Tob REP KRACEAL ARGIRAS ES GBA ABLuGidnBang9 6 -00789R003100140001-2 DRAFT lll. APPROACH 1. Receiver Selection We will use two specialize populations from which to draw receivers for this pilot experiment: (1) Experienced dreamers from LaBerg’s research subjects , and (2) Receivers who have demonstrated significant ability in other AC studies. Currently, five and seven individuals have volunteered, respectively. 2. Target Selection Targets will be chosen randomly from the standard set of 100 National Geographic magazine photographs. 3. Trial Definition A trial is defined as a successful lucid dream during which the target material was examined and later transcribed in the waking state. 4. Lucid Dream Protocol All receivers will undertake two forms of training in lucid dreaming: (1) They will complete a lucid dreaming home-study course developed by the Lucidity Institute (i.e., a subcontractor to SAIC), and (2) they will attend two weekend seminars, one at the beginning and one at the end of the proposed three-month pilot study. The first seminar, which was held in December, 1991, introduced receivers to lucid dreaming skills and the the use of the DreamLight, a lucid dream induction device. In previous studies, the DreamLight has been shown to enhance the frequency of lucid dreaming. The DreamLight consists of a sleep mask equipped with lights and eye movement sensors, which are attached to a small battery-operated computer. When the computer detects the eye movements of dreaming (i.e., REM) sleep, it causes the lights in the mask to flash briefly (i.e., either one or two flashes per second). The dreamer frequently incorporates the flashes into the ongoing dream, and thus experiences a cue to indi- cate that he or she is dreaming. Receivers will have free access to DreamLights during the duration of the study. 5. AC Baseline Measures Each receiver will be asked to contribute eight trials in a waking state in the Cognitive Sciences Labora- tory as an AC baseline series. The targets for this series will be chosen at random from a standardized target set that was developed from an earlier program. Each trial will be conducted as follows: After the Approved For Release ZOO BAT r HH ApTP6-00789R003100140001-2
TeghpisebPedbEalr Reheaiees 2090108 08.u Gd Ar BRR96-00789R003100140001 -2 DRAFT lll. APPROACH a — OOOO EE 1. Receiver Selection We will use two specialize populations from which to draw receivers for this pilot experiment: (1) Experienced dreamers from LaBerg’s research subjects , and (2) Receivers who have demonstrated significant ability in other AC studies. Currently, five and seven individuals have volunteered, respectively. 2. Target Selection Targets will be chosen randomly from the standard set of 100 National Geographic magazine photographs. 3. Trial Definition A trial is defined as a successful lucid dream during which the target material was examined and later transcribed in the waking state. 4. Lucid Dream Protocol All receivers will undertake two forms of training in lucid dreaming: (1) They will complete a lucid dreaming home-study course developed by the Lucidity Institute (i.e., a subcontractor to SAIC), and (2) they will attend two weekend seminars, one at the beginning and one at the end of the proposed three-month pilot study. The first seminar, which was held in December, 1991, introduced receivers to lucid dreaming skills and the the use of the DreamLight, a lucid dream induction device. In previous studies, the DreamLight has been shown to enhance the frequency of lucid dreaming. The DreamLight consists of a sleep mask equipped with lights and eye movement sensors, which are attached to a small battery-operated computer. When the computer detects the eye movements of dreaming (i.e., REM) sleep, it causes the lights in the mask to flash briefly (i.e., either one or two flashes per second). The dreamer frequently incorporates the flashes into the ongoing dream, and thus experiences a cue to indi- cate that he or she is dreaming. Receivers will have free access to DreamLights during the duration of the study. 5. AC Baseline Measures Each receiver will be asked to contribute eight trials in a waking state in the Cognitive Sciences Labora- tory as an AC baseline series. The targets for this series will be chosen at random from a standardized target set that was developed from an earlier program. Each trial will be conducted as follows: After the Approved For Release AQ pasnnton, DHAEPP96-00789R0031 00140001 -2
TeAipyra Veetdeor Rickeats es 20:2/0/H8d G8 LuQloRRENRI6 -00789R003100140001 -2 DRAFT receiver and an experimenter (i.e., called a monitor) enter the AC laboratory (i.e., an office with a single desk and two chairs), an assistant will use a computer random number generator to select a target from the baseline target pool. Both the receiver and the monitor will be blind to this specific choice. At a pre-arranged time, the monitor will encourage the receiver to draw and write impressions of the target material, which is located approximately 50 meters away. After approximately 15 minutes of casual questioning, the trial will end; the data will be copied; the originals will be secured; and the actual target will be presented as feedback to the receiver. The analysis will be discussed below. 