REVIEW OF PERCEPTUAL AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 11
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 23, 2000
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: June 30, 1975
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
REVIEW OF PERCEPTUAL AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES
INTRODUCTION
30 June 1975
Several caveates are necessary in order that this review be
considered a fair appraisal of the state of the research described.
a First, there are available only three progress reports
covering a period 28 January to 1 August 1974. Evidently,
the major portion of research data both basic and applied has
yet to be submitted to the sponsor.
e No interviews were held with the principal investigators or
their staff to clarify some of the techniques and procedures
described in the progress report.
Little or no description beyond general impressions has, been
obtained by the clients' monitors of this project.
e As a result of the incomplete reporting and data analysis, the
reviewer must be extremely careful not to give a biased report
because supposed weaknesses or strengths of the initial reports
may not be perpetuated in a final and more comprehensive reporting
of the research.
ElackDround Section
The purpose as stated in the progress report on the program is "to determine
the characteristics of those perceptual modalities through which individuals
obtain information about their environment, wherein such information is not
presented to any known sense."
The program is"divided into two categories of investigation of
approximately equal effort: applied'research and basic research. The purpose
of the applied research is to explore experimentally the potential for
applications of perceptual abilities of interest, with special attention give
to accuracy and reliability. The purpose of the basic research is to identify
the characteristics of individual possessing such abilities, and to identify
neurophysiological correlates and basic mechanisms involved in such
functions." This review must by necessity be concentrated on what the
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
reviewer assumes to be the applied research effort. There are little data
available in the three progress reports concerning the neurophysiological
correlates and basic mechanisms. Since the information is presented in
progress report form, the organization of this review must be artificial and
perhaps does not represent in order of importance of the subjects discussed.
An Overivew
A reading of the three progress reports leaves the impression that
the research was done on a pragmatic and perhaps "catch-as-catch-can" basis.
Such an approach may have been necessitated by the availability of certain
subjects or may be a reflection of the absence of a long-range plan.
It is also somewhat difficult to separate the research that was begun
in January 1974 from research conducted by SRI during previous periods. This
is particularly true because in the first two progress reports there are
enclosures (in the form of appendices) that were prepared under different
sponsorship. One is undated. Thus, it is difficult to determine the period
during which the research was conducted. The reviewer believes this paper,
entitled "Information transmission under conditions os sensory shielding,"
may have been sponsored just prior to the present reporting period. It is
questionable whether this portion of the progress report should
be considered here, but the reviewer has examined it in order that the review
be comprehensive.
This appendix covers the work done with Mr. Geller who performed
under a variety of test situations. When one examines the data and the analyses
of Mr. Geller's ability to reproduce stimulus material enclosed in sealed
envelopes, it is necessary on two counts to look at pragmatic useage of the
skills or unique talent demonstrated.
The first point concerns the degree of replicability of the stimulus
material. How accurate must the reproduction be to have value or meaning.
If one seeks exact reproduction as a criterion one would reach certain
conclusions fromthe test. If one allows for analyses of symbolism or
near-identity or even similarity, other interpretations are possible.
The second point concerns the methodology of submitting Mr. Geller's
responses to judges in order to see if they can match responses to stimili.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
The findings of the judges would indicate a very high matching of stimulus to
response material. The reviewer questions the value of this matching
procedure. There were no false responses or false stimulus
material. These were very limited test materials for matching purposes.
This is an appropriate procedure only if one is interested in.symbolism or
similarities rather than actual or exact reproductions. The reviewer feels
that if one is not pragmatically concerned with exact reproductions,
or mental Xerox copies of the stimulus material, then he has a purpose for
this information which would require symbolic analysis and interpretation
of the response material that escapes the reviewer. To see something like
the target material rather than the target material might give hints to
its true identity or configuration but if the responses made by Mr. Geller
have elements of symbolism, and they appear to, then interpretation becomes
a much more ambiguous and difficult task.
These statements in no way imply that Mr. Geller's response stimulus
materials are not interesting or that on the surface without examination of the
experimental methodology are not above chance expectation. One must,
however, seek and interpret these results in terms of the objectives of the
research. The reviewer cannot evaluate the conditions under which these
experiments were conducted. There is no way to exclude the possibility
that clairvoyance precognition,or even elements of psychokinesis, or a
mixture of the three, may not have been operating. In addition, one cannot
judge from these reports whether there were flaws in handling the test material.
