PRECOGNITION IN MICE AND JIRDS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 13, 1998
• Sequence Number: 20
• Content Type: RP

Approved For Release001/03/07: CIA-RDP96-00787F0400100020-7
SG1A
A Comparison of Different Densities of Dice 119
3. PRATT, J. G. The Cormack placement PK experiments. I. Parapsy-
chol., 1951, 15, 57-73.
4. RHINE, LoUISA E. Mind Over Matter. New York : Macmillan, 1970.
Institute for Parapsychology
College Station
Durham, N. C. 27708
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
 Approved For Releasr01/03/07 CIA-RDP96-007870400100020-7
CPYRGHT
PRECOGNITION IN MICE AND JIRDS'
By W. J. LEVY, JR., and ANITA McRAEZ
ABSTRACT: In a previous experiment which was carried out to confirm the re-
search by Duval and Montredon with mice, the overall results were not suffi-
ciently high to be considered a replication. The research presented here was a
second, longer attempt at confirmation. Essentially, the experiment tested the
ability of the animals (mice and jirds) to use their precognition to avoid jumping
into whichever side of their cage would give them an electric shock on the forth-
coming trial. A pilot and a confirmation series were carried out and both were
significant. The confirmation series was interrupted part way through to test the
authors' impression that the animals' scoring tended to decline when they were
kept too long in a static environment. The results of four occasions were com-
pared with regard to scoring before- and after the cages had been cleaned and
rearranged. The scores were found to be below chance in the "before" condition
and above chance in the "after" condition, with a significant difference between
the two.-Ed.
A year after Duval and Montredon published results of their pre-
cognition work with mice (1), Levy, Mayo, Andre, and McRae
carried out an attempted confirmation (2). The French work had
presented evidence that mice could use their ESP ability to avoid
being in whichever side of their cage would be chosen to be shocked
on the forthcoming trial. Although the work by Levy, Mayo, et al.
showed certain significant internal effects having to do with the
animals' behavior during the test situation, the overall results were
not sufficient to be regarded as an independent replication of the
French work. The purpose of the research now to be reported was
to complete a confirmation of the French work and to substantiate
the first attempt to repeat it.
APPARATUS
As in the previous experiment, the apparatus had six compo-
nents : (A) a shock box ; (B) a position indicator ; (C) a random
1 This -paper was first presented on Sept. 4, 1970, at the Autumn Review Meet-
ing of the Institute for Parapsychology.
' The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable advice and encouragement of
Drs. J. B. Rhine and R. L. Morris. They wish also to thank: Dr. Helmut Schmidt
for his work in designing the logic circuit and the random generator; Mr. Peter
Ensign, for constructing them; and Mr. Allen Mayo, Jr., for his general advice on
design.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
 Approved For Release001/03/07: CIA-RDP96-007871 0400100020-7
CPYRGHT
Precognition in Mice and Jirds -121
target generator; (D) a logic circuit; (E) a shock control; and
(F) a recording apparatus.
A. The shock box was a bottomless lucite box or cage measuring
6/" X 6/" X 6". There was a 6/" covered hole in the top through
which the animal could be inserted and removed. A low barrier 1 /"
high and /" thick divided the cage into two halves, each wired
independently. The cage rested on a wire grid with two electrically
separate halves corresponding to the two halves of the box. Each
half had alternate wires attached to the voltage supply and ground.
The wires were spaced /" apart in the first part of the experiment.
Later they were placed 1/16" apart. Beneath the box during the
latter part of the experiment was a bed of CaCl2 and cedar shavings.
The cage was covered by an insulating box 1" thick, which had a
2" hole in one side for the light source to shine through and a 6/"
square hole in the top for transferring the animals.
B. Part of the position-indicating apparatus was a set of mirrors
cemented on the sides of the cage at right angles to the barrier.
These, together with a light source and photoresistor in each half
indicated the animal's position. If the light beam was not interrupted
by the animal, it reached the photoresistor and the animal was re-
corded as present; if it was interrupted, the beam did not illuminate
the photoresistor and the animal was recorded as absent.
