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: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490007-9.pdf716.18 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