6. Lucid Dream Trial Protocol During the study, each receiver will attempt to provide six AC trials in a lucid dream state according to the following procedure: (1) Each receiver will receive a sealed opaque envelope containing a target photograph chosen ran- domly from a predetermined set of 100. Receivers will place the target envelope in the room in which they are sleeping. (2) Using the DreamLight, they will attempt, while dreaming, to open the envelope, memorize its con- tent, and awaken as soon as possible. (3) In the waking state, they will write and draw their impressions in detail. (4) During the next day, they will mail the unopened envelope and their response to the principal in- vestigator (PI) for analysis. Upon receipt, the PI will send back a copy of the target photograph as feedback and an additional sealed envelope for the next trial. This procedure will be repeated until six trials are obtained from each receiver. 7. Analysis Traditional rank-ordering will be the method of analysis. The set of 100 National Geographic magazine photographs have been divided into 20 packets of five targets each. Within each pack, the targets have been selected to be as visually different from one another as possible. (A series of fuzzy sets were used to provide a quantitative method that was “fine tuned” by human judgment.) When a target is chosen from one of the target packs, the remaining four targets are considered as “decoy” targets for an analyst. For each trial, an analyst, is given the AC response and the target pack (i.e., five targets) from which the actual target was chosen. The analyst is required to rank order the targets from best to least match to the given response, regardless of the quality of the matches. The rank that is assigned to the intended target represents the value of the dependent variable for the trial. A sum-of-ranks is then computed for all the trials for each receiver, and effect sizes and p-values are determined from the known sum-of- ranks distribution. The effect sizes from the lucid dreaming trials will be compared to each receiver’s base line data and to historical AC data that is available for the experienced receivers, Approved For Release FAR oe Ee SYK RbP96-00789R0031 00140004 -2
Tabippen Pestdcor RAIRASEsZQQAINH G8 LG RANR96-00789R003100140001-2 DRAFT IV. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS a The primary purpose of this pilot study is to determine if AC is possible in the lucid dream state. Be- cause the trials will be conduced in each receiver’s home and is unsupervised, it is possible that the tar- get material can be compromised. By using standard enclosure techniques it is possible to determine if any casual attempt has been made to physically open the target material, but an experienced magician could foil the detection precautions. Thus we will be unable to conclude the existence of AC in a formal sense in this experiment. Knowing the historical effect sizes from other AC studies and from the calibrations of the lucid dreamer population can provide circumstantial evidence of AC. If the the lucid dreaming effect sizes are not significantly smaller than the historical or base line effect sizes, then we will recommend that a careful, laboratory-based study be conducted. Approved For Release 3p no/oaips: SuyebPs6-00789R0031 00140004 -2
Teghp(spbiesth PabrARetedas 2690108/08 udid AreYAe 96-00789R003100140001-2 DRAFT V. GLOSSARY eee Not all the terms defined below are germane to the this Study, but they are included here for complete- ness. In a typical anomalous mental phenomena (AMP) task, we define: ¢ Anomalous Cognition (AC)—A form of information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are absent. That is, some individuals are able to gain access, by an as yet unknown process, to information that is not available to the known sensorial channels. © Receiver—An individual who attempts to perceive and report information about a target. © Agent—An individual who attempts to influence a target system. © Target—An item that is the focus of an AMP task (e.g., person, place, thing, event). © Target Designation—A method by which a specific target, against the backdrop of all other possible targets, is identified to the receiver (e.g., geographical coordinates). ® Sender/Beacon—An individual who, while receiving direct sensorial stimuli from an intended target, acts as a putative transmitter to the receiver. ® Monitor—An individual who monitors an AC session to facilitate data collection. ® Session—A time period during which AC data is collected. ® Protocol—A template for conducting a structured data collection session. ® Response—Material that is produced during an AC session in response to the intended target. © Feedback—After a response has been secured, information about the intended target is displayed to the receiver. © Analyst—An individual who provides a quantitative measure of AC. © Specialty—A given receiver’s ability to be particularly successful with a given class of targets (e.g., people as opposed to buildings). e i —A dream during which an individual becomes aware of the dream. Approved For Release Rp 9G i99/038 pRIARPP96-00789R0031 001 40001 -2
