PERCEPTUAL AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES, PROGRESS REPORT NO. 3

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 85
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 27, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: October 31, 1974
• Content Type: REPORT

/211,1111M
SRI
STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Menlo Park, California 94025 ? U.S.A.
31 October 1974
Progress Report No. 3
Covering the Period 1 April to 1 August 1974
Stanford Research Institute Project 3183
PERCEPTUAL AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES
by
Harold E. Puthoff
Russell Targ
Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory
Client Private
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
CONTENTS
I OBJECTIVE
II PROGRESS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD
A. Applied Research
1. Remote Viewing
1
2
2
2
(a) Project Atlas Remote Viewing
2
(b) Costa Rica Remote Viewing Experiment. ? ?
6
(c) Local Targets with Mid-Test Feedback.
7
(d) Local Targets with Azimuth Bearing. . .
11
B.
Basic Research
11
1.
Criteria for the Determination of Gifted
Individuals
12
(a) Remote Viewing of Natural Targets . ? ? ?
16
(b) Line Drawings
17
(c) Four-State Electronic Random Stimulus
Generator
18
2.
Identification of Measurable Characteristics
Possessed by Gifted Subjects (20%)
22
(a) Medical Evaluation
22
(b) Psychological Evaluation
24
(c) Neuropsychological Evaluation
41
3.
Identification of Neurophysiological
Correlates Which Relate to Paranormal
Activities (20%)
41
(a) Bilateral EEG Measurements--Remote Strobe
Experiment
42
(b) Physiological Correlates of Remote
Viewing
43
4.
Identification of the Nature of Paranormal
Phenomena and Energy (10%)
44
(a) Universal Randomization Protocol
46
(b) Experiments with Develco Superconducting
Differential Magnetometer (Gradiometer) .
50
11
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
(c) Experiments with Laser-Monitored
Torsion Pendulum 55
(d) Experiments with Geiger Counter 59
5. Basic Research Summary 60
Appendix 1--RANDOMNESS TESTS OF FOUR-STATE ELECTRONIC RANDOM
STIMULUS GENERATOR
Appendix 2--PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE OF THE
FOUR-STATE ELECTRONIC RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR .
61
66
Appendix 3--SAMPLE OF RAW DATA--MEDICAL EVALUATION OF
SUBJECT 1 80
Appendix 4--PRELIMINARY NOTES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING. . ? ? 103
iii
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
I OBJECTIVE
The purpose of 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 effort is to explore experimentally the
potential for applications of perceptual abilities of interest, with
special attention given to accuracy and reliability. The purpose of the
basic research effort is to identify the characteristics of individuals
possessing such abilities, and to identify neurophysiological correlates
and basic mechanisms involved in such functioning.
1
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
II PROGRESS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD
A. Applied Research
1. Remote Viewing
(a) Project Atlas Remote Viewing
A remote-viewing experiment has been carried out on a
client-designated target of interest, a European R&D test facility. The
experiment, carried out in three phases, had as its goal the determina-
tion of the utility of remote-viewing under operational conditions.
In Phase I, map coordinates were furnished to the experi-
menters, the only additional information provided being the designation
of the target as an R&D test facility. The experimenters then carried
out a remote viewing experiment with Subject 1 on a double-blind basis.
The results of the experiment were turned over to client representatives
for data evaluation.
Figure 1 shows the level of detail for a sample early
effort at building layout, and Figure 2 shows the subject's first effort
at drawing a gantry crane he observed, both results being obtained on a
double-blind basis before exposure to client-held information. An artist's
conception of the site as known to the client (but not to contract per-
sonnel) prior to the experiment is shown in Figure 3.
Numerical designations for subjects are discussed in Section B.
2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Ui
3
^ ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ?
? ?? ? ?
?
?
? ? qb 41,
rN.1
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
5
SA-3183-11
ARTIST'S CONCEPTION OF TARGET SITE (ATLAS EXPERIMENT)
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Were the results not promising, the experiment would have stopped
at this point. The results were judged to be of sufficiently good quality,
however, that Phase II was entered in which the subject was made witting
by client representatives.
