REVIEW OF THE PSYCHENERGETIC RESEARCH CONDUCTED AT SRI INTERNATIONAL (1973-1988)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00792R000500350001-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 33
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 25, 2003
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: March 1, 1989
• Content Type: REPORT

C~ Approved For Release ~Q,3j,Q~LQ~~IA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
SG1J ~
?
ternational
NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN NATIONALS
SG1
B
333 Ravenswood A~E~~ CA 94025 ~.~~5b,~~.~~,~~aaac,~....~;~ ~~.~~ ;,,; '~~.~"'~
SI ii -373-2046 ? Telex: 334-486
pproved F~g1~I~~~s~~~2b0 /~9 : CIA-RDP96-00792R0005~SQQ0~1~..e~,f.?.,~,~...r'~ra~rar~~r~
Final Report-Task 6.0. i
Covering the Period i October 1988 to 15 February 1989
REVIEW OF THE PSYCHOENERGETIC RESEARCH
CONDUCTED AT SRI INTERNATIONAL (1973-1988) (U)
gy; Edwin C. May Virginia V. Trask Thane J. Frivold
Jessica M. Utts Wanda W. Luke Beverly S. Humphrey
Prepared for:
CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE
SRI Project 1291
WARNING NOTICE
RESTRICTED DISSEMIN TION TO THOSE WITH VERIFIED ACCESS
TO THE PROJECT
 C~ Approved For Release ~0~~~}:~IA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
--~ (r, CC
SG1J
REVIEW OF THE PSYCHOENERGETIC RESEARCH
CONDUCTED AT SRI INTERNATIONAL (1973-1988) (U)
Edwin C. May Virginia V. Trask Thane J. Frivold
By: Beverly S. Humphrey
Jessica M. Utts Wanda W, Luke
Prepared for:
CONTRACTING FICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE
SRI Project 1291
WARNING NOTICE
RESTRICTED DISSEMINATION TO THOSE WITH VERIFIED ACCESS
TO THE PROJECT
Copy ~ of /S Copies
MURRAY J. BARON, Director This document consists of 24 pa?es
SRI/GF-0320
Geoscience and Engineering Center
CLASSIFIED BY: HQ, USAMRDC (SGRD-ZA)
DECLASSIFY ON: OADR
Approved by:
NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN NATIONALS
SR
Intern
Ffnaf Report-Task 6.0.1
Covering the Period 1 October 1988 to 15 February 1989
333 Ravenswood Av L~r^~ CA 94025
0_ -2046 ? Telex: 334-486
pproved RBI~~~~a~~1Q0~3 /0~ : G~A-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release 2003/ 9/~9~ ~96-007928000500350001-4
(U) TABLE OF CONTENTS
]LIST OF TABLES ........................................................... iv
:LIST OF FIUURES ........................................................... v
I OBJECTIVE ....................................................... 1
II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..... .................................... 2
III INTRODUCTION .................................................. 3
IV METHOD OF APPROACH .......................................... 4
A. Analysis Domain .............................................. 4
B. Database Management System.??????????????????????????""""5
C. Statistical Methods ......................??????????????????????~
V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................... 11
A. Overall Results ............................................... 11
B. Results for Categories Within the Informational Process .. ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 12
C. Specific Results for Remote Viewing ............................. 14
REFEREN(:ES ..............................................................24
~~~~ASSIFIED
Approved For Release 0 9 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Rele~~~~~sl~~i~00792R000500350001-4
(U) LIST OF TABLES
1. Definitions And Meta-analysis Formalism (U) .................. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 9
2. Statistical Results For Major Classes (U) .................................... 11
3. Statistical Results For Informational Categories (U) ........................... 13
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Rele~~~0~~~~1~~-007928000500350001-4
(U) LIST OF FIGURES
1. Catel;ories And Number Of Trials (U) .................. . ............... . .... 5
2 Database Schema Design For Meta-analysis (U) ................... . .......... 7
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Rel~a~ ~~~/qa/Q9 cQl~~p'a,6-007928000500350001-4
I OBJECTIVE (U)
(U) The objective of Task 6.0.1 of the FY 1989 Statement of Work (SOW) is to assess,
where possible, the experimental results of the research at SRI International since 1973.
(U) Tlzis report constitutes the deliverable for Statement of Work, Task 6.0.1.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release 2~/~/dBE~A-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (U)
(S/NF') We have conducted a review .and analysis of the psychoenergetic research
conducted at SRI International from 1 October 1973 to 30 September 1988. The database
comprises 117 documents with a total of 5,025 pages.
(S/NF~) A total of 25,449 trials were conducted under a variety of protocols. Analysis
indicates th;~t the odds that our results are not due to simple statistical fluctuations alone are
better than 2 X 1020 to 1 (i.e., 2 followed by 20 zeros). Using accepted criteria set forth in the
standard behavioral sciences, we conclude that this constitutes convincing, if not conclusive,
evidence for the existence of psychoenergetic functioning.
(S/NE') The main results are summarized below:
? Remote viewing (RV) can provide useful intelligence information.
? :Laboratory and operational remote viewing show the greatest potential for
practical applications.
? :Experienced viewers are significantly better than the general population.
? Approximately 1% of the general population possess a natural remote viewing
ability.
? Remote viewing ability does not degrade over time.
? At this time, there is no quantitative evidence to support a training hypothesis.
? Natural scenes are significantly better than symbols as targets for remote
viewing.
? Remote viewing quality is independent of target distance and/or size.
? There is no evidence to support that a psychaenergetic interaction with the
physical world exists.
? Electromagnetic shielding is not effective against psychoenergetic acquisition of
information.
