NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL CORRELATES TO REMOTE VIEWING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 44
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 17, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
Final Report- b/ective D, Task 1 September 1988
-OCf66r 1~'B7 to 30
Covering the Pend
NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL CORRELATES TO
REMOTE VIEWING (U)
SRI Project 1291
Approved by:
. Menlo Park. CA L4025
333 Ravenswood Ave 373 -2046 . Telex 334-486
ved For Release; 0 8/08~Y lA- DP96-00789R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 200p[Q UI/1 F 002200330001-1
(U) TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................... iv
I
INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1
A.
B.
History of Central Nervous System Correlates to Psychoenergetic
Functioning ................................................. 1
Background ................................................. 2
II
METHODS OF APPROACH ........................................ 5
A.
B.
C.
General Description ........................................... 5
Protocols ................................................... 5
Analysis--General Considerations ......................... y..... 9
A.
Vassy Protocol ............................................... 12
B.
Psi Protocol Results ........................................... 17
C.
Psi Protocol Results--Vassy Consideration ........................ 32
D.
Psi Protocol Results--Button-Press .............................. 32
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 L
L
L
LI,
16
r
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
(U) LIST OF TABLES
1. Data Format ........................................................... 36
2. Button Pressing Results .................................................. 36
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
UNCLASSIFIED
(U) LIST OF FIGURES
A
A
w
1
I
1. Vassy Protocol--Single Trial ............................................... 7
2. Psi Protocol--Single Trial ................................................. 8
3. Vassy Protocol: 0 TO 1700 ms--V002, 8/22/88 ............................. 13
4. Vassy Protocol: 0 TO 1700 ms--V002, 8/23/88 ............................. 14
5. Vassy Protocol--50-Trial Averages For Each Viewer .......................... 16
6. Vassy Protocol--Averages ................................................ 17
7. Time Series: -0.5 TO +0.5 Seconds From Remote Stimuli--V002, 8/25/88 ...... 19
8. Power Spectra: -0.5 TO +0.5 Seconds From Remote Stimuli--V002, 8/25/88 .... 20
9. Time Series: -0.5 TO +0.5 Seconds From Pseudo Stimuli--V002, 8/25/88 ........ 21
10 Power Spectra: -0.5 TO +0.5 Seconds From Pseudo Stimuli--V002, 8/25/88 ..... 22
11. 10-HZ Power: Channel 4--V002, 8/25/88 ................................. 23
12. Time Series: -0.5 TO +0.5 Seconds From "Remote" Stimuli Postsession
Background--V002, 8/25/88 .................. ......................... 25
13. Power Spectra: -0.5 TO +0.5 Seconds From "Remote" Stimuli Postsession
Background--V002, 8/25/88 ............................................. 26
14. Sensor Positions For V002 ............................................... 27
15. Time Series: -0.5 TO +0.5 Seconds From Remote Stimuli--V009, 6/24/88 ...... 28
16. Power Spectra: -0.5 TO +0.5 Seconds From Remote Stimuli--VO09, 6/24/88 .... 29
17. Time Series: -0.5 TO +0.5 Seconds From Remote Stimuli--V372, 10/19/88 ..... 30
18. Power Spectra: -0.5 TO +0.5 Seconds From Remote Stimuli--V372, 10/19/88 ... 31
19. Time Series: -0.5 TO +0.5 Seconds From Pseudo Stimuli--V372, 10/19/88 ...... 33
i
20. Power Spectra: -0.5 TO +0.5 Seconds From Remote Stimuli--V372, 10/19/88 ... 34
21. Vassy Protocol--Averages For Each Viewer ................................. 35
Approved For Release 2000UNQAWR99Q02200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
UNCLASSIFIED
I INTRODUCTION (U)
A. (U) History of Central Nervous System Correlates to Psychoenergetic
Functioning
(U) Evidence from several laboratories has indicated the possible existence of an
as-yet--unidentified channel wherein information is coupled from remote electromagnetic stimuli
to the human nervous system. Usually the coupling has been indicated by physiological
responses, even though overt responses such as verbalizations or key presses have provided no
evidence for information transfer. Physiological measures have included a plethysmographic
?response`I and electroencephalogram (EEG) activity.2'3 Kamiya, Lindsley, Pribram, Silverman,
Walter, and others have suggested that the whole range of EEG activity, including evoked
potentials, spontaneous EEG activity, and the contingent negative variation (CNV) night be
sensitive indicators of responses to remote stimuli.4
(U) During fiscal years 1973 and 1974, SRI International investigated a viewer's central
nervous system (CNS) response to a remote light stimulus. In these experiments, 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.
4
(U) During the pilot phase conducted at SRI,5 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 cognitively aware of the flashing
light. Two replications of this effort were conducted at Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute
in San Francisco by Drs. David Galin and Robert Ornstein.6 In the first of two experiments the
same viewer continued to show a significant decrease of alpha production under the remote
flashing light condition only. In a second experiment, conducted 9 months later, however, the
same viewer demonstrated a significant increase of occipital alpha production.
