CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-87-07-406-10
Technical Protocol
for
the MEG Investigation
Prepared by:
Edwin C. May, Ph.D.
Wanda L. W. Luke
5 August 1991
SAIC
®
Science Applications International Corporation
An Employee-Owned Company
..
Presented to:
The Scientific Oversight Committee
Submitted by:
Science Applications International Corporation
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
1010 El Camino Real, Suite 330
Menlo Park, California 94025
1010 El Camino Real, Suite 330, P.O. Box 1412, Menlo Park, CA 94025 · (415) 325-8292
Approved For Release 2000/08/08: CIA-RDP9600789R0031008706
8801-0
Orlando, Palo Alto, Seattle, Tucson

.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
SAIC
Science Applications International Corporation
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
Memorandum
Date:
January 6, 1992
Reference: ED92-006
To :
Pete McDuff
Location: Los Alamos Inn
From :
Earling Degraff
Location: Menlo Park
Subject: LANL Experimen
SG1J
Ed asked me to call you, and since you are already on your way to LANL I thought I'd send you this
lovely memo! Please ask the subjects to talk to
if they have any questions regarding the test results.
does not want us to share any of the results with his people.
SG1J
Enclosed are the Block Data Sheets for the trials at LANL. Also, enclosed is the Experiment Schedule.
Please feel free to contact me at (415) 325-8292 with any questions. Thank you!
enclosure
cc: Ed May
file
1010 El Camino Real, Suite 330. Menlo Park, California 94025. (415) 325-8292
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

SG1J
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
BLOCK DATA SHEET
Receiver:
Base ID:
Block
Type
Date
Time
Stim 0
Run
Seed
Comments
ec // ___
rs | ps
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
e| c _/_/ __:
rs | 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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Page 1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
2:28
-
42).
RESULTS OF MEG 1991-2
Receiver Il (308): Type t
Stimulus 0
Stimulus 1
Block
Sensor
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
1
6
0.018±0.006
1.800
120
0.164
0.698±0.021
-0.263
117
-0.024
2
4
0.012±0.005
1.978
98
0.200
0.306±0.021
0.507
131
0.044
3
1
0.548±0.022
-1.305
122
-0,118
0.796±0.018
0.232
108
0.022
4
2
0.020±0.006
1.751
103
0.173
0.018±0.006
1.800
124
0,162
5
3
0.096±0.013
0.870
117
0.080
0.830±0.017
0.412
113
0.039
1) = R.S.
" control
Receiver Il (308): Type s (Paired Sensors)
Stimulus 0
Stimulus 1
Block
Sensor
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
1
6
0.216±0.018
0.171
109
0.016
0.698±0.021
-0.263
125
-0.024
2
4
0.564±0.022
-1.136
110
-0.108
0.750±0.019
0.000
115
0.000
3
1
0.722±0.020
-0.141
116
-0.013
0.808±0.018
0.295
119
0.027
4
2
0.900±0.013
0.841
110
0.080
0.384±0.022
-0.732
123
-0.066
5
3
0.532±0.022
-1.522
119
-0.104
0.108±0.014
0.786
115
0.073
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Page 2
Recelver ww (708): Type s
Stimulus 0
Stimulus 1
Block
Sensor
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
1
7
0.232±0.019
0.090
129
0.008
0.024±0.007
1.665
103
0.164
2
6
0.958±0.009
1.379
124
0.124
0.968±0.008
1.522
112
0.114
3
6
0.884-L0.014
0.732
105
0.071
0.252±0.019
-0.010
124
-0.001
4
7
0.512-±0.022
-1.978
114
-0.185
0.002-+0.002
2.653
119
0.243
5
6
0.998±0.002
2.653
115
0.247
0.198±0.018
0.263
108
0.025
Receiver ww (708): Type t (Paired Sensors)
Stimulus 0
Stimulus 1
Block
Sensor
P-value (1t)
Z (2)
n
ES
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
1
7
0.822±0.017
0.369
128
0.033
0.886±0.015
0.631
108
0.060
2
6
0.342±0.021
-0.478
107
=0.046
0.018±0.006
1.800
129
0.158
3
6
0.248±0.019
0.010
115
0.009
0.782±0.019
0.161
118
0.015
4
7
0.258±0.020
-0.040
112
-0.004
0.534±0.022
-1.491
115
-0.139
5
6
0.350±0.021
-0.524
104
-0.051
0.134±0.015
0.619
125
0.055
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

1
-
Receiver gg (538): Type s
Stimulus 0
Stimulus 1
Block
Sensor
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
1
7
0.116±0.014
0.732
114
0.069
0.196±0.018
0.274
116
0.025
2
2
0.270±0.020
-0.100
115
-0.009
0.086±0.013
0.946
110
0.090
3
2
0.268±0.020
-0.090
113
-0.009
0.668±0.021
-0.423
118
-0.039
4
2
0.382±0.022
-0.719
110
-0.069
0.482±0.022
-1.800
121
-0.164
Receiver gg (538): Type t (Palred Sensors)
Stimulus 0
Stimulus 1
Block
Sensor
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
1
7
0.934±0.011
1.117
114
0.105
0.422-±0.022
-1.011
119
-0.093
2
2
0.464±0.022
-1.461
113
-0.138
0.008±0.004
2.145
123
0.194
3
2
0.112±0.014
0.759
106
0.074
0.202±0.018
0.243
124
0.022
4
2
0.182±0.017
0.347
114
0.033
0.084±0.012
0.962
115
0.090
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Page 3

Page 4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Receiver pp (329): Type s
Stimulus 0
Stimulus 1
Block
Sensor
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
1
2
0.218±0.019
0.161
111
0.015
0.330±0.021
-0.412
116
-0.038
2
2
0.388±0.022
-0.759
128
-0.067
0.188-±0.018
0.316
109
0.030
3
2
0.322±0.021
-0.369
111
-0.035
0.288±0.020
-0.191
121
-0.017
4
6
0.350±0.021
-0.524
111
-0.050
0.732±0.020
-0.090
118
-0.008
Recelver pp (329): Type t (Paired Sensors)
Stimulus 0
Stimulus 1
Block
Sensor
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
1
2
0.138±0.015
0.594
103
0.059
0.588-10.022
-0.931
132
-0.081
2
2
0.154±0.016
0.501
111
0.048
0.048±0.010
1.305
124
0.117
3
2
0.060±0.011
1.175
106
0.114
0.008±0.004
2.145
131
0.187
4
6
0.430±0.022
-1.080
126
-0.096
0.028±0.007
1.590
103
0.157
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Page 5
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Receiver ee (041): Type s
Stimulus 0
Stimulus 1
Block
Sensor
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
ES
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
1
6
0.410±0.022
-0.915
101
-0.091
0.629±0.021
-0.295
123
-0.027
2
4
0.772±0.019
0.110
121
0.010
0.690±0.021
-0.305
114
=0.029
3
2
0.494±0.022
-2.258
121
-0.205
0.310±0.021
-0.337
110
-0.032
4
3
0.518±0.022
-1.800
89
-0.191
0.356±0.021
-0.559
116
-0.052
Receiver ee (041): Type t (Paired Sensors)
Stimulus 0
Stimulus 1
Block
Sensor
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
1
6
0.734±0.020
-0.081
105
=0.008
0.432±0.022
-1.099
126
-0.098
2
4
0.156±0.016
0.490
111
0.047
0.712-L0.020
-0.191
96
-0.020
3
2
0.910±0.013
0.915
112
0.086
0.720±0.021
-0.157
116
=0.014
4
3
0.966±0.008
1.491
110
0.142
0.892±0.014
0.786
92
0.082
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Page 6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Receiver bb (172): Type s
Stimulus 0
Stimulus 1
Block
Sensor
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
1
1
0.996±0.03
2.409
128
0.213
0.270±0.020
-0.100
103
-0.010
2
3
0.748±0.019
-0.010
87
-0.001
0.888±0.014
0.759
96
0.077
3
7
0.206±0.018
0.222
122
0.020
0.730±0.020
-0.100
131
-0.009
4
1
0.726±0.020
-0.120
99
-0.012
0.036±0.008
1.461
110
0.139
Receiver bb (172): Type t (Paired Sensors)
Stimulus 0
Stimulus 1
Block
Sensor
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
P-value (1t)
Z (2t)
n
ES
1
1
0.356±0.021
-0.559
124
-0.050
0.202-±0.018
0.243
105
0.024
2
3
0.998±0.002
2.653
122
0.240
0.274±0.020
-0.120
112
-0.011
3
7
0.930±0.011
1.080
122
0.098
0.244±0.019
0.030
130
0.003
4
1
0.638±0.022
-0.594
118
-0.055
0.814±0.017
0.326
113
0.031
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