It is possible to comment on the die experiments conducted with the
sensitive, but only in a tentative fashion because of the brief description
and data available. In order to appropriately evaluate one needs to know more
about the pass circumstances when the subject chose not to respond. The
fact that the stimulus material is known (six possible choices) makes
this a more structured task. eliminating confusing interpretations. The
results seem impressive. However, the reviewer is not acquainted with the
potential means of manipulation of dice in'these circumstances. More data
should be collected under controlled conditions.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
A second series of experiments was conducted with a hundred target
pictures of every day objects drawn by the experimenters and artists and
sealed in envelopes. The hundred targets were divided randomly into
two groups of 20 for 3 days of experiments. On each of the 3 days of these
experiments Mr. Geller did not respond. He declined to associate any
envelope with the drawing that he had made. On each day he made approximately
two recognizable drawings which Mr. Geller felt were related to the target
pool (100). On each of the three days, two of his drawings were considered
reasonably associated with 2 of the 20 daily targets. On the third day,
two of his drawings were considered close replications to that day's
pictures. The experimenters did not consider these results significant nor.
would the reviewer. Evidently, the researchers believed the significant
factor was that no person associated with the research staff had knowledge
of what the pictures or targets were. This suggests that Mr. Geller may need
to read somebody's mental impressions rather than the target material.
This hypothesis needs further study and evaluation, because it introduces
variables not controlled for totally in these studies. Mr. Geller's
subjective impression was that having a target pool of 100 stimuli in
contrast to a single target for each judgement confused the identity of
the target. This explanation is difficult to evaluate. Perhaps if Mr. Geller
is used in later studies the experimenters can get at this factor. Until
this matter is clarified the precise ESP condition that is operating cannot
be determined.
Remote Viewing by Mr. Price
There is little description of the actual narratives of Mr. Price. One
cannot determine whether he was aware of the nine sites or had visited them
prior to. the experiment. It is known that he was not aware of which site was
being visited at any particular time. It is also clear that the experimenter
did not know which site was visited, but whether he had knowledge of the
site selected was not clearly articulated.
In order for the judges to match narratives against the sites they
visited may be potentially significant. However, without more original
data and transcripts of the narratives it is impossible for the reviewer to
4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
evaluate these experiments, particularly when it is said several
times that the descriptions contained inaccuracies.
There is a question of the value of the technique of having judges
compare narratives and then visit the sites to match them. How many
factors are considered as matches or misses in a nature preserve or the
Redwood City Arena or a drive-vin theater is difficult to know. There are too
many unexplained variables here for a proper review.
Additionally, from the pragmatic point of view of the client, one
has to know the accuracy that is necesary in these narratives to make
remote viewing valuable.
The EEG Research
The findings of the Targ-Putoff initial work measuring EEG activity
as an indicator of information transmission between an isolated receiver
and a remote sender is interesting but certainly preliminary. Six subjects
were used. The second 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. One of the six subjects, HH,
showed a consistent alpha blocking effort. Therefore, this subject was
studied further and most of the data recorded is based on HH's performance.
The only other data offered were the guesses or the subjects' conscious
assessment for each trial to see if they could say when the stimulus was
generated. This was found to be at chance level. Thus, only HH's work
showed significant EEG changes associated with the presence of remote
stimuli under conditions of sensory shielding. No judgement can be made
of this preliminary work on such limited data.
The summary or discussion session section of this Targ-Putoff report
seems to be the basis for background in the present proposal for work.