A second round of experimentation ensued with participation of client
representatives. The Phase II effort was focussed on the generation of
physical data which could be client-verified, providing a calibration in
the process. The end of Phase II gradually evolved into the first part of
Phase III, the generation of unverifiable data not available to the client,
but of interest nonetheless. Evaluation of the data by the client is
under way.
(b) Costa Rica Remote Viewing Experiment
Subjects 1 and 4 participated in a long-distance experiment
involving a Central American target series. In this experiment, one of
the experimenters (Dr. Puthoff) spent a week traveling through Costa Rica
on a combination business/pleasure trip. That is all that was known to
the subjects about the traveler's itinerary. The experiment called for
Dr. Puthoff to keep a detailed record of his location and activities,
including photographs, each day at 1330 PDT. Six daily responses were
obtained from Subject 1, five from Subject 4.
The results were of high quality and are presently being
evaluated in detail, containing as they did a large amount of material.
Samples of that data are as follows.
Of the five daily responses obtained from Subject 4, two
were in good agreement, two had elements in common but were not clear
correspondences, and one was clearly a miss. In the first of the two
reasonably good matches, Dr. Puthoff was driving in rugged terrain at
the base of a volcano and the subject's response was "large bare table
6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
mountain, jungle below, dark cool moist atmosphere," a reasonable corre-
spondence both with regard to topography and ambience. In the second
match the subject submitted that all she got was a "picture of Dr. Puthoff
sitting in a beach chair by a pool," which was entirely correct. The
transcript data will be examined further to determine fine structure,
resolution, etc.
(c) Local Targets with Mid-Test Feedback
In this series of experiments, designed to give immediate
data to experimenters, a subject is asked to take part in a remote viewing
experiment under the following conditions.
The subject and two experimenters (one of whom was R.T.)
are in a first floor laboratory in Building 30 at SRI. A second experi-
menter (H.P.) leaves the area and proceeds to a remote location of his
choosing. None of the experimenters with the subject knew of the remote
target location. H.P. and R.T. are in two-way radio communication via
walkie-talkie (a) to provide the experimenter at the target location real-
time data and (b) to give the subject immediate feedback after he has made
his assessment of the target. By this means the subject has,an opportunity
to learn to separate real from imagined images. This is not considered
to be a demonstration-of-ability test, but rather a training step on a
gradient scale of ability. In many of these experiments we monitor
physiological correlates as discussed in Section 13.3 (b). (Nine of these
experiments have been completed to date, seven with the measurements of
physiological correlates.)
The following is a sample of an experiment with Subject 4.
In this experiment we monitored physiological correlates of the remote
viewing activity.
7
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
9
ZIGZAG WATERWAY
FIGURE 4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
R.T.: WATER, WE CAN'T TELL. IT'S SHINY AND THERE'S VERY LITTLE
VEGETATION--NO VEGETATION AROUND....
S-4: Mostly concrete. .
R.T.: IT'S MOSTLY CONCRETE...
S-4: He's standing on concrete....
R.T.: YOU'RE STANDING ON CONCRETE. OVER.
LP.: IT CERTAINLY IS TRUE THAT THIS IS SHINY AND IN MY NEAR VICINITY
IT IS BARREN AND CONCRETE OR CONCRETE-COLORED EARTH. SHE SAID
THAT IT LOOKED LIKE STEEL OR WATER. CAN SHE MAKE THE DIFFERENTIA-
TION BETWEEN THE TWO?
R.T.: He wants to know whether it looks more like steel or water.
S-4: It seems to have movement--that's why I would deduce that it's
water.
R.T.: What if you try to look at the whole thing.
S-4: I'm trying to get an eagle's eye view. That's a waterworks.
R.T.: Why does it look like a waterworks? In what way?
S-4: There seems to be a man-made layout of channels and connections
to conduct it.
R.T.: S-4 SEES MOVEMENT IN THE ZIGZAG THING, SO SHE THINKS THAT IT'S
WATER, AND A KIND OF LAYOUT OF CHANNELS AS THOUGH IT WAS A MAN-
MADE WATERWORKS WITH WATER RUNNING IN ZIGZAG CHANNELS. OVER.
H.P.: THAT IS PRECISELY CORRECT. IT IS A ZIGZAG MAN-MADE CHANNEL WITH
CONCRETE SIDES. OVER.
S-4: I can't believe it.