PAGE 7
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Experimental Condition
Remote Stimuli
Pseudo Stimuli
t(RS-PS)
df
p
100
N
p
8
N
p
708
0.116±0.045
578
0.27
0.050±0.071
576
11.52
2.079
8
3.56
308
0.086±0.059
577
1.94
0.056±0.032
575
8.95
2.096
8
3.47
172
0.081±0.052
445
4.38
0.030±0.037
431
18.18
1.598
6
8.06
538
0.009±0.033
440
44.44
-0.037±0.049
468
74.88
1.557
6
8.53
329
0.0002±0.014
449
49.78
-0.043±0.011
476
82.74
4.853
6
0.14
041
-0.080±0.037
414
94.77
-0.069±0.047
481
93.49
-0.368
6
63.71
Total
0.059±0.028
2044
0.38
0.011-±0.028
2095
30.73
2.424
2
6.39
* Times 10-2
2903
€ : ,04,2
Control Condition
Remote Stimuli
Pseudo Stimuli
Receiver
t(RS-PS)
df
p
1 00
N
p
p
708
-0.010±0.037
573
59.46
0.034±0.036
588
20.48
-1.906
8
95.35
308
-0.020±0.031
573
63.39
-0.006±0.030
588
55.79
-1.348
8
89.28
172
-0.004±0.036
476
53.48
0.076±0.056
470
4.97
-2.875
6
98.56
53ª
0.053±0.061
462
12.81
0.020±0.055
466
33.07
0.804
6
22.61
32€
0.112-L0.020
436
0.968
0.014±0.067
500
37.65
2.925
6
1.32
041
0.026±0.039
427
29.33
0.023±0.045
441
31.62
0.101
6
46.16
Total
0.027±0.030
2044
10.72
0.015±0.009
2142
23.94
0.766
2
25.96
* Times 10-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
*
*
N
*
Receiver
-toNal

.
.
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Page 8
Experiment vs Control
Remote Stimuli
Pseudo Stimuli
Receiver
t (E-C)
df
*
p
t(E-C)
df
p
708
4.836
8
0.06
0.449
8
33.25
308
3.556
8
0.37
3.161
8
0.67
172
2.688
6
1.81
-1.371
6
89.02
538
-1.269
6
87.42
-1.547
6
91.37
32ª
-9.159
6
99.99
-1.679
6
92.80
041
-3.944
6
98.50
-2.828
6
46.16
Total
1.560
2
12.59
-0.272
2
59.55
* Times 10-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

TeAnncavpebFordReJeans 1000198608igalenRDP96-00789R003100070001-0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
ii
LIST OF TABLES
iii
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.
Null Result
12
12
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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
i

TeApppica eddtoc Release MEG/08/0stigeriorRDP96-00789R003100070001-0
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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
ii

TecAnneaverbfocoReleaseME00106438gationRDP96-00789R003100070001-0
LIST OF TABLES
1. Hypothesis Testing for Each Receiver
9
2.
Overview of Hypothesis Testing
12
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
iii

ved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
hnical Protocol for the MEG Investigation
I 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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
1

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Technical Protocol for the MEG Investigation
Il BACKGROUND
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 randomly 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 isolated room.
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 al., the results were
inconclusive; the first replication confirmed the Rebert and Turner 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 al.
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 maximum magnetic field response to a direct light stimulus (i.e., 100-ms sinusoidal
gratings in the lower left visual field of the receiver). For the experimental runs, the stimuli appeared on
a TV monitor, which was isolated from the receiver (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 carlier investigations. Instead of the 16-Hz, 10-second epochs, this experiment
used sinusoidal gratings lasting about 100 ms.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
2

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Technical Protocol for the MEG Investigation
The combined result for the RS for all 11 blocks in the experiment was 20 from the Monte Carlo mean
chance expectation (z = 1.99, 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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
3

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Technical 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 Neuromagnetic 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 require 95% confidence that a significant AC-effect could be
observed, approximately 12,026 trials, or approximately 120 blocks of 100 trials each, are needed.
Twelve 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 demonstrating an independently significant result if
the AC hypothesis is true.
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 day 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 will chose a "sender."
1.4 Stimuli
The stimuli will be generated by a PC. Since each stimulus 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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
4

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
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., Rn+1 = a0 × Rn + bo, where ag and bo are constants, and 0 ≤
R < 1.0), the nth + 1 stimulus is generated 3.0 + 4.5 x Rn+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
Type RS/PS
Stimulus Initiation
Buffer Pointers
Standard 30 Hz
Interleaved
RS Buffer
IS Buffer
Output Buffer
PS Buffer
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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
5

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
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) To 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 stimuli, 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, the receiver enters the control room and 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 cach receiver in Section VI beginning on page 16.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
6

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
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)
Linear Process
y(t)
Let:
X(v) = FFT [x(t)]
Y(v) = FFT [y(t)]
Then:
H(v) = F(x)
Gain = \H(v)!
Phase = Y(v) = tan - 1
(Im H(v))
Re H(v)
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. Ifn 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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
7

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
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 ww and ow be the mean and standard deviation of the Monte Carlo phase shift dis-
tribution, and Yo be the observed RMS phase shift. Since the distribution of averages is approximately
normal, compute:
Z =
40 - My
and P :
= 27
00
-
e-0.532 dc
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-o error estimate in P will be computed from the binomial distribution for proportions. Or
1-o error in P =
P (1 - P)
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 zijst 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 nijt,
which is independent of sensor. Then the effect size in the experimental condition is defined as:
Lijst (e) =
niji(e)
± Wijt(e), where Fijt(e) =
1
niji (e)
There is a set of effect sizes, which is derived from the experimental condition, Eijst (e), and a set, which is
derived from the after-block control condition, Eijst (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,
&ijst (c) = Zijst(c)
niji (c)
± Our (c), where 01 (c) =
1
niji(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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
8

Technredest58-Release 2908/08/08 .; CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
1.9.3 Hypotheses Testing
Let Na be the total number of blocks for receiver t. The overall effect size for the experimental condition
is a weighted average over blocks. Or
N, (e)
j=1
Ent(e) = > Wijt (e) Eijst(e) + sdi,(e) where wijt (e) =
nije(e)
Nic (e)
and
(1)
sdit (e) =
V
N, (e)
_ Wijt(e) (En(e) - Etjst(e))"
j=1
N, (e) - 1
The overall effect size for the after-block control condition is similar:
E11(c) = > Wir (c) Eijs (C) ± sd, (c) where wij (c) =
j=1
N. (c)
nije (c)
and
Nut(c)
(2)
N. (c)
E Wij(c) (En(C) - Eijs(C)
sdit(c) =
j=1
N, (c) - 1
The Nit in Equations 1 and 2 are the the total number of i stimuli over Na blocks for the experimental and
control conditions, respectively.
Table 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.
Table 1
Hypothesis Testing for Each Receiver
Hypothesis
Test
Test Quantity
1. RS(e) have no effect.
z-score
no,(e) €.,(e)
2. PS(e) have no effect.
z-score
Vn1;(e) €1;(e)
3. RS(c) have no effect.
z-score
Vno: (c) E .: (c)
4. PS(c) have no effect.
z-score
Vm1;(c) €11(c)
En.(e) - Eo.(c)
5. No RS(e)/RS(c) difference.
t
1
1
Op (0 ) VN , (e )
+ N . (C )
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
9