(U) With the advent of more sensitive CNS monitoring equipment, and with an additional
15 years of remote viewing experience, SRI conducted a series of experiments to explore possible
* (U) References may be found at the end of this report.
t (U) To keep the identity of the viewers confidential, we use the pronouns he and his
throughout this report, regardless of the viewer's gender. ;
Approved For Release 2 Q-A"Mf D9R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
UNCLASSIFIED
(U)
correlations between CNS activity and remote stimuli.' These experiments are the subject of this
report.
B. (U) Background
(U) Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is a noninvasive technique used to observe and
locate, in three-dimensional space, magnetic fields produced by neuronal electric currents in the
cortex of the brain. An MEG device (sometimes referred to by a noun, MEG) can determine
the spatial distributions of specific 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
demential, 7
(U) Neurons that participate in a given functional activity communicate between
themselves and ultimately other parts of the body by electrical signals. These signals are
produced by a flow of sodium, chlorine, potassium, and calcium ions traveling from the dendrites
down the axon and to the synaptic buttons of each neuron. Each neuron may act as a magnetic
dipole that produces a magnetic field.
(U) The sensing device of the MEG is a cryogenic superconducting 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 electrical current can flow through a
superconductor with nog applied voltage. The superconductor is divided into two pieces
connected together with a thin layer of electrical insulation between them. Some electrons can
pass through this insulation. A weak magnetic field, however, interferes with the flow of
electrons through this barrier. The amount of interference indicates the strength of the magnetic
field.
(U) The neuronal magnetic fields in the human brain are only about 10 -13 tesla, while the
earth's manetic field is 10-4 tesla and normal urban noise is about 10-7 tesla. Care must be
taken, therefore, that the signal-to-noise ratio is favorable. This has been taken into
consideration by the manufacturer of MEG equipment (BTi of San Diego), who has designed
highly shielded sensors that use a second-order coupled gradiometer to reduce the
environmental noise by about 106. The use of an aluminum and ?-metal magnetically shielded
`(U) This report constitutes the deliverable for Objective D, Task 1.
2
Approved For Release 201j1NfCLc1--E7DR002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 200 uRdwrtiffm 02200330001-1
(U)
room can reduce the signal-to-noise ratio further by a factor of 10 3. If used together these two
precautionary measures can reduce the ambient noise by a factor of about 109.
(U) Since the MEG responds best to neuronal currents 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 perpendicular to the skull, so some tangential component is almost always available to
the SQUID.
(U) Looking at a single or closely packed group of neurons can be a slow and tedious
process. Due to technological restraints, a maximum of seven sensors can be used
simultaneously to gather MEG measurements. Sensors on a seven-channel MEG are located on
a 2-cm equilateral triangular grid forming the center and vertices of a regular hexagon. A
subject wears a spandex cap with grid marks lined up with the nasion, inion, and ear lobes of the
subject to serve as a head-centered coordinate system. To identify the location of a
neuronal-equivalent dipole, many measurements have to be taken. Isocontour maps of field
strength are used to represent the amplitude and polarity distribution of the magnetic fields. A
least-squares procedure is applied to the observed fields to estimate the location of neuronal
sources and orientation of the magnetic current.8 The estimated location of the neuronal source
can. then be identified with an MRI (magnetic resonance ima&e) scan of the head. Developments
in technology may soon allow for enough channels to cover the whole head at once, thereby
reducing data collection time and increasing precision.
(U) In its curreht form, the MEG must be suspended in an inverted position above the
subject. This 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 sensors are not attached to the head, but are only lowered into position over the skull; the
subject cannot move his or her head during monitoring without disturbing the measurement. For
these two reasons, MEG equipment is not suited for long-term monitoring of a subject. These
problems may be solved shortly as new technology, such as high-temperature SQUIDs, develops.
(U) A response from the MEG is a complex wave form consisting of a series of negative
and positive peaks or components. Specific components of this wave form can be correlated with
perceptual and cognitive processes. The most commonly observed response to a visual or
auditory stimulus, for example, is a large component occurring approximately 100
milliseconds(ms) after the onset of the stimulus. One hundred milliseconds appears to be the
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/0dX95IFJ ED 2200330001-1
(U)
average latency period between stimulus and the first correlated neuronal activation in the
brain.9
(U) The earlier technology of EEGs measures electric potential, or event-related
potentials (ERPs) produced by the electrical activity of the brain. An MEG measures the
magnetic fields, or event-related fields (ERFs) produced by the electrical activity of specific
groups of active neurons in the cortex. An EEG and an MEG, therefore, reveal different aspects
of the electrical activity of the brain and are often used as complementary technologies. In some
areas, however, the MEG technique has definite advantages over EEG techniques:
ERPs taken from the scalp provide little information regarding the precise
three-dimensional distribution of the neuronal sites producing the electrical
activity. Brain tissues of unknown electrical conductivity and thickness,
individual variations in skull thickness and geometry, and proximity to
openings in the skull, all make obtaining such detailed information difficult.
The same is not true when using an MEG: Neuronal magnetic fields can travel
through brain tissues without being significantly altered; this results in Jiigh
spatial resolution of the neuronal activity.
EEG procedures are occasionally costly and modestly to highly invasive: EEG
electrodes must be attached directly to the skull or to the brain of the subject,
MEG detectors are extracranial and are simply lowered into position against
the skull.