The above is an excerpt from an early experiment, and is
typical, rather a sample of exceptionally good quality. That experiment
continued with four more site descriptions, three of which were of equal
quality.
10
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
One experiment of this nature has been carried out with
Subject 1, one with Subject 2, two with Subject 3, and five with Subject
4. A number of descriptions were essentially free of error and with no
feedback other than verification following the remote viewer's description.
A complete analysis is to be carried out on these trans-
cripts following more experimentation. To date it appears that the
viewing is weak in the following areas: (a) perspective and dimension
are often distorted (an 8-foot tower is taken to be 50 feet tall, a 20-
foot separation between buildings may appear to be 100 feet, etc.), and
(b) written material generally cannot be read.
(d) Local Targets with Azimuth Bearing
In two remote viewing experiments, the second of which was
clearly correct from a descriptive standpoint, an effort was made to de-
termine whether in driving the subject around the area it would be possible
to determine the location of the target team by triangulation with a
bearing compass. The triangulation lines were essentially uncorrelated
with each other and with the target location, and therefore provided a
null result.
B. Basic Research
In addition to the testing of individuals under conditions which
yield data indicating the feasibility of the application of paranormal
abilities to operational needs, 50 percent of the effort is devoted to:
(1) Identification of measurable characteristics possessed by
gifted individuals (20%).
(2) Identification of neurophysiological correlates which
relate to paranormal activities (20%).
(3) Identification of the nature of paranormal phenomena and
energy (10%).
11
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
To meet these objectives four specific requirements must be fulfilled
during the course of experimentation: (1) establish and apply criteria
to differentiate between those for whom paranormal ability is considered
to be functional and those for whom it is not; (2) obtain sufficient
medical and psychological data to establish baseline profiles against
which (a) one individual may be compared with another, and (b) an in-
dividual may be compared to himself at different times to determine
whether paranormal functioning occurs in an altered neurophysiological
state; (3) specific validation experiments must be conducted with suffi-
cient control to ensure that all conventional communication paths are
blocked, with outcomes sufficiently unambiguous to determine whether
paranormal functioning occurred; (4) obtain neurophysiological data during
experimentation to determine those correlates, if any, which relate to
paranormal activity.
In the following paragraphs, each of these items is considered in
turn and the progress to date reported. The milestone chart for the basic
research program is shown in Table 1. The work is progressing in accor-
dance with the schedule prepared for this program, and the remaining time
and funds are sufficient to meet all program objectives.
1. Criteria for the Determination of Gifted Individuals
One of the key issues in the program is the establishment of
criteria capable of differentiating individuals who are apparently gifted
in paranormal functioning from those who are not.
Three experimental paradigms were chosen to act as screening
tests on the basis that these tests had been useful for such purposes
prior to this program (in the sense that certain apparently gifted in-
dividuals did exceedingly well on at least one of the tests, whereas the
results of unselected volunteers did not differ significantly from chance
12
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
TABLE 1
PROGRAM SCHEDULE - II
FMAMJJAS
2
3
4
5
MONTHS
6
7
8
0
9
NDJF
10
11
12
13
1. Set up neurophysiological lab with computer
processing debugged.
V
2. W.A.I.S. testing of subjects by client
v
3. Measure neurophysiological correlates during
paranormal experimentation
a) paranormal EEG experiments .
b) other paranormal experimentation
V
V
v
4. Work to determine nature of energies involved
(gradiometer, etc.)
V
5. Medical testing, including special testing
V
V
6. Neuropsychological testing
v
V
7. Psychological testing including in-depth
interview
.
7
7
8. Correlate data and consider theoretical models
V
V
9. Prepare final report
V
V
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
expectation). The tests are (a) remote viewing of natural targets,
(b) reproduction of simple line drawings hidden from the subject but
viewed by an experimenter, and (c) determination of the state of a four-
state electronic random stimulus generator.
The first test constitutes a so-called "free-response" paradigm
in which the subject originates freely about contents of his awareness;
furthermore, the channel in general may involve both direct perception
of the remote site and perception of the mental contents of an observer
at the site. The second test is more constrained than the first in that
the target information is more analytical or abstract, being associated
with a graphical representation of an item of interest rather than the
item itself. The third test is the most constrained in that the target
is blind to all participants in the experiment and the subject's choice
is precisely constrained. The details of these tests are given below.