“ a lites Tea ee : -RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 ° d For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-R _____ Approve Psychology and Anomalous Observations The Question of ESP in Dreams Irvin L. Child ABSTRACT: Books by Psychologists Purporting to of- Ser critical reviews of research in Parapsychology do not use the scientific standards of discourse prevalent in psychology. Experiments at Maimonides Medical Center on possible extrasensory perception (ESP) in dreams are used to iltustrate this point. The experi- ments have received little or no mention in some re- views to which they are clearly pertinent. In others, they have been so severely distorted as to give an en- lirely erroneous impression of how they were con- ducted. Insofar as psychologists are &uided by these reviews, they are prevented Jrom gaining accurate in- Sormation about research that, as surveys show, would be of wide interest to Psychologists as well as to others. In recent years, evidence has been accumulating for the occurrence of such anomalies as telepathy and Psychokinesis, but the evidence is not totally con- vincing. The evidence has come largely from experi- ments by psychologists who have devoted their careers mainly to studying these anomalies, but members of other disciplines, including engineering and physics, have also taken part. Some Psychologists not primarily concemed with parapsychology have taken time out from other professional concerns to explore such anomaliés for themselves, Of these, some have joined in the experimentation (c.g., Crandall & Hite, 1983; Lowry, 1981: Radin, 1982). Some have Critically re- viewed portions of the evidence (e.g., Akers, 1984; Hyman, 1985). Some, doubting that the phenomena Could be real, have explored nonrational processes that might encourage belief in their reality (e.g., Ay- eroff & Abelson, 1976). Stull others, considering the evidence substantial enough to justify a constructive theoretical effort, have struggled to relate the apparent anomalies to better established knowledge in a way that will render them fess anomalous (e.g., Irwin, 1979) or not anomalous at all (¢.g., Blackmore, 1984). psychologists differ widely in their surmise about whether the apparent anomalies in question wil] eventually be judged real or illusory; but they appear to agree that the evidence to date warrants serious consideration, Serious consideration of apparent anomalies seCMS an essential part of the procedures of science, Yale University regardless of whether it leads to an understanding of new discoveries or to an understanding of how per- suasive illusions arise. Apparent anomalies—just like the more ‘numerous observations that are not anom- alous—can receive appropriate attention only as they become accurately known to the scientists to whose work they are relevant Much parapsycholopical re- search is barred from being seriously considered be- Cause it is either neglected or misrepresented in writ- ings by some Psychologists—among them, some who have Placed themselves in a Prime position to mediate interaction between parapsychological research and the general body of Psychologica] knowledge. In this article, I illustrate this important general point with a particular case, that of ¢xperimental research on Possible ESP in dreams. It is a case of especially great interest but is not unrepresentative of how psycho- ‘logical publications have treated similar anomalies. The Maimonides Research The experimental evidence Suggesting that dreams may actually be influenced by ESP comes almost en- tirely from a research Program carried out at the Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. Among scientists active in Parapsychology, this pro- gram is widely known and greatly respected. It has had a major indirect influence on the recent course - of parapsychological research, although the great ex- pense of dream-laboratory work has prevented it from being a direct model. None of the Maimonides research was published in the journals that are the conventional media for psychology. (The only possible exception is that a Summary of one study {Honorton, Krippner, & Ull- man, 1972} appeared in convention proceedings of the American Psychological Association.) Much of it was published in the specialized journals of parapsy- chology. The rest was published in psychiatric or other medical journals, where it would not be noticed by many psychologists. Most of it was summarized in Popularized form in a book (UUman, Krippner, & Vaughan, 1973) in which two of the researchers were joined by a popular writer whose own writings are Clearly not in the scientific tradition, and the book departs from the pattern of Scientific reporting that characterizes the Original research reports. November 1985 « American Psychologist , 1219 the Americas Piychological Amociato, Inc. 0003-066 85/3.00.75 -2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001 teh 1985 by Wal 40, No. 11, 1219-1230