(1)
(2)
(3)
There is much controversy over the appropriate reference electrode in EEG
work (a reference electrode is required with electric potential measurements,
because only differences in electric potential are measured) . There is no such
problem with an MEG, since the measurement of magnetic fields is absolute.
t
NC
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :kIA=RDP1l-1078gR002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 200U&A Vl PSJ frJr 002200330001-1
II METHODS OF APPROACH (U)
A. (U) General Description
(U) Under the direction of Dr. Edward Flynn, the Neuromagnetism Laboratory at Los
Alamos National Laboratory has been using a seven-sensor MEG in conjunction with a shielded
room, to conduct research on neuroanatomy and physiology. Recently, their experiments have
looked at (1) visual-evoked responses to sinusoidal gratings presented to the central or right
visual field i0 and, (2) the effects on ERFs of selective attention.) "
(U) We intended to investigate neuronal magnetic activity in the brain cortex that might
occur in response to a remote stimulus. Our overall hypothesis was that we can detect EERFs
that correspond to a remote and isolated stimulus. To test our hypothesis, we developed two
protocols that are similar to the Los Alamos protocol. In fact, only minor changes to the Los
Alamos protocol were necessary.
(U) The following definitions may be helpful in reading this report:
? nj-Putative extrasensorimotor communication with the environment.
? Viewer-An individual who attempts extrasensorimotor communication with
the environment (e.g., the perception of remote stimuli).
? Remote Stim li (R 1-Stimuli occurring outside the viewer's range of known
sensory channels.
? Direct Stimuli (D$1-Stimuli occurring within the viewer's range of known
sensory channels.
? Sender-An individual who, while receiving direct stimuli, acts as a putative
transmitter to a remote individual (i.e., viewer) who is attempting to receive the
same information via psi.
B. (U) Protocols
(U) A difficulty in developing a protocol is determining the initial position of the detector
array. We chose to select the location that optimizes the response to a direct stimulus. Inherent
in this choice is an assumption that may not be valid. Neurons participating in a reaction to a
remote stimulus are the same as those that react to a direct stimulus.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 1
r
r
r
r
Approved For Release 20OU/ NC- LIA&1F;ED002200330001-1
(U) The first protocol is based on an experiment in Budapest, Hungary, by Zolton
Vassy.12 The Vassy protocol examines whether 'a viewer can respond to'remote stimuli. In this
case, the remote stimuli are analogous to conditioned stimuli in classical conditioning
experiments, and the direct stimuli are analogous to unconditioned stimuli. A sender is isolated
in a separate room while a viewer is monitored by an MEG in a remote magnetically shielded
room. A sender is first shown a visual stimulus consisting of a sinusoidal grating light flash
(remote stimulus). After approximately 500 ms a viewer is shown an identical stimulus (direct
stimulus). This procedure, or trial, is repeated 50 times at random time intervals to form one
run. The multiple trials are used in data averaging.
(U) Following is the schedule for a single trial:
? Time = 0: A computer-generated trigger starts the monitoring of data (500 ms
of prestimulus data).
? Time = 500 ms: 100 ms of a remote stimulus is presented to the sender only.
? Time = 600 ms: 440 ms of poststimulus data is recorded.
? Time = 1040 ms: 100 ms of a direct stimulus is presented to only the viewer.
? Time = 1140 ms: 560 ms of poststimulus data is recorded.
(U) If the CNS reacts to a remote stimulus, we expect to see both a large component in
response to the direct stimulus and a smaller but similar response to the remote stimulus with
approximately the same response latency. Figure 1 is an idealized illustration of expected results.
(U) The second protocol is called the psi protocol. It is a conceptual replication of an
earlier experiment conducted in 1975 using EEG techniques.6 As in the Vassy protocol, a
sender is isolated in a room while a viewer is monitored by an MEG in a remote shielded room.
The sender is presented with a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 15 visual stimuli-sinusoidal
grating light flashes-occurring at random intervals within a 120-second period, the length of one
trial. Ten trials equal one run. The viewer is never presented with direct stimuli, but is
instructed to press a fiber-optic-coupled button when he perceives stimuli. Each button press is
marked in the data record. (Button pressing was retained in this protocol as part of the
conceptual replication.) In later runs, an equivalerA number of pseudostimuli (i.e., random time
markers with no concomitant stimuli) are added as a within-run control.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2CJp4/$L529TR002200330001-1
FIGURE 1 (U) VASSY PROTOCOL-SINGLE TRIAL
(U) Following is the schedule for a single trial:
? Time = 0: A computer-generated trigger starts the monitoring of data. Data
are collected the entire 120 seconds.
? Time > 120 seconds: The viewer does not"leave the table, but has a break for
about 2 to 5 minutes between runs. This break generally consists of one of the
experimenters entering the shielded room to engage the viewer in trivial
conversation.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 20(3p (QCEIw ICI IEW002200330001-1
(U) Postsession background control runs are conducted exactly the same as normal-runs
except neither a viewer nor sender is present.
(U) If our initial assumption is true, and if the earlier results are replicated, we expect to
see a fast response to the remote stimuli, as well as a change in primary alpha production. Figure
2 is an idealized illustration of these expected results.