For the purpose of screening, the criteria as to what constitutes
a paranormal result was chosen arbitrarily, viz:
For the purpose of screening a result is to
be considered paranormal if the a priori
probability for the occurrence of the result
by chance, under the null hypothesis, is
-6
p< 10
Although the above requirement is exceedingly strict by usual psycho-
physiological standards, it is chosen here (a) because the controversial
nature of the subject requires strict handling, and (b) in our work and
elsewhere, a bimodal distribution has been observed empirically in which
a subset of individuals participating in paranormal research produce re-
sults at a level of statistical significance p 10-6 in comparison with
14
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
the bulk of individuals who cluster about the mean as expected. There-
fore, we base our criteria on an observable natural division into clearly
functional and nonfunctional categories.
Six subjects have been chosen for the study to date, subjects
1, 2, and 3 considered gifted, subjects 4, 5, and 6 acting as learners
or controls.
Subject 1 qualifies as a gifted subject on the basis of remote
viewing; subject 2 qualifies as gifted on the basis of the random generator
test; subject 3 is tentatively classed as gifted in remote viewing, al-
though not yet completing the screening series, based on client evaluation
of highly successful remote-viewing experiments carried out for the client
in the previous program, and also on the basis of meeting the p< 10-6
criterion in experimentation at another laboratory.
Subject 5 (learner/control), a male, age 54, is paired with
gifted subject 1, a male, age 55. Learner/control subject 6, a female,
age 34, is by age, background, and temperament paired with gifted subject
2, a male, age 31. Learner subject 4 (female, age 53) and gifted subject
3 (male, age 41) are paired on the basis of artistic occupations (pro-
fessional photographer and painter, respectively) and similar emotional
and psychological makeup.
Earlier in the program nine subjects were to be placed in three cate-
gories, three subjects each: gifted subjects, learners, and controls.
However experience in the early part of the program indicated that
(a) a best effort would require spending more time with fewer people,
and (b) the distinction between learners and controls was arbitrary in
comparison with the distinction between these categories and that of
gifted subjects as defined above.
15
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
(a) Remote Viewing of Natural Targets
The first screening test is based on previous SRI research
results which indicate that it is possible for asubject to describe ran-
domly chosen geographical sites located several miles from the subject's
position and demarcated by some appropriate means.
This experiment consists of a series of double-blind tests
involving local targets in the San Francisco Bay area which can be docu-
mented by independent judging. Target locations within 30 minutes driving
time from SRI are randomly chosen from a list of targets kept blind to
subject and experimenters and used without replacement.
To begin an experiment, an experimenter is closeted with
a subject at SRI to wait 30 minutes to begin a narrative description of
the remote location. A second experimenter obtains a target location from
the target pool and proceeds directly to the target without communicating
with the subject or experimenter remaining behind. The second experi-
menter remains at the target site for an agreed-upon 30-minute period
following the 30 minutes allotted for travel. During the observation
period, the remote viewing subject is asked to describe his impressions
of the target site into a tape recorder. A comparison is made when the
experimenter returns.
Following a series of nine experiments, the results are
subjected to independent judging on a blind basis by five SRI scientists
not otherwise associated with the research. The judges are asked to
blind match locations, independently visited, against typed manuscripts
of tape-recorded narratives of the remote viewer. A given narrative can
be assigned to more than one target location. A correct match requires
that a transcript of a given date be associated with the target of that
date. Probability calculations are on the basis of the a priori
16
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
probability of the obtained series of matches by chance, conservatively
assuming assignment without replacement on the part of the judges.
As indicated in Report No. 1, Subject 1 has completed this
series, obtaining a result significant at the p = 8 X 10-10 level. Ex-
perimentation is in progress with Subjects 2 and 4, two transcripts
having been obtained from each to date.
(b) Line Drawings
A pool of 50 simple line drawings of everyday objects has
been drawn, randomized, and placed in a secure location.
During experimentation, experimenters and subject are
separated by either an experimenter or subject entering a shielded room
so that from that time forward the subject is at all times visually,
acoustically, and electrically shielded from personnel and material at
the target location.