How, then, would this research come to the at- tention of psychologists, so that its findings or its errors might in time be evaluated for their significance to the body of systematic observations upon which psy- chology has been and will be built? The experiments at Maimonides were published between about 1966 and 1972. In the years since—now over a decade— five books have been published by academic psy- chologists that purport to offer a scholarly review and evaluation of parapsychological research. They vary in the extent to which they seem addressed to psy- chologists themselves or to their students, but they seem to be the principal route by which either present or future psychologists, unless they have an already established interest strong enough to lead them to search out the original publications, might become acquainted with the experiments on ESP in dreams. I propose to review how these five books have pre- sented knowledge about the experiments. First, how- ever, I must offer a summary of the experiments; without that, my review would make sense only to ‘readers already well acquainted with them. The experiments at Maimonides grew out of Montague Uliman’s observations, in his psychiatric practice, of apparent telepathy underlying the content - of some dreams reported by his patients—observa- tions parallel to those reported by many other psy- chiatrists. He sought to determine whether this ap- parent phenomenon would appear in a sleep labora- tory under controlled conditions that would seem to exclude interpretations other than that of ESP. He was joined in this research by psychologist Stanley Krippner, now at the Saybrook Institute in San Fran- cisco, and a little later by Charles Honorton, now head of the Psychophysical Research Laboratories in Princeton, New Jersey. Encouraged by early findings but seeking to improve experimental controls and identify optimal conditions, these researchers, assisted by numerous helpers and consultants, tned out var- ious modifications of procedure. No one simple de- scription of procedure, therefore, can be accurate for all of the experiments. But the brief description that follows is not, I believe, misleading as an account of what was generally done. The Experimental Procedure A subject would come to the laboratory to spend the night there as would-be percipient in a study of pos- sible telepathic influence on dreams. He or she met and talked with the person who was going to serve as agent (that is, the person who would try to send a telepathic message), as well as with the two experi- menters taking part that night, and procedures were Requests for reprints should be sent to Irvin L. Child at the De- partment of Psychology. Yale University, P.O. Box 114, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-7447. the percipient was a repeater not necessary. When ready explained in detail unl for whom that step ; ‘ to go to bed, the percipient was wired up in the usual way for monitoring of] brain waves and eye move- ments, and he or she had no further contact with the agent or agent's experimenter until after the session was completed. The experimenter in the next room monitored the percipient's sleep and at the beginning of each period of rapid eye movements (REM), when it was reasonably certain the sleeper would be dream- ing, notified the agent by pressing a buzzer. _ The agent was in airemote room in the building, provided with a target picture (and someumes acces- sory material echoing the theme of the picture) ran- domly chosen from a ! of potential targets as the message to be concentrated on. The procedure for random choice of a target from the pool was designed to prevent anyone else from knowing the idenuty of the target. The agent djd not open the packet con- taining the target until isolated for the night (except for the one-way buzzer communication). Whenever signaled that the percipient had entered a REM pe- riod, the agent was to cdncentrate on the target, with the aim of communicating it telepathically to the per- cipient and thus influencing the dream the percipient was having. The percipient was oriented toward trying to receive this message. But of course if clairvoyance and telepathy are both ible, the percipient might ° have used the former—that is, might have been pick- ing up information directly from the target picture, without the mediation df the agent’s thoughts or ef- forts. For this reason, the term general extrasensor’ perception (GESP) would be used today, though the researchers more often the term telepathy. Toward the approximate end of each REM pe- nod, the percipient wasiawakened (by intercom) by the monitoring experimnenter and described any dream just experienced (with prodding and question- ing, if necessary, though the percipient of course knew in advance what to do on each awakening). At the end of the night’s sleep, the percipient was interviewed and was asked for impressions about what the target might have been. (The interview was of course double- blind; neither percipien nor interviewer knew the identity of the target.) The dream descriptons and morning impressions and associations were recorded and later transcribed. The original 2 mu reports and the popular book both present a number of very striking similar- iues between passages in the dream transcripts and the picture that happened to be the night’s target. These similarities merit attention, yet they should in themselves yield no sense of conviction. Perhaps any transcript of a night's dr striking similarity to any ming contains passages of icture to which they might be compared. The Maliponides research, however, consisted of carefully pla ned experiments designed ar 1220 a oproved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDPS6007896031 0014 00E-Fh2!08%s!