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Technical Protocol for the MEG Investigation
Table 1 (continued)
Hypothesis Testing for Each Receiver
Hypothesis
Test
Test Quantity
E1,(e) - €1,,(c)
6. No PS(e)/PS(c) difference.
t
Op (1) (N(e) + N,(c)
Eo,1 (e) - E1, (e)
7. No RS(e)/PS(e) difference.
t
Op (0) Niles + 1,6)
In Table 1, Op is the square root of the pooled variances and is given by:
op (i) =
(N,(e) -1) sd?, (e) + (N,(c) - 1) sd?, (c)
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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
10

pproved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Technical Protocol for the MEG Investigation
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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
11

ed For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Technical Protocol for the MEG Investigation -
1
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 Table 2 (i.e., a portion of Table 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 Table 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 effect.
z-score
2. PS(e) have no effect.
z-score
3. RS(c) have no effect.
z-score
4. PS(c) have no effect.
z-score
5. No RS(e)/RS(c) difference.
t
6. No PS(e)/PS(c) difference.
t
7. No PS(e)/PS(e) difference.
t
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) ≤ 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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
12

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
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 Table 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 may be 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 Table 2 were not significant There are three cases of interest,
each of which is described below.
2.2.1 Significant 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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
13

proved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Technical Protocol for the MEG 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 and/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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
14

TERRIEMest 586598A1 MEG Trivestigation
/08/08: CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
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 (H1) is true. Define the value of a dependent variable as X. Then, given that the null
hypothesis (Ho) is true, a significant observation, x, is defined as one in which the probability of observing
x ≥ #0+1.64500,
where po and og 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 - Mo)
where x is the value of the dependent variable and po and og are the mean and standard deviation, re-
spectively, of the parent distribution under Ho, 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
H1 are HAC and OAC, respectively.
5% of Area
Ho
H1
Power
0
Zc
ZAC=HAC
z-score
Figure 3. Normal Representation of Statistical Power
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
15

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Technical Protocol for the MEG Investigation
In general the effect size, ¿, may be defined as:
= = 3
În
(3)
where n is the sample size. Let EAC be the empirically derived effect size for anomalous cognition (AC).
Then zAC =HAC in Figure 3 is computed from Equation 3. From Figure 3 we see that power is defined by:
00
Power =
1
1
€
-0.5(5-MAC)
Ơ AC
HACE) ?
dy .
(4)
zc
Let
5 -MAC
Z
=
0 AC
Then Equation 4 becomes
Power
=
1
00
,-0.5z"dz,
z' c
e
where z'c =
Za - MAC
Ở AC
(5)
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 H1 hypothesis. If we define z(P) to be the z-score asso-
ciated with a power, P, then the number of trials required is given by:
n= 420,
(6)
where &AC is the estimated mean value for the effect size under H1. Figure 4 shows the power, calcu-
lated from Equation 5, for various effect sizes for z: = 1.645.
Zc = 1.645
1.0
p ≤ 0.05
Probability of Significant Result
0.8
0.6
ef = 0.80
0.50
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.4
0.2
0.0
1
10
100
1000
Trials
Figure 4. Statistical Power for Various Effect Sizes
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
16
4z2(P)
& AC

TouPrayed For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Protocol for the MEG 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 magnetoencephalography?
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?
The 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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
17

TAHIexPP.580 Release 2000/08/08 - CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Te MEG Investigation
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.
. Nothing. In this technique, you simply relax and "let it happen."
· 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 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
18

Tebanroared JiBE Release 2022/08/88 ; CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
VII 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 Cognition (AC)-A form of information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are
absent. That 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.
· Receiver-An individual who attempts to perceive and report information about a target.
· Agent-An individual who attempts to influence a target system.
. Target-An item that is the focus of an AMP task (e.g., person, place, thing, event).
· Target Designation-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/Beacon-An individual who, while receiving direct sensorial stimuli from an intended target,
acts as a putative transmitter to the receiver.
· Monitor-An individual who monitors an AC session to facilitate data collection.
· Session-A time period during which AC data is collected.
· Protocol-A template for conducting a structured data collection session.
· Response -- 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.
· Analyst-An individual who provides a quantitative measure of AC.
· Specialty-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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
19

Telbpproaleet For Release 1928/1N88tigGlA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
REFERENCES
1. 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
To 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. V. Trask, and T. J. Frivold, "Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields in
Response to Remote Stimuli," The Proceedings of the Presented Papers of the Parapsychological
Association 33rd Annual Convention, National 4-H Center, Chevy Chase, MD (August 1990).
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
20

Telppion oddioc Release RAPE/AR/estigGtfoFRDP96-00789R003100070001-0
APPENDIX
This appendix 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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
21

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
EEG SPECTRUM ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES APPLIED
TO THE PROBLEM OF PSI PHENOMENA1, 3
Charles S. Rebert, Ph.D.
Stanford Research Institute
Menlo Park, California 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, randomly interspersed with periods of
no flicker. EEGs were recorded from another S, the "receiver," to determine
if EEG driving or alpha block would be evident 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 S's overt indications of which stimulus
occurred were not different from what would 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 EEG 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 variation (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 stroboscopic flash.
Kamiya (1970) suggested that because of the unknown
temporal characteristics of psi phenomena, it might be
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 stimulus might or might not appear to deter-
mine whether characteristics of the CNV were predic-
tive of the occurrence or non-occurrence of the second
stimulus.
METHODS
Four female and two male adult Ss were studied.
One S, the receiver, was seated in a standard 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 Ag-AgCl
electrodes, referenced to linked mastoids. Potentials
* To one S not included in this investigation, a warning tone
followed by a train of flashes or a null period were presented
to determine if he would generate CNVs. They occurred prior
to flashes but not before null trials. The effect was not repli-
cated in that S, but influenced the design of the present study.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

EEG Spectrum Analysis of PSI Phemonema-Rebert, et.al.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
were amplified with Grass 5P-1 preamplifiers and asso-
ciated driver amplifiers in a Grass Model 5 polygraph.
The 0.8 tc low frequency setting, with an actual time
constant of 2.5 sec., was used for the vertex recording,
whereas the 0.1 tc low frequency setting was used for
the occipital lead. Upper frequency was limited by the
120 per sec mechanical chopper.
Identical measures were obtained simultaneously
from a second S, the sender, who was seated in another
room approximately 7 meters from the EEG chamber.
A second Grass Model 5 polygraph was used for these
recordings. Amplified scalp potentials from the two Ss
were recorded on magnetic tape with an Ampex SP-300
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 16 fps conditions were given
in pseudo random order, generated beforehand by the
experimenter.
On each trial both the sender and receiver were pre-
sented a 100 msec, 1 KHz tone burst 1 sec before onset
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
manner-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.
The 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
spectra from individual trials, and determining low and
high alpha limits from the average with a cursor pro-
gram. For any given S, the same limits were used in all
analyses. The decimal value of each data point in the
alpha band was printed out for spectra of each trial
and four scores were derived. Average power = the
average value of all the data points within the alpha
band. Peak power = the maximum value within the
the alpha band on each trial. Peak position = the
ordinal position of the largest value in the alpha band
(an indication of alpha frequency). Synchrony = the
ratio of peak power to average power.
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.c., 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
0 fps
POWER
16 fps
5
10
15 16
20
Hz
Figure ! Average spectra for 0 and 16 fps conditions from
one sender showing alpha blocking and photic driv-
ing in response to flicker.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For ReleESE 2000708/08/CIAºRBY P500789R065466010601-0
that considerable time might be involved in the per-
ceptual processes under consideration, and to mini-
mize the EEG desynchronizing action of the warning
cuc.
Photic driving was obtained when the Ss were direct-
ly stimulated with the strobe. Examples of spectra
associated with 0 and 16 fps trials from one S acting
as sender are shown in Figure 1. The examples are
averages of 12 spectra.
No evidence of EEG driving at either 6 or 16 Hz,
or other frequencies was obtained from any receiver.
For purposes of visualizing results, spectra were
0
-6
-16
POWER
0-6
0-16
1
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.
POWER
S J. L.
0 fps
5
10
15
Hz
Figure 3
Superimposition of spectra from 12 individual con-
wol trials in two Ss, showing the great consistency of
S H.H.'s alpha activity.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
S H.H.
0 fps