Following isolation a target is chosen by means of the
universal randomization protocol technique described in Section 4 (a),
used in this case to generate a two-digit number modulo 50. The subject's
task is then to reproduce with pen on paper the line drawing now displayed
at the target location.
Following a period of effort not to exceed half an hour,
the subject may either pass (when he does not feel confident) or indicate
he is ready to submit a drawing to the experimenters, in which case the
drawing is collected by an experimenter before the subject is permitted
to see the target. The experiment is then repeated with replacement until
ten drawings have been obtained from the subject.
To obtain an independent evaluation of the correlation
between target and response data, the experimenters submit the data for
17
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
judging on a blind basis by two SRI scientists not otherwise associated
with the research. The judges are asked to match the response data with
the corresponding target data (without replacement).
Such experimentation is presently in progress, a number of
drawings having been obtained from several of the subjects but have not
yet been submitted for judging.
(c) Four-State Electronic Random Stimulus Generator
The determination of the state of a four-state
random stimulus generator comprises the third screening test.
is in the form of
electronic random
until the subject indicates
(see Figure 5). As soon as
electronic
The target
one of four art slides chosen randomly (p = 1/4) by an
generator. The generator does not indicate its choice
his choice to the machine by pressing a button
the subject indicates his choice, the target
visual and auditory (bell if correct)
slide is illuminated to provide
feedback as to
that time both
choice,
the top
correct
machine
the correctness or incorrectness of his choice. Until
subject and experimenter remain ignorant of the machine's
so the experiment is of
of the machine face are
choices
choice,
the double-blind type. Five legends at
illuminated one at a time with increasing
(6, 8, 10, ...) to provide additional reinforcement. The
subject choice, cumulative trial number, and cumulative
hit number are recorded automatically on a printer. Following trial
number 25, the machine must be reset manually by depressing a RESET
button.
A methodological feature of the machine is that the choice
of a target is not forced. That is, a subject may press a PASS button
when he wishes not to guess, in which case the machine indicates what its
choice was, and neither a hit nor a trial is scored by the machine, which
then goes on to make its next selection. Thus, the subject does not have
18
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Figure 5. ESP Teaching Machine used in this experiment. An
incorrect choice of target is indicated. Two of
the five "encouragement lights" at the top of the
machine are illuminated. The printer to the right
of the machine records data on fan-fold paper tape.
19
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
to guess at targets when he does not feel that he has an idea as to which
to choose.
Under the null hypothesis of random binomial choices with
probability 1/4 and no learning, the probability of observing _1.( successes
in n trials is approximated by the probability of a normal distribution
value
complete
Subjects
n 1
-
4 2
For the purpose of screening, each subject is required to
100 25-trial runs (i.e., a total of 2,500 trials). To date
1, 2, and 6 have completed this phase of the screening program,
and their results are tabulated in Table 2. Subject 4 has completed
2,100 trials with mean scores of 25.71 (p = 0.20).
Table 2
SCREENING DATA: FOUR-STATE ELECTRONIC RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR
Subject
Mean Score/100 Trials
Over 2,500 Trials
Binomial Probability
1
25.76
0.22
2
29.36
3 X 10-7
6
25.40
0.33
On the basis of this test Subject 2, whose scores are
plotted in Figure 6, qualifies as a gifted individual, having satisfied
the criterion of producing a
null hypothesis is p < 10-6
.
personal observations of sub
presented in Appendix 2.
result whose a priori probability under the
Of further interest are this subject's
jective experiences during the screening test,
20
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Out of 100 trials/run.
50
40
30
20
=
10
10
20
RUN NUMBER - 100 Trials/Run
p = per trial
FIGURE 6 DATA SUMMARY FOR SUBJECT 2
21
30
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
2. Identification of Measurable Characteristics Possessed by
Gifted Subjects (20%)
(a) Medical Evaluation
The medical evaluation of program participants has been
assigned to the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. Coordination of the program is
being handled by Dr. Robert Armbruster, Director of the Clinic's Depart-
ment of Environmental Medicine. The Clinic, in turn, has subcontracted
certain special tests to the Stanford Medical Center, Stanford University.
One visual sensitivity test is being administered by the Bioengineering
Group of the Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory of SRI.
The testing procedures, outlined in Table 3, fall into
seven categories:
(1) General physical examination, including complete
medical and family history.