? A potential central nervous system correlate to remote viewing has recently
been identified.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Rel~~b~/(~~~1~6-007928000500350001-4
III INTRODUCTION (U)
(U} Until recently, the task of assessing any general body of published knowledge was
formidable. Most of the attempts included review articles that were based primarily upon the
informed opinions of the reviewers. It was recognized, however, that in the behavioral sciences
specific problems arose that were unique to those disciplines. For example, many of the
behavioral results are based on a statistical rejection of a null hypothesis, and, using accepted
practices,l" a successful outcome is declared if the odds that the result is not due to a chance
statistical fluctuation are better than 20 to 1. A major problem for reviewers is created when the
behavioral sciences' technical journals refuse to publish results that fail to meet this statistical
criterion. For example, if only one-in-20 studies is published, then the literature may appear to
provide evidence for a phenomenon, but taken with the 19 unpublished studies for every
published one, there is no evidence for a phenomenon. This particular difficulty is called "the
file drawer problem."
(U) 'This and other problems resulting from the diversity and difficulty of the behavioral
sciences hrive been addressed in a new review technique known as meta-analysis.z-a
Meta-analytical procedures are most useful when a large number of diverse studies is under
consideration. Meta-analysis provides techniques to clarify the impact of the file drawer
problem and to enable us to combine diverse experiments in a meaningful manner.
(U) 'The results of SRI'S psychoenergetic research encompass a wide variety of
experiments and thus can be addressed with these techniques. The analysis of the SRI data,
however, is simplified because there is no file drawer problem. All experiments that were
conducted have been reported, and thus are included in the analysis.
(U) This report describes the database, the analysis techniques, and the results of 16 years
of psychoenergetic research conducted at SRI International.
(U) References may be found at the end of this report.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release Zg~/~J, ,~9~~1A-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
IV METHOD OF APPROACH (U)
A. (U) Analysis Domain
(S/NF) The domain of this meta-analysis includes all government-sponsored intelligence
applications and psychoenergetic research conducted at SRI International, or under the auspices
of its subcontractors, from 1 October 1973 to 30 September 1988. A priori declared
demonstrations or other activities that were not under the control of SRI International were not
included in the documentation. All other forms of experimentation were included in SRI
International technical reports, unclassified journals, or publications, and thus were part of this
analysis. This database comprises 117 documents with a total of 5,025 pages.
(U) 13y definition, there is no file drawer problem in this analysis; all items that met the
above criteria were included regardless of their results. Care was exercised to avoid multiple
entries of the same data.
(S/NF') All psychoenergetic phenomena fall broadly into two classes:
(1) Information Processes-those phenomena that involve a passive transfer of
information (e.g., remote viewing, search),
(2) pausal Processes-those putative phenomena that involve an anomalous
interaction with matter (e.g., remote action).
The psychoenergetic effort has been divided into various categories within these processes. The
various categories within this domain are defined as follows:
(1) Forced-Choice-remote viewing where the targets are drawn from a limited
(and known) set of potential symbols (e.g., the integers 0, 1).
(2) 1RV-L -remote viewing where the targets are drawn from a large set of
potential material (e.g., photographs of natural scenes, natural physical
locations), and the experiments are conducted under strict laboratory
conditions.
(3) RV-Ons-remote viewing where the targets are drawn from specific targets of
:interest to the intelligence community.
(4) ,Search-remote viewing where the targets are generally known but their
location is unknown (e.g., a specific military aircraft is known to have
crashed-where is it?) .
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release 2~/~/~EC~A-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
(U) For the purpose of this analysis, all putative causal-process experiments are
considered under the general heading of remote action.
(U) Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of-these categories and the total number of
individual trials that were conducted within each category.
Psychoenergetics
26,074
Informational
25,045
Forced Choice
19,715
RV-Ops
106
FIGURE 1 (U) CATEGORIES AND NUMBER OF TRIALS
(S/NF) The total number of psychoenergetic trials (26,074) was collected in 154
different experiments involving 227 different subjects. ` All the data were entered into a
computer database management system (DBMS).
B. (U) Database Management System
1. (U) Database Requirements
(U) One of the main purposes of performing ameta-analysis is to be able to look at
data gathered from multiple studies conducted under a wide variety of circumstances. In order
to collect and store the data in a meaningful way, one must know what kind of data
manipulations will be performed. To evaluate the effect of certain parameters on
psychoenergetic functioning, we needed to focus our attention on the conditions of a wide array
of potentially important variables. As a result, the database design is primarily determined by the
data and provides for the selection of information, by experiment, given parameter
specifications.
(U) The number of subjects does not include the preliminary mass screening partici-
pants. The forma] screening participants were, however, included in the analysis.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Rel~~/~~~~~i~D?6-007928000500350001-4
(1U) The database schema that was used consists of four basic tables (people,
documents, experiments, and units), and two basic relationships (author and parameter). See
Figure 2 for an illustration of this schema. The units-table contains information about the lowest
level of statistical analysis in a given experiment. For example, if 6 viewers participated in 20
trials each, the database would contain 6 unit entries-one for the overall result for each viewer.
(U) Although our database management system is a relational database, our
requirement:> were inherently hierarchical. That is, each of the documents contains several
experiments, and each of our experiments contain several trials. In order to minimize the
redundancy within the database, we attempted to include all pertinent information as high in the
hierarchy as possible. That is, if a parameter or condition applied to an entire experiment, we
would record that data at the experiment level. If, on the other hand, the parameter varied
across units within a given experiment, we made provision to record those data as a function of
unit instead.
(U) The analyses of most of our experiments contain both individual and group
statistics. In order to prevent any trial from being "counted" multiple times, we required that all
experiments be broken up into the "units" which represent the basic grouping of trials upon
which a hypothesis was being tested. Thus, any given trial appears only once in the database yet
we can reconstitute the group statistics at a later time.
(U) This approach offers two advantages. First, any arbitrary parameter which does
not have an explicit slot in the database can be stored, thus providing flexibility. Second, we can
distinguish between "independent variables" and "incidental variables." The former are
variables wl-ich are intentionally manipulated by the experimenter, and the latter are actually
parameters which the experimenter either could not control or treated as insignificant.