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 to permit evaluation of this hypothesis of random similarity, and I] must now turn to that aspect. Results To evaluate the chance hypothesis, the researchers obtained judgments of similarity between the dream content and the actual target for the night, and at the same time obtained judgments of similarity between the dream content and each of the other potential targets in the pool from which the target had been selected at random. The person judging, of course, had no information about which picture had been randomly selected as target; the entire pool (in du- plicate) was presented together, with no clue as to which picture had been the target and which ones had not. That is, in the experimental condition a picture was randomly selected from a pool and concentrated on by the agent, and in the control condition a picture was left behind in the pool. Any consistent difference between target and nontarget in similarity to dream content, exceeding what could reasonably be. ascribed to chance, was considered an apparent anomaly. The data available for the largest number of ses- sions came from judgments made by Judges who had no contact with the experiment except to receive (by mail, generally) the material necessary for judging (transcripts of dreams and interview and a copy of the target pool). For many sessions, judgments were also available from the dreamer, he or she, of course, made judgments only after completing participation in the experiment as dreamer (except in some series where a separate target pool was used for each night and the dreamer’s judgments could be made at the end of the session). For many sessions, judgments were made for the dream transcripts alone and for the total transcript including the morning interview; for con- sistency I have used the latter, because it involved judges who had more nearly the same information as the subjects. The only form in which the data are available for all series of sessions is a count of hits and misses. If the actual target was ranked in the upper half of the target pool, for similarity to the dreams and in- terview, the outcome was considered a hit. If the actual target was ranked in the lower half of the pool, the outcome was considered a miss. The hit-or-miss score is presented separately in Table | for judges and for subjects in the first two data columns. Where infor- mation is not supplied for one or the other, the reason is generally that it was impossible for the researchers to obtain it, and for a similar reason the number of cases sometimes varies.! * Of course, usable judgments could not be obtained from the subject in precognitive sessions, because at the time of judging he or she would already know what the target had been. For Line F, the single subject was unable to give the extra time required for Judging, and for Line O ome of the four subjects failed to make Each data row in Table J refers to one segment of the research, and segments for the most part are labeled as they were in the table of Uliman et al. (1973, Pp. 275-277). Segments that followed the general procedure I described—all-night sessions, with an agent concentrating on the target during each of the percipient’s REM periods—are gathered together in the first eight lines, A through H (in five of these seg- ments, all but A, C, and H, a single percipient con- tinued throughout a series, and in four of these the Percipient was a psychologist). Other types of segments are presented in the rest of the table. Lines 1, J, and K summarize precognitive sessions; here the target was not selected until after the dreaming and interview had been completed. The target consisted of a set of Stimuli to be presented directly to the percipient after it had been selected in the morning. Lines L and M Tepresent GESP sessions in which the percipient's dreams were monitored and recorded throughout the night, but the agent was attempting to transmit only before the percipient went to sleep or just after, or sporadically. Line N refers to a few clairvoyance ses- sions; these were like the standard GESP sessions ex- cept that there was no agent (no one knew the identity of the target). Finally, Line O reports on some GESP sessions in which each dream was considered sepa- rately, these formed a single experiment with four