Approved For Releas5E20 60708/084 reixiRES 55-BUTU9ROU 3 Robo7 0001-0
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.
Three Ss exhibited rather poor alpha activity and
evidenced 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 Ss, 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 maximum 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 and stability. Figure 3 contrasts this S
with another who had relatively good alpha. Because of
the difference between null and flicker trials suggested
TABLE 1
Average Values (12 trials) of Four EEG Spectrum Measures
in Eight Experimental Sets (Subject H.H.)
(Second 4 sec EEG Epoch)
Flash Frequency (fps)
SESSION
SET
0
6
16
AVERAGE POWER (A)
x
9
x
6
x
৳
SENDER
1
1
94.8
50.6
84.1
33.0
76.8
37.7
J.L.
2
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.
3
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)
PEAK 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
77.4
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
3.1
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
1.4
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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release:2009/08/08A:GIA:RDR96-007898003100070001-0
by the data shown in Figure 2 this S was tested in two
additional experimental sessions of 4 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 in
the following ways. On session 2, set 2, the sender was
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
was given the receiver after each trial. During all of
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 the 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 null trials with par-
ticular flash trials so the individual trial scores were
treated as independent variables and a two-tailed t
approximation to the nonparametric randomization test
was used to evaluate the data (Siegel, 1956). The five
comparable sets of data (all those including a sender,
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
peak power in the second EEG epoch were significantly
250
200
PEAK POWER - arbitrary units
150
-
1
100
-
50
-
0
0
6
16
0
6
16
fps
1st 4 sec
EEG EPOCH
2nd 4 sec
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 flashes 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 4. When all
TABLE 2
Overall Average Values for 5 Comparable Sets of Four EEG Spectrum Measures
(Subject H.H.)
EEG Block 1
EEG Block 2
FPS
0
6
16
0
0
16
D
60
56
60
60
56
60
AVERAGE POWER
x
46.8
48.5
45.0
57.6
38.4
32.3
31.3
PEAK POWER
b
127.1
143.7
121.1
219.1
170.3
183.4
147.2
158.1*
137.7
PEAK POSITION
b
3.4
2.8
3.2
2.6
3.3
2.7
x
3.28
3.26
3.31
3.67
3.37
3.33
SYNCHRONY
1.03
0.86
0.91
0.97
0.94
1.40
X
158.7
166.6
151.5
x
8.0
8.4
8.2
8.5
8.7
8.6
51.9
44.2*
34.2
35.8
30.7
* significantly different from 0 fps (p <. 05)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
EEG Spectrum Analysis of PSI Phemonema-Rebert, et.al.
characteristics of the stimulus train. Interpreting the
lesser EEG effect in the 6 fps condition as due to a
less energetic stimulus suggests that the S may have
been unusually sensitive to minute magnetic or static
fields 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
receiver's 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, whether 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 50uV, 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-
currence of information transfer that was not mediated
by physical parameters 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
unexplained. Data from just one subject can only be
suggestive, but this study, using rigorous and objective
evaluative techniques, 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, psi, EEG, alpha, spectrum.
REFERENCES
1. Dean, E.D. Plethysmograph records as ESP responses.
Int. J. Neuropsychiat., 2:439, 1966.
2. Tart, C.T. Physiological correlates of psi cognition. Int.
J. Paraphychol., 5:375, 1963.
3. Duane, T.D. and Behrendt, T. Extrasensory electroence.
.phalographic induction between identical twins. Science,
150:367, 1965.
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. Cavanna (Ed.) Psi Favorable States of Consciousness.
N.Y .: Parapsychology Foundation, 1970, pp. 158-159.
7. Rebert, C.S. and Sperry, K.G. Subjective and response-
related determinants of CNV amplitude. Psychophysiol.,
10:139, 1973.
8. Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sci-
ences. N.Y .: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
FOOTNOTES
1This research was supported in part by a Psychiatric Resi-
dent stipend to Dr. Ann Turner from the State of California
Department of Health through Agnews State Hospital; and in-
ternal funds from the Department of Psychobiology and Phy-
siology, SRI, to C. Rebert. 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.
2Current professional address for private practice is 555
Middlefield Road. Palo Alto, California.
"A 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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

POSSIBLE EEG CORRELATES TO REMOTE STIMULI UNDER
Approved For Release 2000108/035 CA-REP96-00759R008100070001-0
E. C. May, Russell Targ, 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 brainwave (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 alterations, 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-unidentified channel wherein information is
coupled from remote electromagnetic stimuli to
the human nervous system as indicated by physio-
logical `response, even though overt responses
such as verbalizations or key presses provide no
evidence for such information transfer. Physio-
logical measures have included plethysmographic
response' and EEG activity. 2,3 Kamiya, Lindsley,
Pribram, Silverman, Walter, and others have
suggested 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
processes. 4
A pilot study was therefore undertaken at
SRI to determine whether EEG activity could be
used as s 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 stroboscopic flash stimu-
lus observed by another subject." Kamiya sug-
gested 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 probability of
detecting information transfer.º
Therefore,
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 the brain waves at the
frequency of the flashes.
We hypothesized that
if we stimulated one subject in this manner (a
putative sender), 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 if the 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 s duration. The receiver's
EEG activity from the occipital region (Oz),
referenced to linked mastoids, was amplified with
a Grass 5P-1 preamplifier and associated driver
amplifier with a bandpass of 1-120 Hz. The EEG
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
*
Consultant to SRI.
-1-
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

of 12 null trails -- ng flashes following the
tone -- 12 trisproved For Ret
Tlashes at 6 f. p.g
2000/08/082 CIA-RDP06-00789R09319007900130 the 16 f.p.s. condi-
tions than in the null condition (t = 2.16,
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 thc ef-
fect was not statistically significant.
trials of flashes at 16 f.p. s., all randomly 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.
5
POWER - MV H.
4
1
=
0
2
4
8
10
12
14
16
FREQUENCY
FIGURE 1
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-
'idual trials and subjected to statistical anal-
... s. The final analysis showed that power
. sures were less in the 16 f.p.s. case than in
the 0 f. p.s. in all seven sets of peak power
measures and in six out of seven average power
measurcs.
Siegel's two-tailed t approximation to the
nonparametric randomization test11
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, d.f = 118,
P < 0.04).
The second measure, peak power, was
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 place of the sub-
ject, with and without the introduction of
10 Hz, 50 uV 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 550 samples. No
difference in noise level between the fore-
period and the onset of flicker was observed.
REPLICATION STUDIES AT LANGLEY PORTER
The next effort was directed toward repli-
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 Neuro-
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 strobelight dis-
charge or associated electronic equipment (c.g.,
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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

LIGHT CHOPPER MOTOR
RUNS CONTINUOUSLY
roved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
0
O
LIGHT
0
0
EEG CHANNELS
1, 2. 3. 4
4
HALLWAY
BETWEEN
ROOMS
0000
TIMING
CHANNEL 5
2 sec
WARNING
TONE
7
10 sec LOCKING
CIRCUIT CONTROLS
LAMP
BUFFER
AMP
SHIELDED ROOM
10 Hz
TIMING
GENERATOR
1 AH, TONE
GENERATOR
2 sec BEFORE
EACH TOTAL
PERIOD (Lunt,
IN Nu Lightl
2
SA 4540 11
FIGURE 2
SCHEMATIC OF THE REMOTE SENSING EEG EXPERIMENT
lamp, whose CW output passes through a mechani-
cal chopper continuously driven by a battery-
driven motor as shown in Figure 2. A 10-liz
timing generator (computer triggered) controls
the generation of a 1-kilz warning tone two sec
before onset of the experimental period, and
also drives a locking circuit that determines
the presence or absence of the ten-sec light
stimuli, again all battery operated. Thus
everything on the left of the diagram of Fig-
ure 2 is battery operated and therefore inde-
pendent of the power line system. Further,
replacement of the arc-discharge strobelamp by
an incandescent lamp eliminates the possibility
of direct subliminal pickup of audio or elec-
trical signals from possible transients associ-
ated with the arc discharge or associated
electronics.
Description of the EEG Processor
A hardware single channel power spectrum
analyzer 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.
Analog multipliers convert the filter output to
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 cqual 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 were generated from one of
these tapes and the sequence was unknown to the
experimenters since the sequence tapes were
-3-
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
O