(U) Some of the documents detail multiple analyses for a given experiment in order
to compare and evaluate standard and new analytic techniques. For this effort, however, we
required that only one analysis be recorded for each experiment, since our primary focus was to
evaluate the parameters that effect psychoenergetic functioning and not to compare different
evaluation techniques. In determining which analysis to enter into the database, we always chose
a blind method over a post hoc method. If a choice still remained, we then always chose the
technique that had been developed first.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Rel~/~/~~~~ 6-007928000500350001-4
Experiment
Author
Principal Investigator
Parameters
Relationship
Entity
Relationship
UNCLASSIFIED
FIGURE 2 (U) DATABASE SCHEMA DESIGN FOR META-ANALYSIS
(U) The Appendix contains examples of the DBMS input sheets that were used to
encode psychoenergetic data for the database, and the instructions that were given to analysts.
They are included in the Appendix for completeness; there is no further discussion about them in
this report.
C. (U) Statistical Methods
1. (U) Effect Size Calculations
(U) Effect sizes were calculated for each experiment or condition using the formula
given by RosenthaL? 2
where n is the number of trials and z is the usual normalized output score. If no z score was given
for an experiment, but a p value was, the z that would have given that p value was computed and
used in the formula. The exception to this procedure was for experiments based on a
sum-of-rank statistic. For those, a more appropriate effect size formula was used and is given by
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Rel~/~/~~~~1~6-007928000500350001-4
(U)
d=
RZ - 1
12
where S is the average rank and R is the number of choices for each rank.
2. (U) Comparisons Across Classes
(U) Experiments can be categorized in accordance with a number of specific
variables (e.g., type of feedback, type of target, distance between the viewer and the target).
Effect sizes can be examined within a given category and compared across categories. For each
categorization, the following questions are of interest:
(1)
(2) Question 2: Is the level of psychoenergetic functioning constant across
all experiments within a category?
(3) Question 3: Is the level of psychoenergetic functioning constant across
categories?
(4) Question 4: If there are differences across categories, what is the
relative size of the effect in each category?
Question 1: Is there any evidence of psychoenergetic functioning within
each of the individual categories?
(U) Table 1 shows the notation that is used in the formalism that answers these
questions.
(U) To answer question 1, compare the average z score in each category with the
standard normal tables.
(U) To answer question 2, compute
k rni
2
Qw = ~ nij(dij - di.) .
i=1j=1
If effect sizes are homogeneous within categories, the distribution of Qw will be approximately XZ
with v = (~',m; - k) degrees of freedom. The hypothesis of homogeneity is rejected if Qw is large
compared to the chi-square table entry with v degrees of freedom. To test for homogeneity
within a single category, i, compute
m!
2
QWi = nij(dij-di?)
j_1
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Re~~~3/~/~~~rAlf~6-007928000500350001-4
(ZJ) Similarly, the distribution of Qw; will be approximately X2 with v = (m. - k)
degrees of freedom, and can be examined as above.
(U) DEFINITIONS AND META-ANALYSIS FORMALISM
k=
mx =
d;j =
ntj =
zlj =
number of categories
number of experiments in category i; i = 1, ... k
effect size for experiment j in category i; i = 1, ... k; j = 1, ...
number of trials in experiment j in category i
z score for experiment j in category i
Computed Quantities
Within Category i
Across Categories
nt. _ ~ n~j =number of trials
j
n~~d,~
d;. _ ~ =average effect size
nt.
~,n Z~j
z;. _ ~ = d;. ~ = average z score
d.. _ =overall average effect size
n..
z.. _ mod.. =overall average z score
(U) To answer question 3, compute
k
If effect sizes are homogeneous across categories, the distribution of Qa will be approximately X2
with v = k-1 degrees of freedom. Therefore, the hypothesis of homogeneity across categories is
rejected if Qa is large compared to the appropriate entry in the chi-square table with v degrees of
freedom.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Rel~~(,r~(S~I~~~-007928000500350001-4
(U) Finally, to answer question 4, approximate 95% confidence intervals may be
computed for the average effect size within a category using
1.96
di, f ~ .
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release 2G>p~}~~-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (U)
(U) The results of the meta-analysis are presented here, where possible, in quantitative
analytic terms, and various interpretations are discussed in detail, In addition, items that cannot
be analyzed are discussed from a qualitative perspective.
(U) The analysis proceeds in a top-down fashion in accordance with the hierarchy shown
in Figure 1.
(U) The overall analysis was conducted from three different perspectives:
(1)
(2)
(3)
All of the data, regardless of the purported skill of the subjects,
A subset of the data contributed by an experienced group of viewers, GI
(i.e., long-term, generally accepted expert viewers-002, 009, 131, 372,
414, and 504)
All of the data except for the group G1 (i.e., All-G1).
Table 2 shows the number of trials n, total z score, p value, and effect size d for informational
and putative causal processes and for the combination of the two.
(U) STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MAJOR CLASSES
Class
Perspective
n
z
p*
d
Psychoenergetics
All
25,449
9.37
3.69 (-21)
0.059
G1
9,825
6.86
3.46 (-12)
0.069
All-G1
15,624
6.53
3.46 (-11)
0.052
Informational
All
24,450
9.0?
5.83 (-20)
0.058
G1
9,702
6.69
1.14 (-11)
0.068
All-G1
14,748
6.25
1.96 (-10)
0.052
Causal
All
999
2.42
6.39 (-03)
0.077
G1
123
2.06
1.99 (-02)
0.171
All-G1
876
1.89
2.95 (-02}
0.064
SECRET
* (U) Powers-of-ten are shown in parentheses.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release 2~/~9~E~IA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
(U) The number of trials shown in Table 2 differs slightly from those shown in Figure 1.
,A few trials in each category were analyzed from apost-hoc point of view and therefore have not
been included in the formal analysis.