C. The random target generator was an electronic device which
randomly picked side A or B as the target for each trial. This gen-
erator is the same type as that described by Schmidt in 1970 (4).
There was one opportunity for a target selection, and therefore one
trial of five seconds duration each minute.
D. The logic circuit was designed to perform the same tasks
described in more detail in the first paper by Levy et al. (2). It sent
a five-second shock to the side of the cage the animal was recorded
as being in, if that side and the target matched. If they did not match,
no shock was sent. If the animal was recorded in both sides or
neither-for example if he was on the barrier-a mistrial was de-
clared, no target was chosen, and no shock was sent. With this sys-
tem the animal seldom jumped into a shock since he had to jump
two or more times in a five-second interval to do so.
E. The shock-control device was a Harvard Apparatus Co.
animal stimulator, giving a shock of approximately 7 ,amps, at a
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
 Approved For Releas001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-0078710400100020-7
CPYRGHT
122 The Journal of Parapsychology
frequency of 120 per second. The shock was individually adjusted
for each animal at the start of each run at a level just sufficient to
make him respond to three or four shocks in a row by moving into
the opposite side. It was not set high enough to make him consis-
tently change sides during a shock throughout the run. The shock
was switched on to either side by a special switching box.
F. The recording device was an Esterline Angus ten-pen re-
corder. (See Figure 1.) The chart paper rolls were numbered before
the experiment and were used in that order. The paper was never
cut, so that a continuous record of the work is available. Six chan-
nels were used : one for each of the two sides of the cage to record
TIME
FIG. 1. Facsimile of chart showing method of determining the an-
imal's position. The solid line shows when the pen was centered (animal
present in the corresponding side of the cage). The dotted line shows
when the pen was off center (animal not in that side of the cage). If
the animal crossed from side A to side B, both pens might center (1)
while he was crossing, which would indicate that he was present in both
sides for a certain time.
When the pen for side A went off center (2) the animal was con-
sidered to be in side B. If the pen for side A had not changed but side
B again went off center (3), the animal was considered not to have left
side A. Or if he was crossing from side A to side B and both pens were
off center (4) he was not counted as in side B until that pen centered
(5). If the pen for side B had not changed but had remained off center
and the pen for side A again centered (6) he would be considered not to
have left side A.
Should he go from side A to the barrier and cause a mistrial so that
neither pen centered (7), then following that trial go to side B with
pen B centered, this would be called a jump for the following trial (8).
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
 Approved For Releap
,i3/07 : CIA-RDP96-0078710400100020-7
Precognition in Mice and Jirds 123
if that side had been chosen for a target; one for each side to show
the animal's position; one to show if the trial was a hit (the animal
had avoided shock) ; and a sixth to show if it was a miss (he had
received a shock). In a mistrial no target was chosen and no hit-
miss indication was given.
The criteria listed in Figure 1 show that a jump was counted
only at its completion; also, for the jump to be completed, the pen
in the side the animal left must not have been centered and the pen
in the side he entered must have been centered. Once these criteria
were fulfilled, he had to remain in that side for one division of the
chart (approximately one second) or forfeit his position there. This
method reduced a misleadingly large number of jumps that could
have resulted from the animal's tail dipping into a side if he was on
the barrier. These conditions were set up to establish a change of
sides; but at the time of a trial the equipment judged position only
at the instant of the trial.
One additional piece of recording equipment was a set of coun-
ters which totaled targets for side A and side B, and also totaled the
hits and the misses.
The animals were 38 white mice (Swiss Webster) and 20
jirds (Meriones unguiculatus). The housing of all the animals and
their interaction with the experimenter were given special care. The
jirds were kept in groups of four to six in large cages 2' X 4' X 14";
the mice were housed singly or in pairs in /" wire mesh cages
10" X 12" X 9". Both were given environments with wheels, bricks,
styrofoam for tunneling, and other items. They were handled by
the experimenter before each run and on each Saturday during the
experiment. A 12-hour-light-12-hour-dark cycle was used, and a
thermostat was set to maintain a 72-degree room temperature.