FIGURE 2 (U) PSI PROTOCOL-SINGLE TRIAL
(U) For both protocols, the trial randomization procedure involves a "dead time" after
the onset of a stimulus. During this time no further stimuli are allowed. Following this is a preset
time interval during which the next stimulus occurs. The timing of that stimulus is randomly
assigned within that interval.
(U) In each of the two protocols the visual stimuli are 2-cycle-per-degree (cpd) and
6-cpd sinusoidal gratings presented vertically and subtending 2 degrees in the left visual field.
(Several trials of the Vassy protocol were attempted using auditory stimuli presented in the right
ear, but the effort was abandoned when a viewer complained that the direct stimulus disturbed
his concentration on the remote stimulus.)
(U) Before each experimental session, we perform a background run to check the
ambient noise and operating condition of the MEG equipment. A background run consists of
from :10 to 100 trials of the protocol to be used. All experimental equipment is in place and
operating as if in an actual experiment, except no viewer or sender is present.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 20 CL1AMWEV002200330001-1
(U) Once the viewer is fitted with the spandex cap with the grid marks lined up with his
inion, nasion, and ear lobes, he is placed as comfortably as possible on an observation table
beneath the MEG. The viewer must lie face down and look though a hole in the table. Via a
system of mirrors beneath the table, the viewer sees stimuli that are displayed by a projector
located outside the entrance to the shielded room. The sensors of the MEG are lowered from
above to touch the head over the right occipital lobe. Meanwhile, a sender isolated in a room
down a corridor from the shielded room, is seated in a chair facing a television monitor. To
present the stimuli in the lower left visual field, the viewer and the sender are both instructed to
fix their gaze on dots attached to their respective display screens. The stimuli then subtend 2
degrees of visual field.
(U) Next, a calibration is done to find the optimum placement of the MEG sensors. By
moving the MEG, the largest response to the direct stimulus is sought. The sensor locations are
then marked on an acetate transparency having grid marks identical to those on the spandex cap.
This allows sensors to be placed near the same locations in later sessions.
(U) The experiment is conducted and monitored from a computer control roo;n located
across a corridor from both the shielded room and the sender's room. Communication into the
shielded room is accomplished via an intercom system.
C. (U) Analysis-General Considerations
(U) As indicated in Section I, the MEG can locate neuronal sources to within a few cubic
millimeters. Unfortunately, this high spatial resolution means that the MEG is extremely
sensitive to detector array location. Moving the array 0.5 cm can change the observed data in
significant ways. It is imperative, therefore, to search each detector for candidate peaks
individually.
(U) A candidate peak must be observed systematically before it can be considered a
response to a remote stimulus. For example, a given viewer's candidate peak must be observed
during different MEG sessions at the same time relative to the remote stimulus. Ideally, the peak
should exhibit a self-consistent variation in magnitude across the seven data channels. Such
variation might indicate a neuronal source that could be better observed by moving the detector
array.
(U) If candidate peaks that are similar in timing relative to the remote stimulus are
observed across viewers, then we can argue that viewers respond to remote stimuli. If peaks
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
UNCLASSIFIED
1
t
e
s
(U)
identified during the baseline period (i.e., 0 to 500 ms) exhibit similar self-consistent timing,
however, then the argument is weakened.
(U) The analysis of CNS activity has always been problematical. From a statistics point of
view, the data fail to satisfy at least two underlying assumptions of the usual statistical methods
(e.g., ANOVA and MANOVA). Most standard statistical tests require that all samples of the
data be independent. Clearly this condition is not satisfied by CNS activity. MANOVA, which
can be configured to remove this particular requirement (point-to-point), nonetheless assumes
that the process under study is stationary; that is, whatever the statistical properties, they remain
constant over time. In other words, the measured properties should not depend upon when the
activity is sampled. Stationarity is required by all the standard tests. CNS activity does not meet
this requirement.
(U) As a first attempt in analyzing the CNS activity, we adopted a simple Monte Carlo
approach. Suppose a particular measure (e.g., variance, 8- to 12-Hz power) appears yto change
across a stimulus marker. There are three questions of interest:
(1) Is the prestimulus condition exceptional?
(2) Is the poststimulus condition exceptional?
(3) Is the ratio of pre- to poststimulus condition exceptional?
Because of the difficulties outlined above, these questions cannot be answered in an absolute
manner; however, we aan examine these issues from a relative perspective given the data sample
at hand.
(U) Under the null hypothesis, the given data sample does not depend upon the set of
stimuli. Thus, a measure across a stimulus marker can change only because of statistical
fluctuations within the data sample. To determine if this is true, we adopted the Monte Carlo
procedure outlined as follows:
(1) Generate N random examples of the`measure in question within the data
sample at hand. For example, if the measure is the variance of averaged (over
M stimuli) data, then N is the number of sets of M randomly generated stimuli
markers.
(2) For each pass (1...N) compute the measure in question.
(3) Sort the N values of the measure. These values constitute the distribution of
the measure in the given data sample.
t
I
Approved For Release 2000/4jN:CIL. WFAM2200330001-1
 Approved For Release 200UNtLIASQ96rtj!DO02200330001-1
(U)
(4) Compute the probability that the observed measure would be as large (or
larger), given a repeated random sample of the data. Note that this p-value is
not the probability that the measure is as large, given a different data sample.