(S/I~TF) The heterogeneity of effect size within each group for ali classes is very large (i.e.,
ithe chi-squares for within-groups were large) . This is to be expected for such a global analysis
.and is frequently seen in meta-analyses of psychological data. s The sources of the within-group
variation include the psychoenergetic skill level of the subjects and fundamental differences
between psychoenergetic tasks.
(S/NF) The data, regardless of subjects or process, show strongly significant evidence for
psychoenergetic functioning (p G 3.69 X 10-~1) . Both the informational and putative causal
processes show significant evidence of psychoenergetic functioning, as well.
(S/NF) Since p values are strongly dependent upon the number of trials, the modern
trend in meta-analysis is to consider the trial-independent measure of effect size. From this
point of view, the magnitude of the psychoenergetic functioning appears roughly constant for all
the data shown in Table 2, and, according to Cohen's criteria for the interpretation of effect
size,' corresponds to small effects.6 The method of calculating overall effect size, however,
involves a weighted average (see Table i) and thus may not provide an accurate picture of the
size of the psychoenergetic functioning within a given category. To obtain more insight into the
nature of the functioning, we must examine the data within each category.
B. (U) Results for Categories Within the Informational Process
(S/NF) Table 3 shows the number of trials, total z score, p value, and effect size for
categories within the informational process. The data show strongly significant evidence for
psychoener?;etic functioning for all categories regardless of subjects. The effect size, however,
begins to demonstrate category differences.
(S/NF) The forced-choice effect size (d = 0.052) is equivalent to the overall effect size
shown in Table 2 (d = 0.059). Since the forced-choice category accounts for 77% of the total
number of trials, the effect-size averaging technique biases the overall result. For example, the
effect size (d = 0.209) for the RV-Lab category is significantly larger than for the Forced-Choice
case (XZ = 22.70, v = 1; p < 6.63 X 10_6 ). The RV-Lab effect sizes meet Cohen's criterion for
a medium-sized behavioral effect.
(U) Values of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 correspond to small, medium, and large effects, respectively.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release 2~/g9/D?E~A-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
Table 3
(U) STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR INFORMATIONAL CATEGORIES
Category
Perspective
n
z
p *
d
All
19,675
7.42
6.12 (-14)
0.052
G1
9,487
5.82
2.92 (-09)
0.060
All-G1
10,188
4.69
1.39 (-06)
0.046
RV-Lab
All
966
6.49
4.33 (-1l)
0.209
G1
196
5.39
3.49 (-08)
0.385
All-G1
770
4.55
2.71 (-06)
0.164
RV-Ops
All
9
3.98
3.45 (-OS)
1.326
G1
9
3.98
3.45 (-OS)
1.326
All-G 1
-
-
-
-
RV-Search
All
3,790
2.61
4.53 (-03)
0.042
G1
-
-
-
-
All-G1
3,790
2.61
4.53 (-03)
0.042
SECRET
* (U) Powers-of-ten are shown in parentheses.
(S/NF) For the RV-Lab category, the experienced group, G1, performs significantly
better than the novice, larger group (Xz = 7.63, v = 1; p C 0.0057).
(S/NF) As in the overall analysis, the data analyzed in Table 3 show a large heterogeneity
of effect size within each category. The heterogeneity of effect size, however, is significantly
reduced for the experienced subjects in the RV-Lab category. This reduction may result from a
:more uniform skill level of the subjects in group G1; this is in general agreement with our
qualitative assessment of their abilities.
(S/NF) Only 8.5% of the remote viewing operational trials were analyzed as a formal
experiment. The effect size for these exceeds Cohen's definition of a large effect. The
intelligence requirements of operational remote viewing, however, are less dependent upon the
quality of the viewing than they may be on other factors. Excellent remote viewing does not
necessarily imply good intelligence information.
(S/NF) Because of the usual sensitivities associated with intelligence data, obtaining
evaluations of the operational remote viewing has continued to be difficult.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release 2~~0~/~ opA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
(S/NF) In the RV-Search category, 91.3% of the data were collected under laboratory
conditions l:>y novice subjects. The remaining trials were conducted under operational
conditions, :tnd intelligence analysis is not available. The small effect size (d = 0.042) is
commensurate with that found in other laboratories, and may reflect our lack of understanding
about how to elicit this form of psychoenergetic functioning.
C. (U) Specific Results for Remote Viewing
(U) In this section we address the specific questions posed in the SOW. In any kind of an
investigation where the general results fall under a statistical regime (i.e., z scores less than about
S), no hard definitions exist for definitive conclusions. The problem is confounded in behavioral
science because many factors, beyond the particular independent variable in question, may
significantly alter the outcome of an experiment. In trying to assess a large body of literature, as
more constraints are placed on the outcomes, fewer within-group trials are available for analysis;
thus, statistical conclusions become more difficult. This is also true for psychoenergetic research.
Yet, it is possible to describe trends, to suggest ways of improving experiments based upon earlier
results, and to obtain clear insights into factors that may affect psychoenergetic functioning.
(S/NF) To ensure the most reliable interpretations of results in what follows below, group
GI has been used for the quantitative discussion. As was shown in Section V.-B, this group
possessed the most homogeneous set of data for the RV-Lab category and demonstrated a
significant amount of remote viewing ability.
1. (~T) Selection/Screening
(S/NF) The selection of individuals who are able to accomplish remote viewing both
in an operational setting and in the laboratory is of paramount importance. As is shown in
Section V.-B., above, group GI provides the best results for both types of remote viewing.
Throughout the history of the program at SRI, 6 individuals have been able to demonstrate
consistent functioning over a long period of time. This does not mean that, after vigorous
searching, only 6 have been found. Rather, given our applications-oriented charter for most of
the time period in question, we had little impetus to find other viewers. During fiscal years
1986-1988, it became clear that a greater number of talented viewers was needed for both
applications and research.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release 200~I~~~RDP96-007928000500350001-4
(S/NF) Prior to FY 1986, little was known about how to select good viewers. There
was little systematic research either at SRI or within the field in general, and what was available
was inconclusive or contradictory. The effort that began in FY 1986 encompassed a broad
approach to the problem. We initiated three different types of quantitative approaches:
self-report personality tests, neuropsychological testing, and behavioral testing (i.e., the
Personality Assessment System-PAS). In addition, we used one heuristic approach, which
simply asked individuals to try remote viewing.