Here they state a channel exists which may involve either direct reception
of hidden information content, perception of mental images of persons
'knowledgeable about target information, precognition, or some combination
of these or other information channels. The authors feel that they have
obtained some evidence that suggests a channel exists whereby information
about a remote location can be obtained by a means that is an as yet
unidentified perceptual modality. The reviewer cannot challence this finding
but cautions only that these data, 'like other data submitted for the same
hypothesis over the years, may leave many unconvinced. The second
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP%6-00787R000200150004-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
conclusion appears to be that the information channel is imperfect
containing noise along with the signal. This is not a useful conclusion
because it does not define noise, it does not consider intensity or of
signal, it does not explain what other channels of information and
biological systems may contribute. Their third conclusion is that "while
a quantative signal-to-noise ratio information-theoretical sense cannot
as yet be determined, the results of our experiments indicate that the
functioning is at a useful level of information transfer." The use of
signal-to-noise ratio has been discussed previously. The concept of
usefeulness is undefined, and it has yet to be determined whether such
information so obtained is useful for interesting. This is not,
to deny that people obtain information of some quality as yet to be determined
through methods we do not understand. To immediately hypothesize that it is
extrasensory, beyond the ordinary channels of information, is not in the reviewer's
mind supportable or parsimonious. Science has yet to exhaust potential
information obtained through the known and studied sense mechanisms. More-
over,.the ways in which these information channels are sources. of data and
function as integrators is still not thoroughly known. The authors go on to
say that "the remote perceptual ability may be widely distributed in the
general population but because perception is generally below an individual's
level of awareness it is repressed or not noticed." These are loose
statements without evidence for repression or "not noticed." We have little
evidence whether the perception is below a person's level of awareness. This
criticism is directed solely at use of words that tend to offer little
explanation.
The statement by the authors that our cultural constraints have
prevented the surfacing of these abilities is of interest. The
reviewer's experience would indicate that the present cultural freedom
for new ideas, life styles, and the like, is much more conducive to the
study and awareness of these phenomena than conditions for the last
75 years have been. If good cases are to surface, if people with high
ability are going to feel free to express this gift, this is the time.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2 .
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
The authors conclude that experiments in the area of so-called paranormal
phenomena can be scientifically conducted and that these results offer a basis
from which departures as a function of other observables can be studied. The
reviewer cannot disagree with this statement as long as it is not meant to
imply that previous studies or others now under way are being conducted in an
unscientific or un-reliable fashion. The experimenters have produced no
new technologies untried in some fashion in the past or present.. The
reviewer believes the current methodologies are adgquate for the study of
these pehnomena but at present and in this study there is too great dependence
on probability and mathematical determinations of events. Although such
figures are impressive, they do not offer much explanation of the events. They
only tend to prove; that something is happening above chance level. It may
be that they have chosen, in the case of using judges, the wrong methodology
or wrong variable to examine.
Similarly, the use of such terminology as noise-to-signal ratio also
does not really get at the problem, but introduces a concept that is neither
applicable nor helpful, at least as far as describing ongoing events.
Progress Report 2
Progress report 2 mentions the continuation of remote viewing, including
targets in Costa Rica. It gives no real data for examination.
The report talks about detection of variable-density target material in
which the goal was differentiation of 12 low-density cards, six pencil and
nine blank cards. These were to be sorted by the subject after they had
been randomized and placed inside unnumbered opaque envelopes. The two
series proved to give results that did not differ significantly by change.
They do mention, however, the ranking of cards by number of times chosen.
This was evidently perceiv ed to be significant, but does not appear to this
reviewer to signify much. Too little information is given to do a careful
analysis of what these results mean. These data should be looked at carefully
and discussed to determine whether they are of value, but this cannot be
accomplished in progress report form.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
Basic Research
There is nothing in the program of the psychological testing to be
commented upon. The reviewer does not know that the hypotheses are associated
with the hemisphere specialization of the brain, except as reported in the
appendix. Since there are no results of data available, this matter cannot
be reviewed.
The Measurement Program EEG
There is reference here to the EEG work reported in the first progress
report. Three trials or observations are repeated in order to test the
hypothesis that certain observed characteristics of paranormal functioning might
involve right hemispheric specialization. In the three sessions the right and
left occipital regions were monitored, and a section of alpha activity
(arousal response) that correlated with remote stimuli, as reported in the
previous experiments was found. As will be recalled, the results did not
seem very promising for remote receiving except in one individual, so the
meaning and importance of this section of the report are unclear. The
authors now believe or say that this occurred eseentially only in the right
hemisphere where the average alpha reduction was 16 percent (2 percent in the
left) during the 16Hz trials, as compared woth no flash trials. These results,
the authors suggest, indicate initial support for the hypothesis of right
hemisphere specialization and that further investigations of that hemisphere
are indicated. Their reasoning concerning the placing paranormal functioning
in the right hemisphere is quite unclear. It is certainly confusing to hear
now that there were results from remote stimulation in the earlier studies.