GENERAL PROCEDURE
The experiments were carried out in the summer of 1970 at the
Institute for Parapsychology. Together they occupied three weeks
of experimentation, and all data were then analyzed by computer. In
addition, the run scores were checked by hand. Altogether there were
an exploratory series, a pilot series, and a confirmatory series which
was interrupted by three exploratory runs before its completion.
The pilot was preset to be 100 runs or the number of runs necessary
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
 Approved For ReleasVJ001/03/07: CIA-RDP96-007871 10400100020-7
CPYRGHT
124 The Journal Of Parapsychology
for 1,300 random-behavior' trials. The confirmation was preset
for 150 runs. Each run had 26 trials, but the first trial was not
scored. It was used to determine only whether the first scored trial
(trial number 2) had been preceded by a shock or nonshock. Before
each of the two major experiments, the apparatus was checked for
several runs to be sure it was functioning properly and that the
shock was being sent to the correct side. In addition, it was briefly
checked several times during each experiment. It was stipulated in
advance that any event which interrupted the run, such as a power
failure, equipment malfunction, etc., would scrub that run and that
a new one would be started.
Each day of the experiment the experimenter took eight test
animals (in a preset order) and brought them to the experimental
room in a transfer cage. They were then put into eight individual
holding cages in the testing room from which they were taken to
be tested. Later the experimenter returned these and took eight more
to complete the test day. Sometimes all eight in each group would
be used, but fewer or more might be used on any given day. Usually
14-16 runs were done in a single day.'
Before each run the animal's number, the time, and date were
recorded in an experimental book and on the record chart. The
shock level was also recorded in the experimental book. The experi-
menter then put the run number on the chart, started the apparatus,
and set a timer for one run (a minimum of 26 minutes). When the
timer rang, the shock was turned off, the animal was removed, and
the process was repeated with the next subject.
It was felt that, because of the significant results in distance ex-
periments with human subjects, the mere separation of the experi-
menter from the test room would not reliably exclude him from
affecting the results. It was therefore decided that he would remain
in the room during the run. This saved time by allowing him to
score the data for a day during that day and to punch it onto cards
' As explained in the previous paper (2), generally speaking, random-behavior
trials are those in which the animal jumps for no apparent reason (as contrasted
with jumps he makes while being shocked).
' The details of the housing and care of the experiment are too lengthy for
complete detailing here; but as the environmental effects presented later will indi-
cate, they may be of some importance. Therefore the author will supply more com-
plete details on request.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
 Approved For R pf1 /03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R`Qp0400100020-7
Precognition in Mice and Jirds 125
for the computer that same evening. The chart rolled off the recorder
over a small table so that previous runs or the early part of a current
run could be scored while a run was in progress. The scorer coded
the data onto Fortran coding forms as follows : the animal's number
was put on one line; on the next four lines the 26 trials were repre-
sented with seven numbers for each trial. The first four numbers
were the number of jumps in each of four approximately 13-second
intervals making up the 55 seconds between two five-second trials.
(The first quarter of the intertrial period was slightly larger than
the succeeding three, being about 15 seconds long.) A special screen
overlay broke the trial into four quarters, and in any ambiguous
case the jump was counted for the previous quarter. The fifth num-
ber was the target chosen: 1 for side A, 2 for side B, and 0 for
mistrial. The sixth number was the position of the animal. 1, 2, or
0 were used as before. The seventh number was a record of whether
the animal was on the opposite side of the cage after the five-second
trial period. If he was on the opposite side of the cage, he had
jumped an odd number of times during the trial, most frequently
once, and a 1 was recorded. A zero indicated that he had not been
on the opposite side after the trial. This was to allow the computer
to simulate the mouse's jumping during the run as a partial double
check of the scorer's record of target and position at each trial. Each
experimenter checked the work of the other, and a third checker
has gone over the work since that time.