(2) Laboratory examinations, including SMA-12 panel
blood chemistries, protein electrophoresis,
blood lipid profile, urinalysis, serology, blood
type and factor, pulmonary function screening,
and 12-lead electrocardiogram.
(3) Neurological examination, including comprehen-
sive and electroencephalogram (sleeping and
routine).
(4) Audiometric examination, including comprehensive,
Bekesy bone conduction, speech discrimination,
and impedance bridge test.
(5) Ophthalmologist examination, including compre-
hensive, card testing, peripheral field test,
muscle test, dilation funduscope, and indirect
ophthalmoscopic and fundus examination.
(6) Special visual examinations, including electro-
retinogram, dark adaptation test, and visual
contrast sensitivity.
(7) EMI brain scan.
22
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
co A MEDICAL EXAMINATION Table
#1,T,
------0)\-i
Pi)
#2 cr)
0000000)
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
3
3
00
0
0
0

a
#30
al
0
0
00
0
00
Co
a
#4.C)0
0
0000

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
#5330
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
#6Cr90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(.11
'530
0
0 00
00
00
0
,uCD
,u0
g
a
#80
o
0
0
...i_,
no

00
0?
ou
0?
Scheduled --*
0 4?Completed
Palo Alto Medical Clinic
3
Personnel #1 - 3, subjects; #4 - 6, learners/controls;
7, 8, experimenters.
1 General Physical Examination
Complete medical
Family history
2. Laboratory Examinations
SMA-12 panel blood chemistries
Protein electrophoresis
Blood lipid profile
Urinalyses
Serology
Blood type and factor
Pulmonary function screening
Electrocardiogram 12.-lead
3 Neurological Examination
Comprehensive
Electroencephalogram, Sleeping and routine
4. Audiometric Examination
Comprehensive
Bekesy bone conduction
Speech discrimination
Impedance bridge test
5. Opthalmologist Examination
Comprehensive
Card testing
Peripheral field test
Muscle test
Dilation funduscope
Indirect opthalmoscopic and fundus examination
6. Special Visual Examinations
Electroretinogram (Stanford Med.)
Dark adaptation test (Stanford Med.)
Visual contrast sensitivity (SRI)
7. EMI Brain Scan
? Stanford Medical Center ? SRI
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
0-1.000?P001.000N1.6/00-96dC1N-V10
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
As indicated in Table 3, medical testing is currently in
progress. To date the return information is sparse, having to be collated
from several clinics before a comprehensive analysis can be completed.
To provide an indication of the type of raw data that is to be collated,
a small sample of data obtained on Subject 1 is presented in Appendix 3.
As indicated, the EMI computerized brain scan reveals a slight enlarge-
ment of the entire right lateral ventricle, while the left appears normal
in size. An asymmetry in alpha development between left and right hemi-
spheres is also indicated. Also noted is some concern about the EKG sug-
gesting a corollary artery problem. The significance of these factors for
our interest will be developed under the direction of Dr. Armbruster and
made available to the client as available.
(b) Psychological Evaluation
The psychological evaluation of program participants con-
sists of both baseline personality evaluation, and of ongoing testing
associated with daily experimentation. The collection of baseline data
(e.g., in-depth interview, W.A.I.S., etc.) is for the purpose of identi-
fying baseline characteristics possessed by gifted subjects. The ongoing
testing associated with daily experimentation (e.g., Mood Adjective Check-
lists) is for the purpose of identifying psychological correlates of
successful versus unsuccessful performance tasks.
(1) Baseline Data
The bulk of the baseline evaluation has been assigned
to the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. Coordination of the program is being
handled by Dr. J. E. Heenan, Chief Clinical Psychologist of the Department
of Psychiatry.
24
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
sists of
The baseline evaluation, outlined in Table 4, con-
(1) In-depth interviews, including objective
events and subjective views relating to
the discovery and enhancement of paranormal
capacities; socioeconomic, cultural,
familial, religious environment; outstanding
peaks, traumas; values, motivation, inter-
personal style.
(2) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (W.A.I.S.).
(3) Minnesota Multiphase Personality Inventory
(4) Benton Visual Memory Test and Wechsler
Memory Scale.
(5) Thematic Apperception Test (T.A.T.) and
Rorschach projective tests.
Bender Gestalt Test.