generated one month in advance of the experi-
of in-band EEG power (p ≤ 0.037, using an F
ments. As iApproved ForRelease 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96160183R003100070091a0two-way analysis of
accordance with preestablished criteria, certain
trials were deleted after the session for three
reasons only: artifact, logic circuit failure,
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
a given type were rejected from a session, the
entire session was deleted. (This occurred
twice in cach 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 three-month period. For
half of the sessions, the subject was asked to
press 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 EEG 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 she was asked to respond overt-
ly, there was this time a significant decrease
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).
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 if a person (called the
"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 together, there was a
statistically significant increase of in-band EEG
power when the 244 trials were analyzed regard-
less of "sender" condition (p < 0.008 using an F
ratio test as above), and there was no signifi-
cant difference found between "sender"/"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
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF THE REPLICATION EXPERIMENTS SHOWING
POWER MEANS AND STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR THE VARIOUS EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS
Experiment I
Experiment II
Guessing
Sessions
Non-Guessing
Sessions
Combined
Sender
Sessions
Non-Guessing
Sessions
Combined
No light flash
Light flash
957
873
704
647
832
761
854
860
766
844
810
852
F ratio
4.39
2.20
6.47
0.017
4.33
7.03
df1; df2
1; 202
1; 198
1; 400
1; 232
1; 228
1; 460
ps
0.037
0.14
0.011
0.90
0.039
0.0083
-4-
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

DISCUSSION
Al thouApproved iFer Release-2009(08/08 +GIA-RDP96-90789R003100070001
replication studies all showed significant
changes in EEG production correlated with the
presence or absence of a remote light stimulus,
the sign of the systematic change in power in
the third study was opposite to that of the
first two. We therefore undertook a detailed
frequency analysis of the EEG data tapes from
the last two experiments, since the pilot cx-
periment had already been subjected to fast-
Fourier-transform (FFT) analysis. We conjec-
tured that the observed power change in these
experiments might be the result of a very small
frequency shift, which could become translated
into a large amplitude change due to discrimi-
nator action of the alpha-band filter. In a
chapter on alpha blocking, Kooi, in his Funda-
mentals of Electroencephalography says, for ex-
apple,
". . . attentiveness is associated with a
reduction in amplitude and an increase in aver-
age frequency of spontaneous cerebral poten-
tials. . . The center frequency of the alpha
rhythm may be influenced by the type of ongoing
mental activity. Shifts in frequency may be
highly consistent as two different tasks are
performed alternately." The FFT analysis for
the second experiment showed that the average
peak EEG power occurred most often near 8 Hz,
and thus fell slightly below the hardware sum-
ming window (±3 dB at 8.7-12.4 Hz) enhancing a
possible discriminator effect. The FFT analysis
further showed that there was an overall in-
crease in frequency of peak power but the shift
was statistically nonsignificant. This slight
Shift of 0.11 Hz could possibly account for the
observed power increase due to the highly, non-
linear discriminator effects. In examining
other portions of the spectrum for further ef-
fects, we found that systematic amplitude
changes are highly dependent upon where in the
frequency spectrum the power sum is taken. This
is to be expected since almost all EEG phenomena
are known to be strongly frequency 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 that if other filter bands had
been chosen, significant correlations would not
have been found.
Thus, although our filter
selection was made before the collection of any
"experimenters might have reasonably
chosen other criteria for frequency selection.
Therefore, although we have found statistically
significant evidence for EEG correlates to re-
mote light flash stimuli, we consider these data
to be only suggestive, with a definitive result
requiring further experimentation.
REFERENCES
1.
E. D. Dean, Int. J. of Neuropsychiatry,
Vol. 2, p. 439, 1966.
2.
C. T. Tart, Int. J. of Parapsychology,
Vol. 5, p. 375, 1963.
3.
T. D. Duane and T. Behrendt, Science, Vol.
150, p. 367, 1965.
4.
R. Cavanna, Ed., Psi Favorable States of
Consciousness. New York:
Parapsychology
Foundation, 1970.
5.
Ibid., pp. 143-169.
6.
Ibid., pp. 158-159.
7.
R. Targ and H. Puthoff, "Information Trans-
mission Under Conditions of Sensory Shield-
ing," Nature, Vol. 252, No. 5476, pp. 602-
607, October 18, 1974.
8.
C. Rebert and A. Turner, "EEG Spectrum
Analysis Techniques Applied to the Problem
of Psi Phenomena," Physician's Drug Manual,
Vol. 5, Nos. 9-12, Vol. 6, Nos. 1-8,
pp. 82-88, January-December 1974.
9.
H. Puthoff and R. Targ, "A Perceptual Chan-
nel for Information Transfer Over Kilometer
Distances: Historical Perspective and
Recent Research," Proc. IEEE, Vol. 64,
No. 3, pp. 329-354, March 1976.
10.
D. Hill and G. 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-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