RESULTS
For completeness, the two exploratory sequences are reported, as
well as the two experimental series.
Once the equipment was in operation, a preliminary (exploratory)
series of 12 runs was done in which there were 88 hits out of 162
random-behavior trials. The start of the pilot experiment was then
declared; and in the following 105 runs there were 1,308 random-
behavior trials (54.1% of the total trials) with 704 hits, a 53.7%
scoring rate. (See Table 1.) This gives a CR = 2.77, P = .005
(two-tailed), a very encouraging level of scoring. Half a day later,
a 150-run confirmation was begun, which finished with 1,721 ran-
dom-behavior trials (45.97o of the total) and 909 hits, a 52.8%
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
 Approved For Releas001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787100400100020-7
CPYRGHT
126 The Journal 57 Farap~ycftufugy
Table 1
GENERAL RESULTS
Targets
Hits
% Scoring
PQ
CR
P
Pilot
Confirmation
1,308
1,721
704
909
53.7
52.8
5.87
3.18
2.77
2.34
.005%
.01b
?Two-tailed.
bone-tailed.
scoring rate. This gives a CR = 2.34, P = .01 (one-tailed), which
can be taken as a significant confirmation of the pilot experiment.
When the confirmatory series had been partly carried out, the
experimenters began to notice a change in the animals' behavior.
While formerly they had frequently been moving around in the box
from side to side, they now stayed for long periods in a single side
.and worked at the small holes where the light beams entered or on
the bars of the grid, actually fatiguing the wires to the point that
on four occasions an animal was able to escape. They were also
jumping out of the experimenter's hand on handling. Concurrently
the scoring was decreasing.
Since no known changes had been made in the apparatus or
animal care, it was hypothesized that the static nature of the en-
vironment might be responsible for the decline in scoring. The
experimenters had observed that the high scoring of the preliminary
test followed a period when the animals had been in small, crowded
cages or had come from the supply house in a crowded shipping
crate housing 24 of the animals. They had been put in the new cages
only three days before the experiment. Also, as was mentioned in
the previous paper (2, p. 8), the animals which sustained a scoring
rate of 52.9% were moved into new cages twice during the period
of the test.
On looking back in the present research, we found that there
were three instances here also when the scores had increased after
the animal cages alone or both animal cages and test cages had been
cleaned and subsequently rearranged. Thus, because we felt this
amounted to a change in conditions, we stopped the confirmatory
experiment at run 103, a point preset at run 101. A senior staff
member not in the experiment was present to witness both the
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
 Approved For R'a bO1/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787'1 `00400100020-7
Precognition in Mice and Jirds 127
cutting-off and later the resumption of the official testing. We com-
pletely cleaned and rearranged the animal cages and cleaned the test
cage with alcohol. We also received 14 new mice which were used,
with the jirds, for the remainder of the experiment. We started a
short exploratory series then to see if the behavior of the animals
reverted. They did stop trying to escape; they moved around the
cage again as before, and were easily handled again. Therefore, after
three exploratory runs (33 random trials with 21 hits), we resumed
the original experiment at a point decided in advance and we soon
began swabbing the test cage with alcohol frequently between runs
to prevent the build-up of odors that had occurred before, on the
possibility that this feature might have an effect on the animals'
behavior and, consequently, on his scoring.
A comparison between the results on the runs just before and
just after the cleaning and rearrangement of the cages shows an
increase in scoring from the "before" to the "after" conditions. There
were three cleanings, referred to above, which took place before the
interrupting series. The five runs preceding each one were found
to yield 119 random-behavior trials with 44 hits (37% scoring rate).