Until the data are available, one must trust only the progress report.
Physical Measurements
The section on physical measures is a description of what they plan to
do and data they plan to have in April. The only other part of the second
progress report is an appendix which, a very interesting paper entitled
"Hemispheric Specialization in the Duality of Consciousness," by Galin and
Ornstein from the Institute for the Study of Human Consciousness, Langley
Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute. The reviewer's assumption is that this
paper is not to be reviewed, since it evidently is included merely as an
8
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787l 000200150004-2
explanation of hemispheric specialization and the investigators' EEG
work to determine whether paranormal functioning was related to the right
or left hemispheres. The paper is most fascinating and may be helpful as
a model for looking at paranormal functioning, although it seems to be
somewhat beyond the purposes of this particular contract. Obviously, one
should follow basic research leads, but when so much is devoted in the second
progress report to this particular item, and so little on the data collection,
the emphasis seems unbalanced.
Progress Report 3
The first part of the progress report discusses Project Atlas remote
viewing (European R&D Test facility). This subject matter can best
be evaluated by the client and will not be commented on by the reviewer
who has no access to the evaluation of the data or the data themselves.
B. The Costa Rica Remote Viewing Exp er_iment
The results are said to be of high quality and presently being evaluated
in detail. Only samples are given there. The descriptions are'such
that one does not feel able to determine the accuracy.
The data given is impressive and would seem to give an accurate
description of the target described. However, it is difficult to give a
hard evaluation on "sample" data.
C. Local Targets with Feedback
The data and the one example of a description in the form of
communications between person on site and the person in the lab is just
too confusing to draw any real conclusions. It would be necessary to accept
their findings at this time including their statement about where viewing
is weak. If one accepts this rather sketchy presentation, the data looks
impressive.
D. Local Targets with Azimuth Bearing
This brief description cannot be evaluated.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
B. Basic Research
This section describes procedures which would best be commented upon
when all the data are in. Some of the information has already been
referred to while discussing specific findings.
The section C on 4-state Electronic Random Stimulus Generator describes
procedures and statistical analyses. There is no real way in which to
evaluate these findings until more subject data are available.
#2. Identification of Measureable Characteristics Possessed by Gifted Subjects.
A. Medical Evaluation
This describes test procedures and the status of the various subjects.
Again not enough data are available for a review. It is assumed that
these data will be included in the final report and can be reviewed at that
time. Few results are available on certain tests. Review would now give
an incomplete evaluation
Appendices
Appendix 2 -- Personal Observations of the use of the 4-State
Electronic Random Stimulus Generator is a most interesting and insightful
paper of one subject. Never before has the reviewer seen a more detailed
self-analysis of how one prepares oneself for each response in a series of
hundreds of responses. The paper is well written and will make a valuable
contribution to the understanding of how at least one subject perceives
clues for judgement on 4 choice generator. Hopefully data will be collected
from other subjects in the same manner.
Summary Thoughts of the Reviewer
Reviewing these progress reports has been most frustrating because at
times one feels that the experiments are going to offer excellent examples
of the paranormal functioning. Unfortunately as was stated in the introduction
they (progress reports) do not include sufficient analysis for final
interpretation to substantiate this view.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2
The'scope of the undertaking has been very broad and the plans seems
comprehensive. If all can be accomplished and the final report contains
the data promised then this will have been a very worthwhile undertaking.
Unfortunately throughout one feels that the experimenters have not gone
far enough to "milk" the experimental situation, and the research design may not
haver been totally adequate to prevent critics from finding flaws. Finally
that too many avenues may have been explored so that time and money will
not permit conclusive evidence in some of the major undertakings.
There is also the feeling by the reviewer that this has not been
the multidisciplined investigation that one initially hoped for. It is
assumed that the principal writing has been accomplished by the two
investigators who interpreted much of the data collected by consultants.
This of course is a customary procedure but one would have hoped that
other specialists might have been brought more emphasis to the final
presentation of data. Of course, this may well be the case in the final report
but is not reflected in the progress reviews. One still has the feeling
that the prevailing philosophy is to "prove" the existence an information
channel beyond those that customarily postulate and the effort to support
this hypothesis will certainly affect the tone of the report.
The reviewer looks forward to seeing the final data.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150004-2