The p-value derived by the technique can be considered only a crude indicator, since it depends
upon N, and the optimum value of N depends upon the size of the data sample.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/06 :, CIA-RDP96-0078PR002200330001-1
III RESULTS (U)
r
t
t
(U) Viewers 002, 007, 009, 372, 531, and 908 from SRI International, and viewers 262
and 734 from Los Alamos National Laboratory participated in the effort. Viewers 002, 009, and
372 were experienced while viewers 007, 262, 531, and 734 had not previously participated in
remote viewing trials. As described in Section II, the output from the MEG consisted of seven
channels of data recorded simultaneously from different physical locations. These data were
stored either in average mode (i.e., signal averaging was accomplished in real time) or as single
passes (i.e., the signal averaging was accomplished during later processing).
A. (U) Vassy Protocol
(U) Since there was no initial hypothesis (other than a possible response to remote
stimuli), the following analyses are, by definition, post hoc. In the signal-averaged condition, the
data from each viewer and each series were visually inspected for prominent peaks regardless of
the data channel. Candidate peaks for a possible response to the remote stimuli were identified
for later comparison. See Figure 1 for a schematic representation of a candidate peak.
(U) This particular post hoc approach is problematical. Because the data across viewers
are especially ill behaved (statistically), it is difficult to estimate the degree to which the timing of
candidate peaks is fortuitous.
As shown in Figure 3, the response (in channel 1) to direct stimuli for V002
exceeds 400 ft. The arrows in each channel mark a candidate peak for response to remote
stimuli. This peak appears approximately 100 ms after the onset of the remote stimulus, and is
most prevalent in channel 1. (The peak is the left-most component of a broader response.)
This peak can be seen in channel 2, but is absent from channels 4, 5, and 6 and is sharply
reduced in channel 3. This candidate peak, by itself, is not particularly compelling. Yet data
from the next session, one day later, show a strong peak with the identical timing.
I On that day, 23 August, the detector array was placed as close as possible to the
location on the previous day. This new placement resulted in a sharply reduced response to the
direct stimulus (see Figure 4), from that shown in Figure 3. In fact, all channels show a reduced
response to the direct stimulus indicating that the detector array might have been moved away
from the CNS site that was responding to the direct stimulus. The arrows indicate a peak in each
channel that corresponds (?2 ms) to the peaks indicated in Figure 3. In all channels the
Approved For Release 2000/08/0 : CIA-RDP96-00789R 02200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : 78 R002200330001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08108 : CIA-RDP96-00t789R002200330001-1
SLR
I a J I
0 0 o
cn N
47
14
Approved For Release 2000/08/ : CIA-RDP96- 789R002200330001-1
E
E
 Approved For Release 2000/08/(8: CIA-RDP96~0 789R002200330001-1
amplitude of the peak is greater than its earlier amplitude; and in channel 1, its amplitude
approaches one-half of the response to the direct stimulus.
(U) Figure 5 shows MEG data from one run and one detector for all participants in the
Vassy protocol. Since the baseline recording period varied among viewers in length (designated
"Long" and "Short" in Figure 5), the data, displayed at 5-ms intervals, are shown with the onset
of the remote stimulus as a common point.
! The peak labeled "ERF-RS" can be seen in data from all participants. The
mean time of the peak (one detector per run) identified in the Vassy protocol is 98.2 ? 7.1 ms
(three data channels) after the onset of the remote stimulus.
1 Figure 6 shows averages across viewers for long, short, and both ("All") timings.
They are normalized by the individual run with the largest spread in magnetic field.
V009 participated in four separate runs: One in the psi protocol and three in the
Vassy protocol. The candidate peak across all four runs has a mean of 102.25 ? 1.70 ms. No
peaks are observed in the baseline period for four runs with similar timing constraints.
iSeveral peaks in the remote stimulus (RS) poststimulus region appear to be
present for all viewers; however, the candidate peak is the first one after the remote stimulus.
Some peaks shown in Figure 5 are responses to high-frequency (6-cpd) stimulus,
and others are responses to a low-frequency (2-cpd) stimulus. No participant responded to both
frequency stimuli.
I The two protocols under consideration (Vassy and psi) are identical in one
respect: They both contain a remote stimulus, and a putative response to that stimulus is sought.
Therefore, one might expect a candidate peak identified in the Vassy protocol should be
observed in the psi protocol as well. We have indicated that this is the case for V009 (this is
discussed further in Section III.C).
While the averages shown in Figure 6 appear to provide evidence for a strong
response to the remote stimulus, we must recognize that the data shown in Figure 5 could be
examples of fortuitous peak selection. If so, then the averages shown in Figure 6 are the
expected result.
Given the caveat about the approach, at least one candidate peak for a response
to the remote stimulus appears to have been identified. More analysis and/or research is needed
before a definitive statement can be made.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :;CIA-RDP96-0078 R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/0 /08 : CIA-RDP96-0789R002200330001-1
Field (ft)
Long
1040
Time (ms)
FIGURE 5 (U) VASSY PROTOCOL-50-TRIAL AVERAGES FOR EACH VIEWER
Should this peak be a response to a remote stimulus, then at least one alternative
(to the psychoenergetic interpretation) must be considered. Since the shielded room for the
MEG is nearly transparent at frequencies above 100 Hz, the observed peak might result from a
CNS response to an electromagnetic signal related to the display of the stimuli on a standard
television monitor.
