AUTONOMIC DETECTION OF REMOTE OBVSERVATION: TWO CONCEPTIONAL REPLICATIONS
Document Type:
Collection:
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490007-9
Release Decision:
RIFPUB
Original Classification:
U
Document Page Count:
11
Document Creation Date:
November 4, 2016
Document Release Date:
May 19, 2000
Sequence Number:
7
Case Number:
Content Type:
RP
File:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490007-9.pdf | 716.18 KB |
Body:
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490007-9
AUTONOMIC DETECTION OF REMOTE OBSERVATION:
Two Conceptional Replications1
Marilyn J. Schlitz
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory,
Science Applications International Corporation
and
Stephen Laberge
Lucidity Institute
ABSTRACT: Two experiments were conducted in the Cognitive Sciences
Laboratory of. Science Applications International Corporation to measure the
extent to which people are able to unconsciously detect another person staring
at them from a distance. A closed-circuit television set-up was employed in
which a video camera was focused on the experimental volunteer (Observee)
while a person in another room (Observer) concentrated on the image of the
distant person as projected on a color monitor; this procedure was used to
preclude any conventional sensory contact between the two people. During
the experimental session, the Observee's galvanic skin responses were
monitored. An automated and computerized system was programmed to
record and average the physiological responses of the Observee during 32 30-
second monitoring periods. A random sequence was used to schedule 16
periods of remote observation and 16 control periods when no observation
efforts were attempted. A within-subjects evaluation was made for each
experimental session with a comparison between the mean amount of
autonomic nervous system activity during the experimental and control
conditions. Twenty four sessions were conducted in each of two experiments.
As predicted, both experiments yielded significantly more autonomic activity
during the remote observation periods as compared to control periods
(Experiment 1: t=1.878, p