Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 As described on pp. 13 and 25 of the MSF report, the trials were appropriately counterbalanced. The next series of questions and comments seem to stem from the idea that the EDA measurements were of dc skin resistance. This was not the case. EDA is identical to GSR, which is an ac measurement of the fluctuations in skin conductance. In any ac-coupled system, questions of baseline drift are irrelevant. This observation has been incorporated into the revised report. A detailed discussion of the possible role of real-time feedback was provided by MSF and may be found on pages 30 and 31 of the original report. Dr. Braud’s conclusion was that possible artifact due to real-time feedback had been adequately excluded. 65 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Final Report for Objective E, Task 8 NICK YARU Exceptions: Comments: Recommendation: HERB LEY Exceptions: Comments: Recommendation: - (RA...Piezoelectric Strain Gauges) (verbatim transcription--not edited) None. Shielding (it may not be enough) is the first thought through my mind. I was impressed however with the measures employed thus far for mechanical, acoustic, heat and E.M. isolation. I worry about the window, especially at low frequencies where even double shielding flex cables are not sufficient and solid copper shield is used for EMI or antenna pattern ranges. I agree with the conclusions of the report. Consider Tempest testing of the system. I do. 11-6-86 Can’t understand cell entries in Tab 1. Needs revision or footnotes. Need to see protocols, and informed consent statement for evaluation of meeting human use requirements. I do. 11-6-86 FRED ZACHARIASEN Exceptions: Comments: Recommendation: BRIAN SKYRMS Exceptions: It’s not clear if there are 11 or only 3 events. Statistically, 3 events in 20 hours of experiment vs. 0 events in 30 hours of background is not obviously inexplicable statistically. Why is the left hand gauge more noisy? This ought to be viewed as a_ preliminary description of the experiment——with next year conclusive results. I do. 11-7-86 Physics: It should be possible to do much better in isolating the strain gauges from acoustic vibration. Such isolation is a standard problem in many areas and standard techniques should be available. 66 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 Methodological: These results are so surprising that SRI should see if an independent experimenter can replicate them. Comments: None. Recommendation: I do not. 11-10-86 ROSS ADEY Exceptions: (1) There should be an adequate account of subjective states of mind associated with attempts to influence the strain gauge. (2) Since the test epochs are long (10-20 min.), these subjective accounts should be supplemented by appropriate physiological measures (e.g., eye saccods, EEG, EKGR-R, intervals, etc.). (3) There should be a detailed account of the number, configuration and temporal distribution of strain gauge responses, with data acquisition in ways allowing strict temporal correlation with physiological events outlined under (2). Comments: (4) The frequency response of the strain gauge in the ELF spectrum should be described. (5) Serial spectral analyses should be made of strain gauge activity throughout control and test epochs. (6) Strain gauge activity spectra should be examined for evidence of entrainment by weak, coherent ELF stimuli, in accordance with models developed for such systems by Nicolis (1969, 1972, 1983, etc.). Recommendation: (None.) 11-10-86 SCOTT HUBBARD Response to Yaru: We agree completely with Dr. Yaru that the window is the weakest link in the EMI shielding. This aspect of the system is discussed in Section I, 2.a, of the report, where we point out the initial psychological necessity for the subject to be in visual contact with the sensor. We also agree that there is a need for standardized testing of the unit (e.g, TEMPEST). In the Conclusions Section of the revised report, we now clearly state that future work will include appropriate EMI characterization and trials with an intact (i.e. windowless) enclosure. Response to Ley: Table 1 has been suitably revised to make the number of effort periods in each condition as clear as possible. The request for informed consent documents, etc., was satisfied in a separate meeting of the Human Use Review Board. 67 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 Response to Zachariasen: In the absence of a more detailed PZT output record, we cannot be certain that signals above threshold, which are closely spaced in time, are separate events. Therefore, Dr. Zachariasen is correct in stating that a more conservative estimate of the number of events is 3 rather than 11. Although we have modified the report to reflect this point, we must point out that the a priori definition of an event of interest was any signal crossing the predetermined threshold. If we hypothesize that the events have a pulse~like Poisson distribution, then we can compute the probability of observing 0 counts in thirty hours, assuming an average of 3 events in twenty hours. That value is p < 0.01. If one assumes an average of 11 events, the probability is 6.8 x 10-8. While not inexplicable statistically, the observed outcome is unlikely given the stated assumptions. In Section IV, B., of the modified report, we discuss (in somewhat greater detail) problems of contact noise, which probably causes the slight difference in the two sensors. We agree completely that this year’s effort should be regarded as preliminary, a view unequivocally stated in the Abstract. Certainly in any future work we will address all the issues raised by Dr. Zachariasen (better time resolution, lower contact noise, longer control periods, etc.) Response to Skyrms: Dr. Skyrms appears to proceed from a misunderstanding as to the nature of the experiment. Several times in the report, we addressed the engineering compromises that were necessary to meet the psychological requirements of the participants (i.e., visual contact with the sensor). - We also pointed out the methodological steps taken to assure the credibility of the final data (e.g., enclosure isolation and session audio recording). To avoid such misunderstanding by other readers, we have rewritten the acoustic artifact discussion (to emphasize the degree of isolation actually achieved. In his methodological comments, Dr. Skyrms has perhaps missed the point. From the very beginning, the SRI/JFK University experiment was conceived as possessing a “built-in” replication feature: No participant was allowed to begin trials at SRI unless he had first produced greater or equivalent effects at JFK. Again, to prevent future misunderstandings, we have rewritten the Introduction to make this feature even more clear. Response to Adey: Comments 1, 2, 3, and 6 appear appropriate only after the existence of RA in PZT strain gauges has been firmly established. Comment 4, the low-frequency response of the strain gauge, was addressed in Appendix B of the report. In it we stated that the sensor has a flat capacitative response from 10 Hz to 1 kHz. Above or below these points, the electronics sharply cut off the response. As stated earlier, we plan more detailed spectral analysis in future work (Comment 5). 68 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4