Approved For Release 2000/08/ CIA-RDP96-0A7 9R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08: ,CIA-RDP96-00789002200330001-1
Long
Field (ft)
P
P
1040
Time (ms)
I
1rIGURE 5 (U) VASSY PROTOCOL-50-TRIAL AVERAGES FOR EACH VIEWER
Should this peak be a response to a remote stimulus, then at least one alternative
(to the psychoenergetic interpretation) must be considered. Since the shielded room for the
MEG is nearly transparent at frequencies above 100 Hz, the observed peak might result from a
CNS response to an electromagnetic signal related to the display of the stimuli on a standard
television monitor.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : ICIA-RDP96-00789
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08( CIA-RDP96-0078 R002200330001-1
A
14
Field (ft)
rrR~:
500 1040
Time (ms)
FIGURE 6 (U) VASSY PROTOCOL-AVERAGES
B. (U) Psi Protocol Results
(U) Viewers 002, 009, and 372 participated in the psi protocol experiment. Seven
channels of MEG data, one channel of stimuli data, and one channel of button-response data
were stored for each run of 120 seconds for later analysis. A series consisted of 10 such runs.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : Cl
RDP96-00789l 2200330001-1
t", - 7
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789f 002200330001-1
(U)
The complete protocol (described in Section II) was used for V002 and V372. Since V009 was
the first viewer to participate and the experiment was mostly exploratory, no pseudostimuli were
present, nor were postsession control runs conducted.
1. (U) Viewer 002
Viewer 002 visited Los Alamos National Laboratory from 22-26 August
1988. During that time V002 participated in three separate series in the psi protocol experiment.
Figures 7 and 8 show the time series and power spectra, respectively, for the average of 118 pre-
and poststimuli for all channels on 25 August. These data were chosen for display because this
series was the first using the complete psi protocol. For the remote stimuli (Figure 7), channels
1, 4, and 7 show a qualitative change of activity in the time series across the stimulus boundary.
All channels show a decrease of power in the prominent 10-Hz peak (Figure 8). Figures 9 and
10 show the same data for 74 pseudostimuli.
(U) To determine if the qualitative changes are exceptional, we analyzed the data by
the Monte Carlo procedure outlined in Section II. We simulated the remote stimuli by
generating 2000 sets of 118 Monte Carlo stimuli having the same timing as the original data. For
each set, the data were averaged, detrended, and filtered, and the 10-Hz and total power were
calculated for the pre- and poststimulus periods. The ratio of pre- to poststimulus power was
also calculated, as were p-values (defined as the ratio of the area equal to or greater than the
specified value, divided by the total area under the histogram) .
(U) Figure 11 shows the resulting histograms of the 2000 sets for the 10-Hz peak in
channel 4 (Figure 8); the ratio histogram is not shown. While separate histograms were
generated for 74 pseudostimuli, for convenience the results shown on the histograms are for the
remote stimuli-the histograms are nearly identical. The p-values shown, however, are derived
from their appropriate histograms.
I For this case (channel 4), the prestimulus 10-Hz power is not exceptional
(p < 0.093) when compared with the rest of the data in this series. The postsession 10-Hz
power is exceptionally small-94.4% of the 2000 Monte Carlo cases produce 10-Hz power larger
than the observed value. The ratio of pre- to poststimulus 10-Hz power is significant
(p < 0.093). In other words, the change in 10-Hz power across the stimulus boundary primarily
results from a large drop (relative to the rest of the data) in power just after the stimulus.
P Significant changes in 10-Hz power are also observed in channel 7
(p C 0.038), while no significant changes are observed for the pseudostimuli. Channels 4 and 7
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 IA-RDP96-00789.2 02200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : (lARDP96007&9R00122003300011
vr
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : C A-RDP96-00789R0~2200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : 4lARDP96007894rn22003300011
w
w
20
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 IA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-007891002200330001-1
w
v
r
it
d
21
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 f CIA-RDP96-007 9R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001
;iI
W 19 7 N O
O O O O O
i
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 r
r
r
r
f
i
Approved For Release 2000/08/081: clA-RDP96-00789 002200330001-1
21
Approved For Release 2000/08/08': CIA-RDP96-00 89R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
MI,
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :.CIA-RDP96-00789 002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :'CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
f
F
r
Arbitrary 7
Prestimulus
p (remote) < 0.093
p (pseudo) < 0.839
2 3
4
5
Ratio
p (remote)
< 0.017
p (pseudo)
< 0.762
Poststimulus
p (remote) < 0.944
p (pseudo) G 0.512
10-Hz Power X 107
c
C
FIGURE 11 (U) 10-HZ POWER: CHANNEL 4-V002, 8/25/88
23
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 ICIA-RDP96-00789R052200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : ?IA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
w
F
show significant decreases in total 0- to 40-Hz power (p G 0.002, 0.033, respectively), but no
pseudostimuli show significant changes.