Luscher color test.
Strong Aptitude/Values Test.
Cognitive Style Preference Test.
As indicated in Table 4, the psychological testing
is well under way. There is of course, a considerable lag between
testing and results. To date, only a partial analysis of data from
Subject 1 is available. We present these data in Appendix 4 as a sample
of the type of analysis that will become available.
(2) Cognitive Style Preference Test
In connection with testing hypotheses associated with
hemispheric specialization of the brain, Dr. Robert Ornstein of the
Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute, University of California, San
Francisco, has been brought into the program as a consultant.
25
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/158/130 :4CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION
Personnel #1 - 3, subjects;
#4 - 6 learners/controls; #7 - 8, experimenters.
Co
#1
0
000
0
#20000000
0
00000
0
0*
O?
#3000
0
000000
00
00
O?
0
?
?
#40
000000
0
00000
0
0?
0
?
#500
000000
0000000
000
#6000
000000000
00000?
'#700
0
01.0000
000
00000
00
#8
00_0
00000000
000
? SRI
0 Palo Alto Medical Clinic
Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
In his capacity as consultant, Dr. Ornstein has pro-
vided an instrument named the Cognitive Style Preference Test. This test
was developed for use in differentiating between individuals preferring
a structure-oriented cognitive style as compared with a verbally oriented
cognitive style. For the purpose of the program, this instrument is ad-
ministered to determine whether individuals exhibiting paranormal func-
tioning prefer, as a group, one style of cognitive functioning predomi-
nantly as compared with individuals in a control group. The test is
administered once to each individual. A sample of the test is included
below.
Preliminary results indicate some preference for a
verbally oriented cognitive style on the part of good subjects (Figure 7),
but further data are required before any significance is to be attached
to the results tabulated thus far.
Should a correlation of test results with paranormal
functioning be found, it would be appropriate in later work to determine
whether this test instrument would be useful as a screening device, i.e.,
to determine whether other individuals sharing the profile also exhibit
paranormal functioning.
27
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved ForRelease2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECT: COGNITIVE STYLE PREFERENCE TEST
Please do not turn over the pages until I ask you to do so. On each
page of this booklet there are sets of three items arranged in rows. Two
Of them are alike or fit together in some way. Your task is to select
which one is different and doesn't belong with the other two. The two
columns on the first page are samples. There are three designs or shapes
in each row. Each design has a word printed on it. In the first row of
the first column all the words are the same. Most people would say that
the first and second shapes go together and the third one doesn't belong.
Would you agree? (If not, explain.) Mark the third one with an X then.
In the second row most people would say that the first one is different
and the last two go together. Do you agree? Then mark the first one
with an X.
In the third row the shapes are all the same, but the words HORSE
and SADDLE go together and the world FAULT doesn't belong. Do you agree?
(If not, explain.) Mark the third one with an X.
Which would you pick as the odd one in the 4th row? [Color (2nd
one)]
In the 5th row you could choose either a word that doesn't belong
or a shape that doesn't belong. Which is the odd word? (TROUT.) Which
is the odd shape? [the CIRCLE (DIME)] Either one of these answers is
right. Mark either one of them.
The last row also has two possible right answers. Which is the odd
word? (SHIRT.) Which
is the odd shape? [The second one (DOG)] Mark
either one of them with an X.
On some of these sets people find it easier or more natural to pick
out the odd word, and one some they. find it easier to pick out the odd
shape. Either way is correct. We want you to make your selections
whichever way seems most comfortable and natural to you. Mark only once
in each row, and go as fast as you can. Any questions so far?
28
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
The second column has more samples. When I say begin, please mark
an odd member in each row, and say "STOP" as soon as you finish this
sample column. BEGIN.
(Check forced choices?)
Any questions? Then when I say "BEGIN" turn over the next page.
Work as fast as you can, and continue until you .have finished the booklet,
then say "STOP". Ready? BEGIN.
29
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
[K J
street color
trout
nickel
30
?O 0 13
v calm Cahn
0 0
, 000
`-"calm
00 0 000
because ?
door o
o window?0
. o
0 0 o
o ? ? 0 0
EJ
church
sinile
smoke
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0
ig) sE-1
soldier
army
butter I .
swift
31
PC-
butter
tat01