percipients, comparing nights involving a different target for each REM period with nights involving re- peated use ofa single target. Regardless of the type of session (considering the five types I have described), each session fell into one of two categories: (a) pilot sessions, in which cither a new dreamer or a new procedure was being tried out; these appear in lines H, K, and N, or (b) sessions in an experimental series, planned in advance as one or more sessions for each of two or more subjects, or as a number of sessions with the same dreamer through- out. Most of the researchers’ publications were de- voted to the results obtained in the experimental se- ries, but the results of the pilot sessions have also been briefly reported. A glance at the score columns for judges and for subjects is sufficient to indicate a strong tendency for an excess of hits over misses. If we average the outcome for judges and for subjects, we find that hits exceed misses on every one of the 15 independent lines on which outcome for hits and misses differs. (On Line E. hits and misses occur with equal frequency.) By a simple sign-test, this outcome would be significant beyond the 0.0001 level. I would not stress the exact value here, for several reasons. There was no advance judgments. In a few of the pilot sessions (Lines H, K. and N) only the subject's judgment was sought, and in some sessions only that of onc or more judges; in a few the mean judges’ rating was neither a hit nor a miss but exacuy at the middie. ei prt November 1985 + American Psychologist 122) Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 . ° Tabie 1 Summary of Maimonides Results on Tendency for Dreams to Be Jud Than Like Nontargets in Target Pool Y ged More Like Target ‘Series tit Mins oat Miss Judges Subjects Eources Sa Sree GESP: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; agent “transmitting/’ during each REM period A. 1st screening 7 5 10 2 z= 0.71" z= 183° B. 1st Erwin 5 2 6 1 z= 2.53" z= 1.90? C. 2nd screening 4 8 9 ‘3 z= -.25° z= 17 DO. Posin 6 2 6 2 Z™ 1.05° Z™= 1.05° E. Grayeb 3 5 5 3 z= - 63° z= 0. F. 2nd Erwin 8 fe) f= 4.93° G 6 2 8 0 t= 2.81¢ t= 2.744 . Van de Castle H. Pilot sessions 53 14 42 22 z= 4.20 —_— SO = 2, Ullman, Krippner, & Fetdstein (1966) Uliman et al. (1966) Ullman (1969) Utiman (1969) Ullman, Krippner, & Vaughan (1973) Ultiman & Krippner (1969) Krippner & Uliman (1970) re Ullman et al. (1973) Precognition: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; target experience next day {. Ist Bessent 7 1 t=2.81° J. 2nd Bessent 7 1 t= 2.27* K. Pilot sessions ‘2 fe) z= 0.67 GESP: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; agent active only at L. Sensory bombard- 8 (a) 4 4 z= 3.17° Z = 0.00° ment M. Grateful Dead 7 5 8 4 z= 0.615 z=0.81 Krippner, Ullman, & Honorton (1971) Krippner, Honorton, & Uliman (1972) Ullman et al. (1973) beginning or sporadically _Uliman, Masters, & Houston (1971) i . Honorton, & Uliman (1973) Clairvoyance: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; concealed target known to no one N. Piot sessions 5 3 4 5 Z= 0.98" z=0.00° Ullman et al. (1973) GESP: Single dreams 105 98 74 79 z= 0.63". Honorton, Krippner, & Parise Uliman (1972) Fr treme: ta ce Sst Se nar al rea pcs oes neh laboratory reports were also * Ratings. ° Rankings. * Score (count of hits and misses). plan to merge the outcomes for judges and subjects. Moreover, the various series could be split up in other ways. Although I think my organization of the table iS very reasonable (and I did not notice this outcome i constructed), it is not the until after the table was to vary great! dreams—Line O—suggest Other extreme, some separ impressive. | will next co mately evaluate the relati organization selected by Uliman et al. (1973); their table, if evaluated statistically in this same way, would not yield so striking a result. What is clear is that the tendency toward hits rather than misses cannot rea- sonably be ascribed to chance. There is some system- atic—that is, nonrandom—+-source of anomalous re- semblance of dreams to target. Despite its breadth, this “hitting” tendency seems y in strength. The data on single no consistency. At the te lines of the table look sider how we may legiti- Statistical significance of 1222 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDPOS-UO7SYRGOST OUT AONG ICE