A postsession background series was conducted with both sender and viewer
absent from the experimental area (see Section II.B). Figures 12 and 13 show the time series
and power spectra, respectively, for the background "remote" stimuli. As can be seen from the
power spectra (all data for this day are plotted on the same vertical scale), overall power is
sharply reduced, reflecting that the MEG was not observing any CNS activity. Qualitatively, the
changes shown for the experimental conditions (remote stimuli) do not result from noise in the
MEG hardware.
- t These qualitative results are confirmed by the Monte Carlo analysis. The
p-values for the changes in 10-Hz and total power for channel 4 are 0.406, and 0.141,
respectively; for channel 7, the p-values are 0.993 and 0.243, respectively. The significant
change in 10-Hz power in channel 7 is in the opposite direction from that observed under
experimental conditions.
During the series on 25 August 1988, V002 kept his eyes closed throughout
the session. On 26 August, V002 was instructed to keep his eyes open. Similarly to the analysis
of the 25 August series, the Monte Carlo analysis shows a sharp decrease in 10-Hz power (p C
0. 100) and a significant decrease in total power (p < 0.049) for the CNS activity detected in
channel 4. No significant changes are observed for channel 7, nor are significant changes seen in
the pseudostimuli. The change from 25 to 26 August might result from a slight change in
positioning of the detector array.
I Figure 14 shows the positions of the detector array, relative to the inion, for
V002 for the 25 and 26 August placement of the detector arrays. The magnitude of change in
detector placement is approximately twice the magnitude of the changes used in searching for the
response to direct stimulus during initial calibration. This relatively large position change could
account for the reduction in changes across the stimulus boundary.
L
L
r
L
Viewer 009 visited Los Alamos National Laboratory from 20-24 June 1988.
During that time, V009 participated in one psi series on 24 June 1988. Figure 15 shows the time
series data averaged over 97 trials, displayed -0.5 to +0.5 seconds from the remote stimulus.
Figure 16 shows the power spectra for the 0.5-second pre- and poststimulus times for all
channels.
24
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : IbIA-RDP96-0078
002200330001-1
F
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
UNCLASSIFIED
4
4
A
w
01
A
25
N (" ~5
Approved For Release 2000/08/'G1`-1t[7P9~> RQOZ200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 GIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/0Q : CIA-R?96-007$9R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08: IA-RDP96-0078002200330001-1
C
d' Cl
O O O
a)
29
Approved For Release 2000/08/04: CIA-RDP96-00788R002200330001-1
 r
r
I
f
i
I-
I-
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 1 CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
S
EL
O O O O
h O v7
N
O O O
h O ~/1
U
Approved For Release 2000/08/0~ : CIA-96-007OR002200330001-1
 r
Approved For Release 2000/08/06: CIA-RDP96-0078 R002200330001-1
r
In
09 19 R N O
0 0 0 0 0
0
a
31
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-0078 01O02200330001
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 ? CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
Using the Monte Carlo technique we find channel 4 shows a significant
increase in 10-Hz power (p < 0.038), and channels 3 and 5 show similar trends. The strong
peak at 8.9 Hz in channel 4 is significantly larger in the poststimulus condition.
w'1 Figures 19 and 20 show the time series and power spectra for the
pseudostimuli. The 10-Hz and total power in channel 4 show no change across the stimulus
boundary (p G 0.667 and p C 0.506, respectively). Channel 3 also shows no significant changes
in the 10-Hz and total power (p < 0.140 and p G 0.180, respectively). Channel 5, however,
shows a significant increase in total power (p < 0.026), and a strong increase (p < 0.082) in
10-Hz power.
C. (U) Psi Protocol Results-Vassy Consideration
(U) Because the Vassy and psi-protocol both present a remote stimulus to the viewer, the
candidate peak seen in the Vassy protocol data should also be seen in the psi protocol data. One
run on one channel is shown in Figure 21 for each participant in the psi protocol experiment.
'V009's data show a candidate peak within ?2 ms of the candidate peak
identified under the Vassy protocol. Similarly, small peaks are seen for the other two viewers.
The cross-viewer normalized average is also shown in Figure 21.
D. (U) Psi Protocol Results-Button-Press
(U) In the early SRI studies significant changes in alpha production were observed in
response to a remote stimulus. The statistical evidence, however, did not indicate that the viewer
was able to recognize a remote stimulus cognitively (i.e., the viewer's button presses did not
exceed mean chance expectation).
(U) In the psi protocol of the current experiment, viewers are asked to press a button
whenever they think a remote stimulus occurs. The total number of trials during a series of 10
runs is not known in advance because of the trial randomization procedures. To determine if a
viewer is cognitively sensing the remote stimuli, the null hypothesis 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 presence or absence of a stimulus is independent of the
presence or absence of a button press.
32
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-0078PR002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
i
F
r
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIAIRDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
Ll 7 N O
O O O 0
34
Approved For Release 2000/08/08j: CIA-RDP96-007~9R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
L
ism
FIGURE 21 (U) VASSY PROTOCOL-AVERAGES FOR EACH VIEWER
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-R6P96-00789R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :rIA-RDP96-007898001200330001-1
(U) To test the hypothesis, the entire series is broken into 1-second intervals. Table 1
shows the format for data accumulated for one series.