(S/NF) The heuristic approach has been quite successful. The efficiency (i.e., the
number of talented viewers found divided by the total number screened) is approximately 1% in
the general population (i.e., groups of self-selected volunteers). Based upon the results of a
mass screening effort, two individuals have been asked to be regular contributors to the project.
(S/NF) One other heuristic source of good viewers is individuals who have noticed a
psychoenergetic ability in their lives. Many viewers in group G1 came to the project in this
manner, acid a new viewer, claiming similar experiences, was identified in a recent screening
effort. This viewer produced an effect size of 0.440 in 6 remote viewing trials, which contained
many striking qualitative correspondences between targets and responses.
(S/I~'F) Of the quantitative techniques, the neuropsychological approach was not
successful at predicting performance. The PAS, however, predicted performance of 9 viewers to
a significant degree.
(S/NF) By far, the best way to select viewers as of this writing is to use individuals
who either have abilities measured in other laboratories, or who have had strong personal
experiences.
(S/NF) One technique not mentioned above holds great promise for the future.
Three individuals from group G1 who participated in a neurophysiological study of correlates with
remote viewing produced unusually large central nervous system responses to light stimuli
directed at the eyes. More work is needed to determine if this simple test might be the most
effective way to screen for individuals with excellent remote viewing ability.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release Zs(E3/~9,R9~t~1A-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
2. (U) Targeting
(S/NF) Targeting is a general term to describe the method by which a viewer is
directed to the intended target. Common techniques that have been employed include the
following:
(1) Beacon-art individual at the site of the intended target.
(2) Coordinates-the geographical or military coordinates of the intended
target.
(3) Abstract-a word or phrase (e.g.,"target") or other abstract
representation of the intended target.
(4) ;~-none of the above, the viewer initiates the collection of data.
We examined these techniques in order to determine which provides the best access to a remote
target.
(S/1~TF) For these four targeting techniques, 183 trials were identified-the
remainder, 13 trials, were listed as "unknown" targeting. The effect size for viewings initiated by
these targeting techniques was 0.401, leading to a p value of 2.92 X 10-8. Thus, there is
significant evidence for remote viewing functioning. The between-groups chi-square is
significant (J~2 = 12.58, v = 3; p ~ 0.0058), indicating that the effect sizes resulting from these
targeting techniques are not drawn from the same population.
(S/NF) It is difficult, however, to attribute the significant differences to targeting
techniques alone. In none of the experiments could the targeting technique be used as a valid
independent variable, because, in all cases, the viewers and experimenters were not blind to the
targeting condition. Thus, it is possible, even likely, that the viewers' scientific or emotional bias
toward one technique or another confounds the interpretation. Other factors, such as feedback
time and type, or potential physics models of information transfer, also confound the
interpretation .
(S/NF) Given these caveats, beacon targeting appears to provide the best and most
astable results (n = 66, z = 5.305, p ~C 5.65 X 10-8, d = 0.653).
3. (LJ) Evaluation and Analysis
(iJ) The evaluation and analysis of remote viewing data has undergone significant
improvement during our 16 years of investigation. Beginning as a simple blind matching by
yudges, the techniques have been improved by the addition of concept analysis (the paraphrasing
of a complex response), discrete descriptor analysis (defining targets and response as the yes/no
answers to a predetermined set of descriptors), and fuzzy set descriptors (defining targets and
:responses as fuzzy sets).
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For. Release 2E ~IA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
(S/1~?F) The fuzzy set technique has also been applied to intelligence simulation
experiments and found to provide a useful estimate of remote viewing accuracy (the percent of
t:he intended target that was described correctly) and viewer reliability (the percent of the
viewer's respanse that was correct) .
(S/NF) For rapid evaluation of laboratory experiments, rank-order judging of
targets within preselected (i.e., by fuzzy set techniques) target packets is recommended. For
nnore accurate measures of remote viewing ability, however, the full fuzzy set analysis is
suggested. Determining whether the fuzzy set technique can be applied to intelligence situations is
a topic for further investigation.
4. (U) Training
(S/NF) Six training efforts were conducted during the time period under
consideration; three were qualitative and three were quantitative. There is no overall quantitative
evidence that remote viewing can be taught to novice viewers. Of the qualitative efforts, two were
conducted with client personnel as viewers, and one was conducted with SRI personnel. All
three showed some qualitative evidence, however, that training improves remote viewing skill.
(S/NF) Quantitative experiments were conducted with 18 novice viewers in three
separate experiments comprising 481 trials. In the first group, the novices were self-selected on
tl~e basis of strong interest and previous personal experiences. None had participated in prior
laboratory experiments. The six viewers in this group produced overall significant evidence for
remote viewing (n = 169, z = 1.719, p G 0.043, d = 0.132). None of the viewers, however,
individually or collectively demonstrated significant evidence that training helps a viewer to
improve.
(S/NF) The second group of 9 viewers was selected because the Personality
Assessment System predicted that they would exhibit a wide range of remote viewing ability.
Overall, their data did not reach statistical significance (n = 221, z = -0.971, p G 0.834,
d' _ -0.065). While the best viewer produced an effect size of 0.170, none of the viewers' data
reached statistical significance. None of these viewers individually or collectively demonstrated
significant evidence that training helps a viewer to improve.
(S/Iv'F) In the third group of 3 novice viewers, one demonstrated significant
evidence for improvement (n = 26, z = 3.01, p < 0.0013, d = 0.590).
