result replicable
and not attributable to machine malfunction.
Finally, the study taken as a whole (15, 750 trials) was significant,
yielding an average scoring rate 26.47 hits/100 trials, a result
-5
whose a priori probability under the null hypothesis is p = 1. 1x10 .
The bit rate associated with the information channel can be cal-
.
culated from
R = H(x) - H (x)
,
y
where H(x) is the uncertainty of the source message containing symbols
with a priori probability P
:
i
H (x) =
4
i=1
p
:
1 .
i
1080
P
i
and I! (x) is the conditional entropy based on the a posteriori pro-
y
babilities that a received symbol was actually transmitted
4
y
) =- 2
P(i,j) log, P. (j).
2 i
i,j=1
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
.. .

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 ; CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
For S2's first run, with P. = 1/4, P(k, k) = 0.2936, and an average of
30 seconds per choice, we have a source uncertainty H (x) = 2 bits and a
calculated bit rate
R = 0.007 bits/symbol
or
R/T = 2×10
-4
bits/sec.
-
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6

Fr:
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
Table 1
PRE-EXPERIMENT RANDOMNESS TESTS -
Buttons
.
Number
of
Trials
Chi-Sq.
Binom.
Prob.
Initial states
107
116
113
128
464
1.996
0.57
Transitions
Y
728
.764
765
790
3047
2.573
0.46
To
G
777
784
773
863
3197
6.745
0.08
From
B
776
796
810
773
3155
1.158
0.76
R
787
852
803
805
3247
2.877
0.41
All states
3175
3312
3264
3359
13110
5.667
0.18
Nondiagonal
transitions
2340
2412
2341
2426
9519
2.630
0.45
Diagonal
transitions
728
784
810
805
3127
5.414
¥ 0.15
Key
N-Trials
Repeats
Ratio
Bionomial
Prob.
Diagonal
transitions
Yellow
2774
705
0.2541
0.313
as a function
of key press
Green
2755
674
0.2446
0.748
Blue
2761
706
0.2557
0.250
Red
2742
667
0.2433
0.793
Pass
1614
375
0.2323
0.953
All
12646
3127
0.2473
0.763
Yellow
Green
Blue
Red
Randomness in groups of 100 trials:
Chi-sq. = 299.6141
D.F. = 345
Prob. = 0.9628
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
TABLE 2
FOUR-STATE ELECTRONIC RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR
:
BINOMIAL
SUBJECT
MEAN SCORE/100 TRIALS
OVER 2500 TRIALS
PROBABILITY
S1
25.76
0.22
S2
29.36
3 x 10
S3
24.67 (750 trials)
0.60
S4
25.76
0.22
S5
25.20
0.42
S6
25.40
0.33
S7
27.88
4.8 x 10
(replication)
-5
Ail trials
26.47
1.1 x 10
?
(15750 trials)
-
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
-7
.- 4

1
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
TABLE 3
MID-EXPERIMENT RANDOMNESS TESTS
:
BUTTONS
Number
of
Yellow
Green
Blue
Red
Trials
Chi -Sq .
Binom.
Prob.
Initial States
24
29
23
24
100
0.880
>0.80
Transitions
Y
204
199
199
216
818
0.944
>0.80
To
G
192
223
222
207
844
3.043
>0.30
From
B
212
207
226
222
867
1.064
>0.70
R
209
207
222
221
859
0.860
>0.80
All States
841
865
892
890
3488
1.988
>0.50
Nondiagonal
Transitions
613
613
643
645
2514
1.535
>0.50
Diagonal
Transitions
204
223
226
221
874
1.341
>0.70
..
.
! .
:
-
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
(
.
.
:

.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
50
.
Out of 100 trials/run.
N+20
40
1
30
HITS/RUN
20
-
10
1
1
0
0
10
20
30
RUN NUMBER - 100 Trials/Run
p = } por trial
FIGURE 12
DATA SUMMARY FOR SUBJECT 2
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
.

Test
Description
Scoring
S1
1
S2
1.
S3
S4
-
S5
$6
Halstead Category
Test
Nonverbal test requiring abstraction of conceptual relation-
ships. Score: Total errors.
7
14
33
26
6
28
Tactual Performance
Test
Requires placement of 10 geometrically shaped blocks in
their correct locations on a formboard while blindfolded.
Separate RT, LT, and bimanual trials.
Score: Total time (min.).
16,4
11.8
7.7
7.7
11.4.
6.9
Speech Perception
Test
Discrimination of non-word speech sounds.
Score: Total errors.
4
2
0
2
5
3
Seashore Rhythm Test
Discrimination of nonverbal rhythms. Score: Number correct.
27
25
28
29
26
29
Finger Tapping Test
Measure of finger oscillation rate for 10-sec. period, both
RT and LT hand trials. Score: No. taps/10 sec.
RT/LT
53/50
RT/LT
53/49
RT/LT
48/47
RT/LT
54/53
RT/LT
47/47
48/43
Trail Making Test
(Part A)
Requires connecting numbered circles in order from 1 to 25.
Paper and pencil task. Score: Total times (sec)
40
16
18
19
30
27
Trail Making Test
(Part B)
Requires connecting alphabetic and numbered circles by
alternating 1+A+2+B, etc. Score: Total time (sec)
56
50
55
50
54
53
Knox Cube Test
Measure of attention span and immediate visual memory.
Score: Number correct.
13
14
13
16
17
17
Raven Progressive
Matrices
Nonverbal intelligence test involving spatial matrices.
Score: Number correct.
39
53
49
55
60
54
Verbal Concept
Attainment Test
Requires abstraction of verbal conceptual relationships.
Score: Number correct.
22
24
27
23
21
24
Buschke Memory Test
Requires learning a 20-word list in a maximum of 12 trials with
repetition of words omitted after each trial. Score: Max. no.
words correctly remembered; List: no. words consistently remembered
Total:
14/20
17/20
18/20
19/20
20/20
20/20
List:
8/20
14/20
11/20
16/20
15/20
16/20
(8 trials) (7 trials)
Grooved Pegboard Test|
Requires insertion of 25 pegs in their holes in a pegboard. Both
RT and LT hand trials.
Score: Total time (sec).
RT/LT
76/74
RT/LT
69/70
RT/LT
58/67
RT/LT
59/67
RT/LT
RT/LT
48/50
72/70
Spatial Relations
Subtest of the PMA
Requires mental rotation and identification of figures
rotated in 2 dimensions. Score: no. correct - no errors.
60
52
Gottschaldt Hidden
Figures Test
Requires tracing outline of simple figure hidden within
lines of more complex figure. Score: Time and no correct.
Poor
Avg.
v.good outst. outst.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
RT/LT
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700090011-6
·