(See Table 2.) The five runs following each cleaning gave a total of
152 trials with 87 hits (57.2% scoring). To be added to this are
the five runs just preceding the interruption of the exploratory series
and the five runs after it ended. When these are added in there is
a total of 185 random-behavior trials with 71 hits (38.4% scoring)
for the "before" condition and 221 trials with 131 hits (59/o scor-
ing) for the "after" condition. The CRa 4.20 (P = .00002) be-
tween the scoring before each break in the routine and the scoring
after it. Since the authors knew about the low scoring just preceding
the interrupting runs, since this aided in motivating them to make
it, and since new mice were used after this last occasion, the CRd
is used only to indicate an effect to explore further.
DISCUSSION
This experiment was an effort to repeat and confirm both the
French work and the authors' own first effort reported earlier. With
two independent experiments significant at the .01 level, it can be
regarded as a confirmation. Furthermore, some conditions which
contribute to positive scoring by the mice, and a first possibility of
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
 Approved For ReGf'abU1/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787'00400100020-7 '
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
 CPYRGHT
Approved For
IReleas001 /03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787W0400100020-7
Precognition in Mice and Jirds 129
below-chance scoring, are indicated. The possible effect of the en-
vironment, together with the analyses on trials following shock and
nonshock and the number of jumps between trials, may give more
clues to the operation of the psi shown here as well as behavioral
indications of the conditions necessary to successfully continue the
replication of this work. The stability of the environment may also
help illuminate the decline effect. While the work so far has been
primarily oriented to building a firmer basis for ESP in this experi-
ment, future efforts will be directed to these latter ends.
A possible counterhypothesis to psi as a source of the results is
that the apparatus may not have produced random targets. For this
reason, the randomness of the generator was checked during the
experiment whenever animals were not being tested. A total of 5,588
targets were chosen for side A and 5,709 for side B. This is a vari-
ation well within chance limits (CR = 1.14, P =.13, with a 50.6%
scoring rate) and indicates a satisfactory degree of randomness.
The targets that were actually generated during the experiment
were also checked for randomness. In the pilot, side A was
chosen 1,226 times and side B was chosen 1,199 times. This
distribution has a CR = 0.55, 50.5 Jo scoring in the opposite
direction from the previous check. In the confirmation, side A
was again slightly favored with 1,658 targets, while there were
1,622 for side B ; CR = 0.62, 50.5 % scoring rate. These re-
sults are not consistent with the theory that a side bias in the ma-
chine corresponding with a side bias by the animal produced or
substantially contributed to the scoring.
A further hypothesis could be advanced, however, that there was
a pattern in the machine which the animals learned by nonpsi means.
As shown in Table 1, the second experiment had a slightly lower
scoring rate than the first, which does not support a long-term
chronological learning effect. However, a better test is to examine
the first versus the second half of the run. An increase in scoring
here could favor this hypothesis. In order to check this possibility,
the runs were split into the first 12 and the last 13 trials. There was
an increase in scoring rate from 52.7% in the first half to 55.2%
in the second. However, the opposite trend was found in the con-
firmation series (54.8% versus 50.14%). Although neither of these
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
 Approved Fob
CPYRGHT
Relea rl'2001/03/07 : "CIA-RDP96-00787 00400100020-7
130 The Journal of Parapsychology
pairs of figures shows a significant difference, they run counter to
the suggestion that the results could be due to learning by the animal.
This leaves the possibility thLt there was an unlearned pattern
in the animals, also common to the machine, which was not produced
by psi. This is unlikely, since three random generators of different
design have been used in significant or marginally significant experi-
ments (one by the French, one by Levy, Mayo, et al., and one used
in the present research). In addition, the animals involve two dif-
ferent species, mice and jirds, with a large number of individuals in
each group. Some of these animals were observed to move around a
great deal, others very little. These individual differences do not
seem to favor a pattern that would be common to enough animals
to account for the scoring in this research, and there were no indi-
vidual scorers who contributed a major portion of the significance.
It may also be noted that each run is relatively short, 26 trials,
limiting the number of repetitions possible for even simple patterns.
The animals had a three- or four-day interval between runs for any
individual, making long-term learning or expression of a pattern on
the basis of 25 trials less favored.