(U) DATA FORMAT
Stimulus
Yes No
Yes
Response
No
(U) The fractional hitting rate is pi = A/(A+B), and the fractional missing rate is
P2 = CI(C+D). The total number of I.-second intervals is N = (A+B+C+D), and the total stimulus
rate is po = (A+C)/N . Then the following statistic is approximately normally distributed with a
mean of 0 and a variance of 1 under the null hypothesis:
Po(i -po)
(PI -P2)
1 1
(-(A + _
B) (C+D)
lTable 2 shows N, po, P,, P2, z, p-value, and the effect size, r, for the three psi
protocol series for which button press data exist. As in the early SRI study, nothing indicates
cognitive recognition of the remote stimuli.
C
C
C
C
Viewer
N
Po
Pi
P2
z
p
r
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
36
Approved For Release 2000/08/0$ : CIA-RDP96-00789Rp02200330001-1
(U) BUTTON PRESSING RESULTS
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08: IA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS (U)
We have observed two types of CNS activity possibly related to a response to a
remote stimulus. The first of these (changes in alpha and/or total power) is generally considered
to be less localized than an ERF to a direct stimulus. Thus, one expects that changes of power
across a remote stimulus boundary should be seen in some related channels.
I This is the case for V002 (Figure 8). While channels 4 and 7 show significant
changes across the stimulus boundary, a qualitative trend is clear for all channels. The associated
pseudostimuli show no obvious trends. Viewer 009 demonstrates significant changes in 10-Hz
power in channel 2, and strong changes in channels 1 and 7 (Figure 16). The grouping of these
channels might indicate a broad neuronal source in the channel-2 direction.
L
L
I The data from V372 (Figure 18) are less clear. Alpha power changes
significantly in channel 4, and a qualitative trend is clear in channels 3 and 5, but the trend is less
obvious than for V002 or V009. V372 posed a special problem. Anatomically, his strongest
response to a direct visual stimulus was located below the inion-a difficult location to reach with
the MEG. To obtain good data, V372 was required to hunch his head forward by bracing his
arms under his chest. During a long session (20 minutes), V372 could have relaxed slightly from
this uncomfortable position and pulled away from the detector array. In this location, some
detectors were positioned just above V372's neck.
Considering that all three viewers (002, 009, and 372) showed .a change (increase
or decrease) in total or 10-Hz power across a remote stimulus boundary, and considering that
this constitutes a positive replication of SRI's earlier work, we probably observed a response to a
remote stimulus.
j--_ ; The situation is much less clear concerning a localized response to a remote
stimul While a candidate peak has been identified using the Vassy protocol and later
observed using the psi protocol, a quantitative measure must be developed to determine the
probability of observing peaks with similar timing in the same data but with random
pseudostimuli.
(U) This work will be continued during the first half of FY 1989.
37
Approved For Release 2000/08/0$ : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200330001-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R00220033000f=T
UNCLASSIFIED
REFERENCES (U)
1. Dean, E. D., International Journal of Neuropsychiatry,
UNCLASSIFIED. Vol. 2, p. 439 (1966)
2. Tart, C. T., International Journal of Parapsychology,
UNCLASSIFIED. Vol. 5, p. 375 (1963)
3. Duane, T. D., and Behrendt, T., Science, Vol. 150, 4. Cavanna, R, Ed., Psi Favorable States of Consciousness, Parapsychology
I
Foundation,
New York, New York (1970) UNCLASSIFIED. 5. Rebert, C. S., and Turner, A., "EEG Spectrum Analysis
A to the
Problem of Psi Phenomena," Physician's Drug Manual, Vol. e 6, Techniques -8 plied pp. 82-88
(1974) UNCLASSIFIED.
88
6. May, E. C., Targ, R., and Puthoff, H. E.,
Under Conditions of Sensor "Possible EEG Correlates to Remote ttimuli
y Shielding," Proceedings of IEEE Electro/77-Special
Session: The State of the Art in Psychic Research, New York (April 19-21, 1977)
UNCLASSIFIED.
)
7. Sutherling, W. W., Crandall, P. H., Cahan, L. D., of Epileptic Spikes Agrees with Intracranial Localizattionsr in Complex The Partial Epilepsy,"
Neurology, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 778-786 (May 1988) UNCLASSIFIED.
8. Aine, C. J., George, J. S., Medvick, P. A., Localization of Components of the Visual EvokedT Neu omagnet c Response,"
Neuromagnetism Laboratory, Life Sciences and Physics Divisions, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, UNCLASSIFIED.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Aine, C. J., George,, J. S., and Flynn, E.
Selective Attention to Gratings in the Central nd IRight tVis alDFields, " Neu o a fn tism
Laboratory, Life Sciences and Physics Divisions, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los
Alamos, New Mexico, UNCLASSIFIED.
12. Vassy, Zoltdn, "Method for Measuring the Probability of 1 Bit Extra-Sensory Information
Transfer Between Living Organisms, "Abstract: Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 42, No. 2
(June 1978) UNCLASSIFIED.
38
Approved For Releaj01t8(Sjdf~p00789R002200330001-1