Approved For Release 2())p4]@^§lSfft}G®-00789R002200380001-6
NAME:
Brian Skyrms
Comments:
1.
The
first experiment
is well-designed and carefully done, as a demonstration of
RV
ability.
Source of noise not really determined.
2.
A tighter protocol.
Future
replications could be made even were
airtight
as
follows:
Give the subject a computer and modem.
Let him call up and establish
link with your computer; type in the two possible targets.
Your computer selects
one and puts the image in video; his computer signals him in
1 minute and he
types in his selection.
This
is logged by your computer and correct selection
is
sent to him.
End
triall
No human here need know anything during the
trial.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
3,
1988
NAME:
Comments:
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
.
7.
.
9.
.
.
.
13.
Yervant Terzian
Page
2, paragraph
1 - Re. Ryzl demonstration - has
it ever been repeated.
Page 2, paragraph
1, line 9 - Re.
“it is possible to increase the single-bit hitting
rate...”
Is this a general statement or applies to
a few cases?
Page
3, second bullet -
(illegible).
Page
3,
B.,
line 4 - typo.
Page
4, 4th bullet - “could begin” - in a few seconds.
Page
4,
5th bullet - “responded verbally” - in a few seconds.
Page 4,
last paragraph,
first sentence - Were the phone calls recorded?
That
is
does the “raw data”
exist?
Page 5 - Are the experimental results available
if one wanted to re-analyze the
data? Were there any trials eliminated, perhaps because of some anomaly of the
protocol?
Page
7, B.
1., paragraph
1 - What
is “exploration phase”? Why not count this
with paragraph 2?
Page
8,
1., paragraph 2 - Vague.
Page
8, Table
1 -
I suspect no
effectl
Possibly insufficient data.
Page
10,
2.
2.
-
“...because he
felt he was nearing an understanding about
internal processes,...”
What does he mean?
Page
14, Figure 3 - Re. 537B peak.
If this means 70 to 80% correct answers for
about 100 trials,
it is important to note!
But for real conclusions lots of further
data
is needed.
Page
14,
first
paragraph
-
“...there
is
a
clear
indication
of...”
But
not
generalization since too few points.
A-20
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 2Q(^M|0^:^l-BWp|-00789R002200380001-6
14.
Page
14,
second
paragraph
-
“...it
represented
a
transition
between
three
dimensional to two dimensional targets.”
Who made this choice?
15.
Page 15, line 3 - “...there is suggestive evidence that V002
is in internal contact
with sources of internal noise.”
Not yeti
16.
Page
18, line 4 - Re. “a significant increase...”
With only 2 points in the data!
64% and 76%.
17.
Page
20, paragraph 2 - Re.
“...it
is
clear that V002 has produced
significant
increases...”
Not really, unless this trend continues.
18.
Page 20, paragraph 3 - Important.
19.
Increase data base to verify “learning curve.”
20.
Use more individual independently.
21.
Record
(tape) the raw data, use data with other individuals,
or better yet with
groups - even the advisory council!
Recommendation:
Yes
November 7,
1988
NAME:
Mike Wartell
Comments:
1.
As pointed out in discussion, the protocols are not pristine; however, the final
results are interesting.
Yet,
I find myself wondering after the final results are in,
“So what, where does this lead?”
Is this a highly personal approach that’s been
encountered and developed, or does
it have some more far reaching use?
2.
Additionally, the question of whether learning has occurred presumes a baseline
knowledge level before learning has occurred.
That is not well shown, and there
are many other variables which might impinge.
There should
also be
a more
extensive
set
of 50
unit
trials
to expand the
data base
and
assure
that
the
“knowledge increase”
is stable.
3.
Discussion indicated that there were even further problems with the protocols
including who was choosing targets.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
3,
1988
NAME:
Chris Zarafonetis
Comments:
1.
This report deals with findings of a protocol involving
1 person who underwent
long-term RV testing.
The subject is well-known for his experience in this field.
The results are striking.
Efforts to reduce or eliminate inadvertent cuing were
carefully made.
2.
One caution - Subject’s name should not appear in report, on viewgraphs,
etc.
(confidentiality, privacy issue).
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4, 1988
A-21
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 2(|^|)gt^95-|fq0§)OO789ROO22OO38OOO1-6
NAME:
Phil Zimbardo
Comments:
1.
Question, Was procedure tape recorded, since
it was all by phone.
Essential for
replication.
2.
Target
selection must be determined by computer,
not by
staff researcher -
eliminate the human source of intervention.
3.
Unclear what page 4 sentence means, that “range of target material was selected
by V002.”
Clarify,
Why necessary.
4.
V002’s
data
are
impressive
and
worth
repeating.
Under more
structured
conditions.
Fixed,
a priori
criteria
for number
trials per day - can be range
(e.g., 3-6).
5.
Do
not
call the obtained
curve
a
learning
curve.
It
is
clearly an enhanced
performance
curve.
But we can n&l infer learning from performance without
additional data that are essential to rule out straight motivation, habituation, etc.
Effects that are non-learning effects (also the decline from trial 250+ to 350+ -
violates any learning changes assumptions).
6.
Why must viewer select target pairs?
He also repeats target pairs - should be
rule against
it.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4,
1988
A-22
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6