Approved For Release 209 NY REA SS FP yO 789R002200380001-6 NAME: James Press Comments: 1. I do not understand the physics and description of the experimental apparatus. It is outside of my field of expertise. 2, Part C, Analysis, line 5 - It is stated that MANOVA removes the requirement of independent data. This statement could be true depending upon what is really meant. By itself, it strains credibility. The reason is that MANOVA is a statistical procedure designed to analyze experiments with multiple, correlated, response variables. In this sense, the data are dependent, i.e., the response data are dependent. But the vectors of replications must still be independent, as in ANOVA. 3, It strikes me there was no control in the experiment — same subject, simulated conditions, but no transmitter. Recommendation: Yes November 1, 1988 NAME: Brian Skyrms Comments: 1. Fascinating technology and suggestive results from preliminary experiments. Some follow-up should be done, but I don’t think this should be the absolutely highest priority. Recommendation: Yes November 3, 1988 NAME: Phil Sidwell Comments: 1. I believe this project has great merit and should be aggressively pursued. It will be important for you to be able to demonstrate to your clients that currently available signal to noise analytical techniques tease out real RV signals that do exist within a person’s pattern and gain concurrence of such signals/responses existence and presence by recognized authorities in the field of signal analysis. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 NAME: Yervant Terzian Comments: 1. Page 1, paragraph 2 — not flashing or continuous flashing? 2. Page 8, paragraph 2, 9th line - “on dots” - what dots? 3. Page 8 — Stimuli and responses — aren’t all these expected? Although we do not understand the details. A-1l UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 200PRFCE DOSSEPFEG)0789R002200380001-6 4, Page 9, B. 2. - “a viewer responds to a remote stimulus” — what changes for the viewer during stimulus? 5. Page 11 - Results? Relevance clarity. 6. Isolate sender’s and viewer’s apparatus completely — just synchronize messages. 7. Probably not important to use many different “senders” and “viewers,” since they make no obvious decisions. 8. Very interesting work which should continue. 9. Consider changing the “image” to a very “stimulating” “surprising” target to enhance the response -— maybe. 10. Can you run or test the data the experiment in reverse order? That is the “sender” sends message after viewer’s slower response. Any such effect will be “looking into the futurel” Ha! Hal! Recommendation: Yes November 7, 1988 NAME: Mike Wartell Comments: 1. I am troubled by #1 of the two underlying assumptions and need to hear further argument for its adoption. Of course, assumption #2 rests on assumption #1 for its validity. These, in fact, are not really “assumptions,” but are starting points. 2. In the psi protocol, it is not entirely clear how the experiment is conducted especially re “pseudostimuli.” Description needs clarification. 3. If this work is to be continued (and I support continuation), it seems that it would be productive to intensify the “cranial mapping” effort so that effect intensity could be maximized. Failing that, even in conjunction with it, a more convincing analysis of the the data needs to be developed. 4, This approach seems to hold great promise. Exploration in this area should continue. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 NAME: Chris Zarafonetis Comments: 1. Interesting discussion of Magnetoencephalography (MEG) and its potential application to RV studies. 2. Method of approach is good, and outlook for meaningful results appears excellent. A-12 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 209 QDE748A GS FIFA) 00789R002200380001-6 3. Use of MEG will be supplemented with electroencephalograms which together will require protocol review by the SRI-IRB prior to implementation; also IRB approval of the “informed consent” statement. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 NAME: Phil Zimbardo Comments: 1. In general, this is a solid approach, good, well focused exps., “cutting edge” methodology with MEG. 2. Page 5 - Vassy procedure extended should not be described as conditioning. There is no associative pairing of CS + VC that leads to CS —» evoked occipital response. (See my alternate paradigm for utilizing direct versus remote conditioning with MEG recordings.) 3. Page 16 - The ERF-CS does not show sufficient promise to reveal an RV effect when the timeline is drawn against the data. Most subjects show a very weak peak rise or some relative to ERF-US. Need to do only a within-subject analysis of ERF CS/US due to wide individual differences among subjects in ERF versus patterning. 4, Page 17 — With short timing - fast US-ERF onset. 5. Page 38 - Conclusions are reasonable. Good distinction between total power generated by brain of localized power shift. 6. For V372, in future have sessions be shorted to avoid fatigue. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 Response to P. Zimbardo’s Comments: NAME: Edwin May, SRI Response Comments: 1. The final report reflects the changes suggested by the reviewers. Item 3 of Zimbardo’s comments require some discussion. There usually are large individual differences in physiological measurements. What is compelling about the ERF-CS is that the largest spread across all subjects is less than 40 ms—-not a large variation according to the LANL neuroscientists. Even with such a small across-subject variation, however, the report downplays the importance of the candidate response to the remote stimulus. A-13 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6