19
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
OBSERVATION OF NEUROMAGNETIC FIELDS IN RESPONSE TO
REMOTE STIMULI
by
Edwin C. May, Wanda W. Luke, Virginia V. Trask, 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 activity of
eight remote viewers was monitored by a seven-channel magnetoencephalograph (MEG). Visual stimu-
li were randomly presented to an isolated individual who acted as a "sender" while MEG data were col-
lected from a viewer (receiver). The stimuli were 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). The phase shifts from the remote and the pseudo stimuli are
independently not characteristic of the data at large. This result was unexpected, and suggests that we
may have observed a CNS response to an unintended stimulus (i.e., electromagnetic interference, EMI,
from the computing hardware). However, in the SRI/Langley Porter study, EMI had been eliminated,
thus, it remains possible that the CNS changes resulted from an anomalous form of information transfer.
168
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
I INTRODUCTION
1. Physiological Correlates to
Psychoenergetic Function-
Ing: A Brief History
Evidence from several laboratories has indicated
the possible existence 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 response1° 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 stimuli.4
In 1974, SRI International conducted a pilot study
that investigated a single remote viewer's central
nervous system (CNS) response to a remote light
stimulus.5 In this experiment, the viewer was
· asked to focus attention on a remote flashing
(16-hertz [Hz]) light. 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
significant* decrease in alpha production 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.
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
(MEG), and with an additional 15 years of remote
viewing experience, SRI conducted an experiment
to explore possible correlations between CNS activ-
ity and remote stimuli. This experiment is the sub-
ject of this report.
2. Technological Background
Magnetoencephalography is a noninvasive tech-
nique used to measure, in three-dimensional space,
magnetic fields produced by neuronal 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 information 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. The
* References are at the end of this report.
t To keep the identity of the viewers confidential, we use the pronouns he and his throughout this report, regardless of the view-
er's gender.
# Throughout this report, the word "significant" conforms to the standard definition; p ≤ 0.05.
Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimull
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP 96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
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-
duced by the two different wave functions on each
side of the barrier can be used to indicate the
strength of these extremely weak magnetic fields.
The neuronal magnetic fields from the human
brain are only about 10-13 tesla, while the earth's
magnetic field is 10-4 tesla and normal urban
noise is about 10-7 tesla. Care must be taken,
therefore, to assure that the signal-to-noise ratio
is favorable. This has been taken into considera-
tion by the manufacturer of MEG equipment
(BTi of San Diego, California), who has designed
highly shielded sensors that use a second-order
coupled gradiometer to reduce the environ-
mental noise by about 106. The use of an alumi-
num and u-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), neuronal currents perpendicular to the
skull may be missed. In reality, however, few
neuronal electrical currents are exactly perpen-
dicular to the skull, so some tangential compo-
nent is almost always available to the SQUID.
Searching for a closely packed group of neurons
can be a slow and tedious process. Due to techno-
logical 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, inion, 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 magnetic fields. Aleast-squares proce-
dure is applied to the observed fields to estimate
the location of neuronal sources and orientation
of the equivalent current dipole.8 The 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 SQUID
operating in liquid helium. Because the Dewar
flask cannot exceed a 45-degree angle, subjects
must lie prone beneath the apparatus. MEG sen-
sors are not attached to the head. but are lowered
into position over the skull; the subject cannot
move his head during monitoring without disturb-
ing the measurement. For these two reasons,
MEG equipment is not suited for long-term
monitoring of a subject. 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
waveform can be correlated with perceptual and
cognitive processes. The most commonly ob-
served response to a visual or auditory stimulus,
for example, is a large component occurring ap-
proximately 100 ms after the onset of the stimu-
lus. One hundred milliseconds appears to be the
average latency period between stimulus and the
first correlated neuronal activation in the brain. 8
The earlier EEG technology measures electric
potential, or event-related potentials (ERPs) pro-
duced by the electrical activity of the brain. A
MEG measures the magnetic fields, or event-re-
lated fields (ERFs) produced by the electrical ac-
tivity of specific groups of active neurons in the
cortex. An EEG and a MEG, therefore, reveal
different aspects of the electrical activity of the
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 proximity to openings in
the skull all make obtaining such detailed in-
formation difficult. The same is not true
when using a MEG. Neuronal magnetic fields
can travel through brain tissues without being
significantly altered; this property, coupled
with the dipole model, results in high spatial
resolution of the neuronal activity.
Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimull
170
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
(2) EEG procedures are occasionally costly and
can be invasive: EEG electrodes must be at-
tached directly to the skull or to the brain of
the subject, whereas MEG sensors are ex-
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.
II METHODS OF APPROACH
Our goal was to conduct a conceptual replication
of the earlier SRI/Langley Porter experiments.
Our basic hypothesis is that a viewer's CNS would
respond to a remote light stimulus.
1. General Description
Using a seven-sensor MEG in a shielded room,
we investigated the occipital-cortex neuronal
magnetic activity that might occur in response to a
remote "visual" stimulus.
The following definitions may be helpful:
· Viewer-An individual who attempts extrasen-
sorimotor communication with the environ-
ment (e.g., the perception of remote stimuli).
· Direct Stimuli (DS)-Visual stimuli occurring
within the normal visual sensory channels.
· Sender-An individual who, while receiving di-
rect stimuli, acts as a putative transmitter to a
remote individual (i.e., viewer) who is attempt-
ing to receive the same information via ex-
trasensorimotor communication.
· Remote Stimuli (RS)- Visual stimuli occurring
outside the normal range of known sensory
channels.
· Pseudo Stimuli (PS)-A time marker in the
data stream with no associated stimuli.
In this report, a direct stimulus to the sender is
also considered as a remote stimulus to the view-
er.
2. Protocol
2.1 General Considerations
To begin a session, a sender is isolated in a room
while a viewer is monitored by a MEG in a
shielded room about 40 m away. Only the sender
is presented with a number of direct visual stimuli
at random intervals within a 120-second period,
the 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
The dependent variable is the root-mean-square
(RMS) phase shift of the primary alpha activity as
a result averaged over all RS.
2.2 Specific Protocol Details
2.2.1 Stimuli
Remote stimuli consisted of a standard video en-
coded blank screen with a 5-cm square, linear,
vertical, sinusoidal grating lasting about 100 ms.
These stimuli (DS to the sender) subtended 2 de-
grees in the lower left visual field of the sender.
This was maintained by asking the sender to focus
his visual attention on a permanent mark on the
monitor. During the experiments described in
this report, no attempt was made to monitor the
sender in any way. Pseudo stimuli consisted of the
blank screen without the superimposed grating,
and were included as a putative within-run con-
trol.
2.2.2 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 Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
171

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
4.5-second window thereafter. The sender was
presented with a minimum of 9 and a maximum of
15 DS occurring at random intervals within a
120-second period. In all but the first session, a
random number of pseudo stimuli (i.e., random
time markers with no concomitant stimuli-PS)
were added as a within-run control. A viewer was
never presented with direct stimuli except in lo-
cating the maximal response to the visual areas
(see Section II.2.2.4).
Pseudo Stimuli
-
0
Remote Stimuli
120 sec
Figure 1
Schematic Timing Protocol-Single
Run
2.2.3 Instructions to Viewers
In all sessions, the viewers were completely in-
formed about the details of the experiments.
Prior to their placement on the MEG table, they
were shown the location of the RS display moni-
tor, and were instructed to place their attention
upon it or the sender during the session.
For some sessions, the viewer was instructed to
press a fiber-optic-coupled button when he felt
that he perceived stimuli. Each button press was
marked in the data record. Button pressing was
retained in this protocol as part of the conceptual
replication.
2.2.4 Sensor-array Placement and Callbra-
tion
We selected the location for the sensor array by
optimizing the viewer's response to direct visual
stimuli. Inherent in this choice is an assumption
that may not be valid: namely, that neurons par-
ticipating in a reaction to RS are the same as those
that respond to DS. The sensor locations were
then marked on an acetate transparency to allow
for accurate repositioning of the sensors in later
sessions. One such placement (right occipital-
minus centimeters from the inion indicate the
right hemisphere) is shown for viewer 002 in Fig-
ure 2. It should be noted that MEG sensor place-
ments do not necessarily correspond to
conventional EEG electrode placement.
For a calibration, the viewer was fitted with a
spandex cap with grid marks aligned with his in-
.
ion, nasion, and earlobes (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 posi-
tion that optimized his response to the DS. Once
found, the array position was marked on the cap
for subsequent repositioning.
4
6
3
2
i
4
11
Distance
(cm)
2
01
3
-1
-2
-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
Distance (cm)
Figure 2 Sensor Position Relative to the Inion
(0,0) for Viewer 002
2.2.5 Sequence of Events for a Session
The following is the schedule of events for a ses-
sion:
. Collect approximately 10 minutes of back-
ground data with no viewer or sender present
and the MEG in full operation.
. Isolate the sender with the stimulus display de-
vice.
. 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.
· At time < 120 seconds, present 9 to 15 remote
and 9 to 15 PS to the sender.
. At time > 120 seconds, allow the viewer to re-
lax for about 2 to 5 minutes without leaving the
table. This break generally consists of the send-
er entering the shielded room to engage the
viewer in conversation.
. Collect nine additional runs with the same pro-
cedure while the viewer remains positioned on
the table under the MEG.
Observation of. Neuromagnetic Fields in Response to Remote Stimull
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
.
5