(S/NF) While significant evidence for remote viewing has been observed, whether
training can improve remote viewing skill has yet to be substantiated quantitatively. It is possible
that knowledge has not yet advanced to the point where we know how to train. Since the data
f7-om viewers in group GI have remained stable over time, we conclude that simple practice does
not appear to improve performance.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release 2s~/~J,8E~1A-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
(S/NF) SRI recommends that investigations into training be continued. In the
meantime, good viewers are more easily found than trained.
(U) Feedback is defined as providing the viewer with information about the intended
target after a remote viewing experiment. Very few experiments were devised to test the role of
feedback in determining remote viewing quality. In the early phases of the project, the primary
objective was to provide as good a result as possible, and since feedback appeared not to hinder
remote viewing, most of the early sessions always included it in one form or another.
(S/NF) The strongest evidence about the role of feedback is provided by the FY
1987 tachistoscope experiment. In that study, subliminal or minimal visual feedback was
provided to t}~e viewers. Two of the four viewers produced independent evidence for remote
viewing ability (n = 40; z = 2.30, p C 0.012, d = 0.363, and z = 4.43, p < 4.7$ X 10_6 ,
d = 0.700, respectively) . Neither of these viewers showed any dependency upon the intensity of
the visual feedback, including zero intensity (i.e., no feedback at all}.
(S/NF) The question of the role of feedback was examined for group GI. We
examined feedback time (i.e., the time duration after a session before feedback was provided),
a:nd feedback type (e.g., site, false site, verbal, visual). We found that there were substantial and
significant differences among the various feedback times and among the various feedback types.
(SlNF) To interpret these differences with regard to feedback is difficult. For
example, the ;significant difference between a 1-hour delay compared to a 5-minute delay may
rf;sult from thE; fact that most of the 5-minute delay feedback intervals occurred in experiments
ire which photographs were used as targets. Since the longer delay occurred in experiments that
used beacons and natural sites as targets, one interpretation is that the observed differences are
attributable to target type rather than feedback interval.
(S/NF) A similar problem arises in the feedback type category. One clear result,
however, does emerge. The effect sizes for feedback of natural sites (d = 0.734) is significantly
larger than for feedback of the incorrect natural site (d = -0.137. X2 = 4.55, v = 1; p G 0.042).
Giving false feedback appears to inhibit remote viewing.
(S/NF) A recent study indicates that feedback in remote viewing experiments is not
e~ssential.~ This result is in qualitative agreement with the findings from our tachistoscope
experiment. In forced-choice experiments, however, Honorton found that the role of feedback
in the precognition experiments was critical.8
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release 2~~'~ ECTA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
(S/NF) While the quantitative results are mixed, viewers indicate that feedback is
psychologically important. We conclude, therefore, that feedback should be provided whenever
possible.
(S/NF) We examined the effect of distance on the quality of remote viewing.
Distances were divided into four ranges: < 1 km, < 50 km, < 5000 km, and > 5000 km. For the
group G1, there was no effect of distance on the quality of remote viewing (X2 = 3.56, v = 2;
p ~C 0.167). It is possible to be definitive about this particular result since all confounding
variables tend to increase the chi-square rather than decrease it.
7. (U) Effect of Size of Target
(S/NF) Only one experiment has been conducted that directly addresses this issue.
Photographs were reduced to a spot size of approximately 1 mm in diameter. One viewer from
group G1 produced significant results (n = 6, z = 2.10, p G 0.018, d = 0.857). We are able to
conclude that targets 1 mm in diameter do not inhibit remote viewing quality. No data are
available on targets of varying sizes.
8. (~iJ) Physiological Correlates to Remote Viewing
('1J) In the field in general, the search for physiological correlates has not been
successful. Larly results indicated that an individual should be moderately relaxed and as free
from physiological stress as possible (e.g., headaches, bathroom demands). These results are not
surprising in that it is likely that such a "physiological" state would be optimal for any human
activity.
(S/NF) SRI has examined neurophysiologcal correlates to remote viewing in two
separate experiments. Specifically, the central nervous system appears to respond to a remote
light flash, and thus provides a correlate to remote viewing. For the two experiments, a total of
four viewers (all from group G1) produced independent significant changes in a-production in
correlation with remote light stimuli.9,~o
(SlNF) SRI recommends that the effort to isolate particular parts of the centra]
nervous system that respond to remote stimuli be continued. The potential for screening and
training are significant.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release 2~~~9f~ ~A-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
9. (TJ) Psychological Correlates to Remote Viewing
(;i/NF) Psychological correlates to remote viewing have provided weak, but
significant, evidence for correlations with some forms of psychological variables. In the early
work with the Personality Assessment System, SRI found that many of the group GI viewers
clustered near each other in PAS space. In later work, the PAS predicted viewer performance to
a significant degree. SRI's work with self-report personality tests has not been successful;
however, Honorton reports small, but significant correlations with the thinking/feeling dimension
in the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory.ll In general, psychological correlates have been weak
and/or unreliable.
10. (1J) Shielding and ELF
(S/NF) The main purpose of searching for shielding against psychoenergetic
functioning is to provide for a secure environment. I. M. Kogan proposed a model of
;psychoenergetic information transfer based on extremely low-frequency (ELF) electromagnetic
radiation.12 In that model, Kogan proposed that the brain is, in effect, a 10-Hz oscillator and
'the body is a crude antenna. Radiation at that frequency would exhibit many of the properties of
;psychoenergetic functioning known at that time.
(S/NF) Too few data were collected under known shielding conditions to make
definitive statements with regard to shielding. Two trials were collected in a 30-dB shielding at
10 Hz. These trials showed significant evidence of remote viewing (n = 2, z = 1.92,
p C 0.027, d = 1.358). In another experiment, when the target material was contained in a
SCIF, significant evidence for remote viewing was observed (n = 6, z = 1.91, p ?C 0.028,
d = 0.780). The trend, however, is clear: electromagnetic shielding does not inhibit
psychoenergetic acquisition of target material.