The mistrial may also work against either the learning counter-
hypothesis or the innate pattern counterhypothesis. There were 200
of these events in the pilot and 520 in the confirmation. Coming, as
they did, at irregular intervals, they would make it more difficult
for the mouse to learn or express a pattern. They could also break
up some machine rhythms since, in the event of a mistrial, no target
is chosen and no shock is sent.
The question of psi on the part of the experimenter is still un-
answered. The experimenter's presence in the room and his aware-
ness of the run score soon after the run was finished could be con-
sidered to favor his involvement; but we cannot at present be any
more confident in discounting him if he is not in the room. There
is a possibility, as pointed out by Rhine (3), that there is an inter-
action between man and animal involving psi. One approach to the
question of the experimenter's role is that he might be less likely to
be involved if the scoring relates to the animal more than to him.
Apropos of this point, the experimenters were not aware of the re-
sults of the detailed analyses during the experiment. They were not
known until afterward, and it was too involved a procedure for
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
 Approved For ReleasQ001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-0078700400100020-7
CPYRGHT
Precognition in Mice and Jirds 131
either author to keep track of. If th-- scoring does relate more to
the animal's situation than the experimenter's, this may help make
the experimenter less suspect.
The next paper will present a confirmation of the shock-non-
shock, high-jump-low-jump analyses from this work, and some addi-
tional breakdowns. The pilot and confirmation reported here, with
scoring rates similar to the first experiment reported, indicate that
the weakness of that first experiment may have been that it was
too short. The three experiments, together with more detailed anal-
yses, will make a promising start with which to pursue this evidence
of psi in animals.
REFERENCES
1. DUVAL, P., and MONTREDON, E. ESP experiments with mice. J.
Parapsychol., 1968, 32, 153-66.
2. LEVY, W. J., JR.; MAYO, L. A., JR.; ANDRE, E.; and MCRAE, A.
Repetition of the French precognition experiments with mice. J. Para-
psychol., 1971, 35, 1-17.
3. RHINE, J. B. Location of hidden objects by a man-dog team. J. Para-
psychol., 1971, 35, 18-33.
4. SCHMIDT, H. A quantum mechanical random number generator for
psi tests. J. Parapsychol., 1970, 34, 219-24.
Institute for Parapsychology
College Station
Durham, N. C. 27708
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7
 Approved For Relea9 001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-0078i 00400100020-7
CPYRGHT
AN INTERVIEW WITH DR. REMY CHAUVIN
By J. B. RHINE
Dr. Remy Chauvin, professor of animal sociology at the Sor-
bonne in Paris, was the principal speaker at a luncheon on January
2, 1971, during the Winter Review Meeting of the Institute for
Parapsychology. The address was in the form of an interview in
which Dr. J. B. Rhine presented to Dr. Chauvin a selection of ques-
tions designed to reveal Dr. Chauvin's experience in experimental
parapsychology and his attitudes toward some of the problems in
the field. The conversation proceeded as follows :
J. B. R.: Because your work in parapsychology is not all avail-
able in English and not all identified with your name, I think we
are more in the dark about your earlier writing on the subject and
your original approach to this field than we are with anyone else
who has done so much. Would you therefore, as it were, introduce
yourself to us from the point of view of your original interest and
approach and your first steps, both in research and publication on
the subject?
R. C.: My first writings in parapsychology were published in
your Journal; but my approach began four or five years earlier
with-I have to admit it-very badly designed experiments. It was
the discovery of a French edition of your book New Frontiers of the
Mind that acquainted me with what had been done elsewhere and
what modern parapsychology was like.
J. B. R.: Your research in parapsychology has been exception-
ally broad in scope. You have dealt with both ESP and PK, with
both human and animal subjects, with both the subjective and the
objective conditions of the test, and in your PK research, with both
microphysical and macrophysical target objects. From your com-
parative judgment of these various research efforts what now seems
the most promising direction to take, the best area for the continued
work you are planning to do?
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100020-7