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
3. Data Analyses
If our initial assumption about sensor positioning
is true, and if the earlier results are replicated, we
expect to see a change in alpha production as a re-
sult of the RS. We might also expect an evoked re-
sponse similar to visual ERFs. Figure 3 is an
idealized illustration of these expected results in
the time-series data. Times less than zero are
prestimulus; times greater than zero are poststi-
mulus. The stimulus lasts 100 ms.
Evoked Response
Decreased
Alpha
Amplitude
10001
07
-1000
-500
0
500
Time (ms)
Figure 3 Idealized Results for a Single
Stimulus
For each session, the following was computed for
each RS and PS, respectively:
(1) Five hundred ms of pre- and post-stimulus
time-series data were separately detrended
and filtered (40 Hz lowpass).
(2) The power spectrum was computed for each
500-ms pre- and post-stimulus period.
(3) The relative phase change of the dominant
alpha frequency from pre- to post-stimulus
period was computed as the arctangent of the
ratio of the imaginary and real component of
the transfer function. The transfer function
is defined as the ratio of the FFT of the post-
stimulus period divided by the 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 detrended and filtered (40 Hz lowpass).
In addition, the following averages were com-
puted across all RS and PS, respectively:
(5) The average power pre- and post-stimulus.
(6) The root-mean-square (RMS) average
phase shift.
(7) The 1000-ms time average of the pre- and
post-stimulus periods taken as a single re-
cord.
(8) The "power spectra" of the pre- and post-
stimulus time averages were computed. (We
recognize that a power spectrum of a 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 fail to satisfy at
least two underlying assumptions of the usual sta-
tistical methods (e.g., ANOVA and MANOVA).
Most standard statistical tests assume that all
samples of the data are independent. MANOVA
can be configured to remove this particular as-
sumption, nonetheless, it and the other tests as-
sume that the process under study is stationary;
that is, whatever the statistical properties are,
they remain constant over time. In other words,
the measured properties should not depend upon
when the activity is sampled. CNS time series data
do not satisfy either of these assumptions.
To avoid these difficulties, and to obtain probabil-
ity estimates of the observed RMS phase shifts,
we adopted a simple Monte Carlo approach. In
the usual statistical analysis, the phase shift is
compared to an ideal distribution, or its likelihood
of occurrence is computed using some nonpara-
metric technique. Both techniques attempt to de-
termine the degree to which the observed phase
shift is exceptional, given the universal set of all
possible data. The Monte Carlo method that we
used, however, can only determine the degree to
which the observed phase shift is exceptional,
given the available data sample. Thus, a new
Monte Carlo estimate must be computed for each
individual data set.
The general Monte Carlo procedure is as follows:
(1) Using the same timing algorithm to create
the original RS, generate N sets of M stimuli,
where M 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-
ple.
(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
Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields in Response to Remote Stimull
173
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
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-values
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 significant evidence of remote
viewing ability.
1. Calculations
To illustrate the reduction of the raw data, we use
the 25 September 1988 session from viewer 002.
Figure 4 shows the time average over all RS of the
amplitude (femto Tesla) of the magnetic CNS ac-
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 1 second. Because the stimuli are at
random times relative to any uncorrelated CNS
activity, averaging has reduced random single-sti-
mulus amplitudes by Vn where n is the number of
stimuli. Sensor 7 shows a clear change from a
slow, regular alpha rhythm during the pre-stimu-
lus period, to one of higher frequency, post-
stimulus.
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 Hz for all sensors. As was the case for the time-
series data, the RMS average was computed over
n=118 RS. In accordance with the protocol (Sec-
tion II.3), the dependent variable was the RMS
phase only at the dominant o-frequency.
At this point we are unable to determine if the
variations seen in Figures 4 through 7 are mean-
ingful. Toward that end, the identical quantities
for the PS are shown in Figures 8 through 11. The
"power" of the time averages for the remote stim-
uli differ markedly from those of the PS spectra
(Figures 5 and 9).
'Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimull
174
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
1
Remote Stimuli
118
150
Apllitude ((T)
75
0
-75
-150
-600
-300
0
300
600
Time (ms)
Figure 4 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Time Average
Remote Stimuli
118
9.0T
Power (IT2) x 102
4.5
0.0]
1
6
0 10 20 30 40
Frequency (11z)
Figure 5 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Power of Time Average
Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields in Response to Remote Stimull
175
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Remote Stimuli
118
6
Power (IT2) x 104
1
n
4
3 -
0.
0 10 20 30 40
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Average Power
Remote Stimuli
118
200
RMS Phase (deg)
150
100
50
0
10
20
30
40
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 7 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: RMS Phase
Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli
176
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Pseudo Stimuli
74
150T
F
Amplitude ((T)
751
-75₮
-1501
6
-600
-300
0
300
600
Time (ms)
Figure 8 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Time Average
Pseudo Stimuli
74
-
A
1.0
8
Power (IT2) x 102
0.5-
0.0 1
15
0 10 20 30 40
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 9 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Power of Time Average
Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimull
177
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Pseudo Stimuli
74
6
Power (IT2) x 104
3
0
1
6
0 10 20 30 40
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 10 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: Average Power
Pseudo Stimuli
74
200
RMS Phase (deg)
150
100
50
6
0
10
20
30
40
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 11 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: RMS Phase
Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields in Response to Remote Stimul
178
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
1
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 II.4.
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 II.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. (The p-value is bounded on the low end
by 1/500.) 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. Table 1 shows the viewer identification,
date, sensor chosen for analysis, and the p-value
(as defined above) for the RMS phase shift for the
remote and pseudo stimuli, respectively.
The p-values shown in Table 1 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 Table 1 was com-
puted from the inverse normal distribution as-
suming a p-value twice the one shown. If the
p-value was more than 0.5, we subtracted it from
1.0, doubled the result, and computed the z-score
as above. To test the null hypothesis that the com-
bined RS phase shifts are characteristic of the
data, we computed a standard Stouffer's Z (Z,) for
the 11 sessions shown in Table 1. There is statisti-
cal evidence that the data within ± 0.5 seconds of
the RS are not characteristic of the data at large
(Z3 = 1.99, p ≤ 0.024, effect size = 0.599). Simi-
larly, the combined statistic for the PS indicates
that these data are also not characteristic (Z, =
2.92, p ≤ 0.002, effect size = 0.924). Therefore,
there appears to be some statistical anomaly asso-
ciated with the RMS phase shifts for both stimuli
types.
Key
0.50
Passes:
P-Values
500
- Real:
0.002
Pseudo: 0.846
0.40
0.30
Density
0.20
0.10
T
0.00
40
64
88
112
136
160
RMS Phase (deg)
Figure 12 Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session 1: RMS Phase: Sensor: 2: RS = 118
Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimuli
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Table 1
Results of Monte Carlo Calculation for RMS Phase
P-Value (1-tail)
Z-Score (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
03/29/89
6
0.154
0.810
0.501
0.305
007
03/29/89
7
0.970
0.180
1.555
0.358
389
05/23/89
4
0.288
0.040
-0.191
1.405
05/24/89
5
0.260
0.016
-0.050
1.852
05/25/89
4
0.120
0.922
0.706
1.011
531
05/24/89
4
0.814
0.134
0.274
0.619
454
05/25/89
4
0.732
0.052
-0.090
1.259
3. Results: Button Presses
In the early SRI study6, significant changes in al-
pha production were observed in response to an
RS. 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
"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 pi -
A/(A+ B), and the fractional missing rate is p2 =
C/(C+D). The total number of 1-second inter-
vals is N = (A+B+C+D), and the total stimulus
rate is po = (A + C)/N.
Table 2
Data Schema for Interval Conditions
Stimulus
Yes
No
Response
Yes
A
B
No
C
D
Then, under the null hypothesis, the following
statistic is approximately normally distributed
with a mean of 0 and a variance of 1:
2 =
(P1-P2)
po ( 1 - po ) (A+B ) + TC +D)
Table 3 shows N. po, P1, P2, 2, p-value, and the effect
size, », 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.
Table 3
Button Pressing Results
Viewer
N
Po
Pı
Pz
Z
p
4
002
1210
0.167
0.198
0.164
0.951
0.163
0.027
009
1280
0.091
0.068
0.094
-0.978
0.836
-0.027
372
1089
0.157
0.119
0.160
-0.996
0.840
-0.030
Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields in Response to Remote Stimull
180
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
1
IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
We have found statistical evidence that the rela-
tive phase shift from -0.5 to 0.5 seconds of an RS
are not characteristic of the data at large (Z, =
1.99, p < 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 ≤ 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 Turners re-
port an example of photic driving (i.e., an extreme
example of phase locking) at 16 Hz. In their work,
a subject was exposed to a 16-Hz visual DS ran-
domly balanced with no stimulus during 4-second
epochs. The average power spectra showed ap-
proximately 10-Hz alpha activity during the no-
light epochs, and a strong 16-Hz and no 10-Hz
peak during the 16-Hz epochs.
One interpretation of their result is that the alpha
rhythm was blocked, and the CNS "locked" on to
the flashing stimulus. Eason, Oden, White and
White, 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
resulting primary evoked response acts as a trigger
stimulus which temporarily synchronized a
certain percentage of the neural elements
normally under the influence of an internal
pacemaker. ... Desynchronization of the elements
participating in the evoked response would occur
as the elements are brought back under the
influence of an internal pacemaker or are affected
by neurons not involved in the response."
In other words, the internal alpha is momentarily
interrupted by an external stimulus, and, in the
absence of continuing external stimuli, returns
back to its original frequency, but at a random
phase relative to its pre-stimulus state.
To understand what would be expected in our ex-
periment for the distribution of RMS phases dur-
ing the Monte Carlo simulations, we examine a
hypothetical case. Suppose that the viewer's alpha
activity was a continuous wave at a single fre-
quency. A phase change is computed between 500
ms before and 500 ms after each Monte Carlo
"stimulus." Therefore, regardless of the entry
point, the relative phase change would be zero,
and the RMS phase over many such "stimuli"
would also be zero.
Real alpha activity, however, is not continuous,
Rather, it appears in bursts lasting from 100 to
5000 ms. Random Monte Carlo "stimuli" would
sometimes occur within such bursts and some-
times near the edges. Thus, we would expect a
nonzero RMS phase over many such "stimuli,"
but the individual relative phases would not be
uniformly distributed. Depending upon the view-
ers' alpha characteristics, the distributions would
be enhanced near zero RMS phase.
If we assume that Eason, et al., are correct, and
that a phase shift is expected as a result of an RS,
then the expected distribution of RMS phases is
uniformly distributed on [-IT, TT]. 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
-TT
0
TT
Phase (radians)
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 Neuromagnetic Fields in Response to Remote Stimuli
181
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
As a first step in testing these models, we com-
puted the expected variance for the RMS phase,
given that the individual phases are uniformly dis-
tributed on [Tr, Tr]. Using a Taylor Series expan-
sion for RMS phase, the variance is given by:11*
1 -
1
30n
(rad2) . or
= 210 (deg2),
2160
where n is the number of individual phases.
Table 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 all 11 sessions gives an
overall significant result (X2 - 5121.5. df = 5489.
P ≤ 0.0002). This indicates that the Monte-
Carlo-derived variances are significantly smaller
than the theoretical variances based on uniformly
distributed phases. The two viewers who demon-
strated the largest z-scores (002 and 007) also
show sharply reduced Monte Carlo variances.
Table 4
Comparison Between Monte Carlo Phases and Theory
I.D.
Z-Score
(RS)
Number of
RS
Variance of RMS Phase
x2
df = 499
P-Value
009
-0.524
96
22.50
25.46
564.6
0.978
002
2.653
118
18.31
13.63
371.5
4.9×10-6
0.871
76
28.42
24.43
428.1
0.010
372
0.885
90
24.00
23.25
483.4
0.316
374
0.501
102
21.18
18.64
439.2
0.025
007
1.555
93
23.23
18.66
400.8
4.6×10-4
389
-0.191
97
22.27
23.35
523.2
0.780
-0.050
92
23.48
22.29
473/7
0.214
0.706
98
22.04
20.22
457.8
0.093
531
0.274
101
21.39
21.05
491.1
0.408
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. To 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 < 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 [-180,180] degrees, but it differs only
slightly from the Monte Carlo distribution
(×2 - 9.47, df = 8, p ≤ 0.304).
From the data shown in Table 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 many years-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
* We thank Professor Jessica M. Uits, Statistics Department, University of California, Davis, California, for suggesting this
approach.
Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields in Response to Remote Stimull
182
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
Theoretical
Observed