11. (TJ) Audio Analysis
(:i/NF) In a single study involving 6 trials with a single viewer from group G1, a
significant correlation of remote viewing quality with the audio/linguistic character of the
response was found (n = 6, r = 0.995, p C 0.050, d = 0.800). One purpose for determining
within-session correlations with remote viewing quality is to provide for an independent and
a priori measure of quality.
(TJ) SRI recommends that this type of investigation be continued to determine the
degree to which the result can be generalized across viewers.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release ~r~~9R~~lA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
(S/NF} As was seen in Section V.-B., above, significant evidence for search was
found overall (n = 3,790, z = 2.61, p ~ 0.0045, d = 0.042). Most of these trials were collected
inn experiments using computer techniques. In a few experiments, however, the target material
was physical objects in a laboratory setting. The effect sizes from these experiments do not differ
significantly from the overall result.
(S/NF) Search has always been a challenge. On a few occasions, operational use of
search has proved extremely useful data, but on the average, both the laboratory experiments
and operational use have been disappointing. SRI recommends continued effort in search to
determine those factors that can enhance a potentially very useful phenomenon.
(S/NF) The first SRI precognition experiment provided significant evidence of the
phenomenon (n = 4, z = 1.73, p < 0.042, d = 0.864).13 From FY 1975 to FY 1987,
I~recognition was not studied in any systematic manner. During FY 1987, one experiment was
conducted using natural sites as targets and one of the group GI viewers. The result was not
significant (n = 10, z = -0.476, p < 0.683, d = -0.150). A second experiment using novice
viewers was conducted in the same year. This also did not reach a significant level (n = 55,
z = 0.070, p 'G 0.472, d = 0.064). Therefore, the results of SRI's investigations are mixed.
]However, in a recent meta-analysis of the precognition forced-choice literature conducted by
one of SRI's subcontractors, 50 years of experimentation: involving 50,000 subjects showed highly
significant evidence for the phenomenon (n ~ 108, z = 24.23 , p G 4 X 10'52, d = 0.041). This
result is consistent with the forced-choice real-time studies conducted at SRI (d = 0.052).
(S/NF) Taken as a whole, there appears to be compelling evidence for precognition.
'When precognition is used as the underlying assumption for a heuristic model of psychoenergetic
ifunctioning, 15 years of random number generator data fall on the predicted theoretical curve,la
(il) Forced-choice remote viewing (defined in Section IV.-A.) has traditionally
provided weak but consistent evidence for a psychoenergetic phenomenon. In the experiments
conducted during the Rhine era, over one million trials were conducted with ESP cards (i.e., a
one-in-five target system).75 Strong significances were observed, but effect sizes were of the
order of 0.02.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release 2~/~/Q6~QA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
(S/NF) Table 3 shows the results for 19,475 trials collected at SRI since 1973. The
effect size is consistent with the early results of Rhine (d = 0.052). In fiscal years 1986-1988,
one of the viewers from group G1 was able to increase the effect size by a factor of 10 (n = 50,
,p G 0.00015, d = 0.51), meeting Cohen's definition of a strong effect. While there was
significant improvement with this viewer during the three years, the number of formal trials was
small, and thus interpretation is difficult.
(:i/NF} SRI recommends that a forced-choice investigation be continued to
determine if such strong effects can be observed in other viewers.
15. (U) Conducting an RV Experiment
(S/NF) No formal experimentation has been conducted to examine session
iparameters that enhance remote viewing. SRI does not use any formal induction technique, and
the sessions are conducted in a businesslike atmosphere with the viewer and monitor sitting
upright and opposite each other across a table. Since the overall effect size (d = 0.385) observed
:For group GI meets Cohen's definition of a medium-sized effect, these session conditions do not
appear to hinder the phenomenon.
(S/NF) The first step in investigating countermeasures far remote viewing is to
examine whether it is possible to shield against psychoenergetic intrusion. As was discussed in
~5ection V.-C;.-10, E&M shielding does not appear to be effective.
(S/NF) To provide an effective shield or a useful physical countermeasure, it must
be determined whether psychoenergetic phenomena interact with the physical world. In the
remote action studies conducted at SRI, most of the studies have not demonstrated any evidence
of psychoenergetic interaction with the physical world.
(51NF) Two exceptions are worthy of discussion. In a study conducted in FY 1979
;involving random number generators, the significant results were consistent with the historical
database of such experiments. Later, it was shown that these results are not due to a physical
interaction, t>ut rather due to precognition.'a
(S/NF) During FY 1975, a striking anomaly was observed when one of the viewers
:from group G1 attempted to influence a shielded magnetometer. The device was perturbed in a
significant manner, but no other experiments were conducted that showed similar non-statistical
:results.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release 2~i`V~ ~A-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
(S/NF) In an experiment designed to replicate claims made in the People's Republic
of China, SRI determined the degree to which pulses from a photomultiplier tube correlated with
the quality oi' remote viewing. While strong evidence for remote viewing was seen, no significant
correlations with the tube output were observed.
(~>/NF) At this time, there is no evidence that psychoenergetic phenomena can be
shielded against nor effectively counterrneasured.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Release ~~'0~~:'~IA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
REFERENCES (U)
1, Zimbardo, P., Psychology and Life, 12th Ed., Scott, Foresman and Company, Boston,
MA, p. 54 (1988) UNCLASSIFIED.
:Z. Rosenthal, R., Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research, Applied Social Research
Methods Series, Vol. 6, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA (1982) UNCLASSIFIED.
3. Light, R. J. and D. B. Pillemer, Summing Up, Th.e Science of Reviewing Research,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1984) UNCLASSIFIED.
4. Hedges, L. V. and I. Olkin, Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis, Academic Press, Inc.,
New York, NY (1985) UNCLASSIFIED.
5. Feingold, A., "Matching for Attractiveness in Romantic Partners and Same-Sex Friends:
A Meta.-Analysis and Theoretical Critique," Psych. Bull., Vol. 104, No, 2, pp. 226-235
(1988) UNCLASSIFIED,
6. Cohen, J., Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, (rev. ed.) Academic
Press, New York, NY (1977) UNCLASSIFIED,
7. Targ, E., R. Targ, and O. Lichtarge, "Realtirne Clairvoyance: A Study of Remote Viewing
Without Feedback," The Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 28th Annual
Convention, Tufts University, Medford, 1VIA, pp. 335-342 (August 1985)
UNCLASSIFIED.
8. Honorton, C., D. B. Ferrari, and G. Hansen, "Meta-Analysis of Forced-Choice
Precognition Experiments," Psychophysical Research Laboratories' Technical Report
(1989) UNCLASSIFIED.
9. May, E, C., R. Targ, and H, E. Puthoff, "Possible EEG Correlates to Remote Stimuli
Under Conditions of Sensory Shielding," Proceedings of Electro77 Professional Program
of the IEEE, Special Session on the State of the Art in Psychic Research, New York
(April 1977) UNCLASSIFIED.
10. May, E. C., W. W. Luke, and T. J. Frivold, "Neurophysiological Correlates to Remote
Viewing; (U)," SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, Final Report-Objective D, Task 1,
Project 1291 (December 1988) SECRET.
11. Private communication.
12. Kogan, I. M., "Is Telepathy Possible?" Radio Eng., Vol. 21, P, 75 (January 1966)
UNCLASSIFIED.
1.3. Puthoff, H. E. and R. Targ, "A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer Over
Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research," Proceedings of the
IEEE, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 329-354 (March 1976) UNCLASSIFIED.
7.4. May, E. C., D. I. Radin, G. S. Hubbard, B. S. Humphrey, and J. M. Utts, "PSI
Experiments with Random Number Generators: An Informational Model," SRI
International, Menlo Park, CA, Final Report Project 8067 (October 1985)
UNCLASSIFIED.
15. Honorton, C., "Error Some Place!," Journal of Communication, pp. 103-116 (Winter
1975) UNCLASSIFIED.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For Re~~~,Q~~~~ ~~6-007928000500350001-4
Appendix
CODINiG SHEETS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE META-ANALYSIS
(This Appendix is UNCLASSIFIED)
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
 Approved For R ~~3/a9~~ ~$?~96-007928000500350001-4
Unit Information
Page:
Coder I.D:
Date:
Form I.D:
Unit
Data
Unit Name
Seaaion Viewer Viewer within Condition Trial Experiment O:
Unit I . D.
Viewer I.D.
I.D. Experienced Novice
Monitor I.D.
Start Date
Date Duratlon
Start Tlme
Time Duratlon
Viewer Loeatlon
sRI Home: Client: Field: O:
Intetn-
tiartal?
YN
'YN
YN
Y N
YN
YIN
YN
Circle or write in all appropriate conditions
None Visual Audio Verbal Intermediate Site Unknown O:
Statistics
~~
Data
# of Trials
Raw Score
Judgement Srore
1 2 3 a
Z-Score
P-Value
Effect Slze
mments:
UNCLASSIFIEa
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
A-1
 Approved For Re a 3/ 9/ 6-007928000500350001-4
F~ublication Information
Page: ~
Coder I.D:
Date:
Form I.D:
D
Title
A h r
RI
i i ^i '
T I N rn r f P
T f R r
Final Mid-year Interim Quarterly Progress Monthly Progress O:
Rules for Meta-analysis Coding
~ganization
1. Use one Publication Information sheet for each publlcation.
2. Use as few Experiment Information sheets as necessary.
3. A iJnit is the smallest level at which the most basic hypothesis (usually psi versus no psi) was tested.
4. Results for a hypothesis that cannot be reconstructed from the basic units should be coded as a separate
"experiment". The Type should be listed as d: correlation.
5. For an experiment, staple together all Unit Information sheets with the Experiment Information sheet on
top. Clip together all experiment packets from the same publication. Number all of the sheets consecu-
Genera]:
lively within a publication.
1.
Circle (or slash) the appropriate choice.
2.
Use [ ]around data to indicate a coder guess or calculation.
3.
1=xverime
If Other (O:) then specify.
nt her **~PtP c Known 't'arget Parameters and Feedback:
1.
2.
Use publication date if Experiment date is unknown.
Generally, independent variables are those manipulated by the experimenter. However, this space can
also be used for variables that differ unintentionally within an experiment. See Rule #4 under "Unit In-
UNCLASSIFIEa
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
A-2
 Approved For Re~~e,/q@/C~F6-007928000500350001-4
Experiment Information
y n
Slab-experiment or Condition?
Experiment Parameters Data
.~r~i~
Pages Within Document
Principal Investigator
Number of Subjects
Principal Hypothesis
Independent Variable(s)
not included below; list
categoriE3s or describe
in space provided.
Experiment Task
.....~..
Known Target Parameters
Target Name
Basic ,Analysis
Depndt. 'Variable
Page:
Coder I.D:
Date:
Form I.D:
RV-Lab RV-Ops Forced-Choice Screening Training Search O:
Beacon Abstract Coordinates Prompting Self Unknown Difters* O:_
Ops Real Site Photograph Alpha/Numeric Person Objects Difters* O:
I < t < SO < 5000 > 5000 Unknown Differs* O:
II Inside Outside Both Difters* O:
Retrocognition Rea] Time Precognition Differs* O:
Unknown E&M Cage/Room Water SCIF Differs* O;
None Visual Audio Verbal intermediate Site Unknown Differs
t day Unknown Differs" O:
Rating Rank R_ Fuzzy Bit Discr. Bit Concept Hits_ Scale n_ Judgment Match O:
Scott's brows FM Sum-of-Ranks Statistic O:
RV PK Utility Demonstration O:
"` When "Differs" is circled, information must be entered at the unit level.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 :CIA-RDP96-007928000500350001-4
A-3