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
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 view-
ers. The 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 II.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.
To determine if there were any "obvious" spatial
dependencies that might indicate a more optimal
array placement, we computed a complete set (all
sensors) of Monte Carlo distributions for one ses-
sion for viewer 002. Figure 16 shows the single-
tailed p-values for the RMS phases for the RS
and PS. They are displayed in the standard sen-
sor-array configuration. The pattern for the RS
suggests that a more optimal positioning of the ar-
ray would be in the sensor 2-7 direction as indi-
cated by an arrow in Figure 16.
30
Remote Stimuli
25
Monte Carlo Stimuli
20
Density
15
10
5
0
-160-120-80 -40 0 40 80 120 160
Relative Phase Shift (deg)
Figure 14 Phase Distributions for Viewer 002:
8/25/88
30
Remote Stimuli
25
Monte Carlo Stimuli
20
Density
15
10
5
0
-160-120-80 -40 0 40 80 120 160
Relative Phase Shift (deg)
Figure 15 Phase Distributions for Viewer 007:
3/29/89
Remote Stimuli
Pseudo Stimuli
0.002
0.126
0.848
2
0.710
0.036
0.128
0.184
0.924
0.854
0.668
6
5
6
5
0.572
0.238
0.684
0.700
Figure 16 Phase p-values for Viewer 002: 8/25/88
3. Pseudo Stimuli
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 1s 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 Neuromagnetic Fields in Response to Remote Stimul
183
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
2
3
3
7
-

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
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
pattern 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
statistically identical, and independently, both
were significantly different from the Monte Carlo
distributions. This raises the question as to what
constitutes the target stimulus. Our result is un-
expected given the target was considered to be
what was displayed on the remote monitor.
Main HP
IBM PC
Monitor
Stimulus
Type RS/PS
Stimulus Initiation
RS
Frame
Buffer
30 Hz Inter-
leaved Video
Output
Frame
Buffer
PS Frame
Buffer
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
remains possible that the statistical effects we
have seen are due to CNS responses to remote
bursts of EM energy.
Let us assume that the overall RS and PS effects
are meaningful. Since the PSs are indistin-
guishable at the monitor from the between-stim-
uli background but are distinguishable at the IBM
PC, then the present experiment demonstrates
that the source of stimuli is the IBM PC.
During the SRI/Langley Porter study in 1977, SRI
developed an entirely battery operated stimulus
generator as a special precaution against the pos-
sibility of system artifacts in the form of EM
pickup. They reported significant CNS responses
to remote stimuli, nonetheless.6 Therefore, it re-
mains possible that we have observed an anoma-
lous information transfer.
Before further research is conducted, it is impor-
tant to measure the EM radiation, and to see if it
is of sufficient strength to be detected (by the ap-
propriate hardware) in the shielded room.
By adjusting the PC program, the PS internal &c-
tivity can be eliminated. It would be interesting to
see if the similarity between the RS and PS results
persists.
Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields In Response to Remote Stimull
184
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0
REFERENCES
1
1. Dean, E. D., International Journal of
Neuropsychiatry, Vol. 2, p 439, 1966.
2. Tart, C. T., International Journal of
Parapsychology, Vol. 5, p 375, 1963.
3. Duane, T. D., and Behrendt, T., Science, Vol.
150, p. 367, 1965.
4. Cavanna, R., Ed., Psi Favorable States of
Consciousness, Parapsychology Foundation,
New York, 1970.
5. Rebert, C. S., and Turner, A., "EEG
Spectrum Analysis Techniques Applied to
the Problem of Psi Phenomena," Physician's
Drug Manual, Vol. 6, Nos. 1-8, pp 82-88,
1974.
6. Targ, R., May, E. C., Puthoff, H. E., Galin,
D., and Ornstein, R., "Sensing of Remote
EM Sources (Physiological Correlates),"
Final Report,
Project
4540,
SRI
International, Menlo Park, CA, 1977.
7. Sutherling, W. W., Crandall, P. H., Cahan, L.
D., and Barth, D. S., "The Magnetic Field of
Epileptic Spikes Agrees with Intracranial
Localizations in Complex Partial Epilepsy,"
Neurology, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp 778-786, May
1988.
8. Aine, C. J., George, J. S., Medvick, P. A.,
Oakley, M. T., and Flynn, E. R., "Source
Localization of Components of the
Visual-Evoked Neuromagnetic Response,"
Neuromagnetism Laboratory, Life Sciences
and Physics Divisions, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.
9. Cohen, J., Statistical Power Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences (rev. ed.), Academic
Press, New York, 1977.
10. Eason, R. G., Oden, D., White, B. A., and
White, C. T., "Visually Evoked Cortical
Potentials and Reaction Time in Relation to
Site
of
Retinal
Stimulation,"
Electroencephalography
and
Clinical
Neurophysiology, Vol. 22, pp 313-324, 1967.
11. Rice, J. A., Mathematical Statistics and Data
Analysis, Wadsworth
&
Brooks/Cole
Advanced Books & Software, Pacific Grove,
p 143, 1988.
Observation of Neuromagnetic Fields in Response to Remote Stimuli
185
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100070001-0