Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT
Introduction
As parapsychological testing procedures produce successful results, they attract
Increasingly sophisticated levels or criticism, including criticism of the security
aspects of the system.
Safeguards against fraud or deviation from protocol are often
challenged, with regard U) researchers as well as participants.
For participants, this is especially true for protocols that involve very few
individuals, already regarded as talented, including special sender-receiver pairs, or
those that fonts on dramatic effects, such as macro*PK- Many parapsychologists
deliberately chose to avoid gifted individuals and telepathy procedures, because they
wished to escape the inevitable suggestions of fraud that would lively follow positive
results. As Morris (1987), has argued, protocols that emphasize few participants and
dramatic effects ore regarded as ideal by those who wish to avoid the uoise and
uncertainty produced by weak results and the need for statistical inference.
Researchers who rely on such protocols ore more likely to draw strong inferences
from them, and may find that their results ate aitiaclive lu die media.
Ills
unfortunate., Therefore, that such dramatic effects are also regarded as ideal for the
psuedopsychic, the participant intending to cheat if given the opportunity. Most
effects developed ovei the years within the magic community tend to be dramatic.,
because they are easily noticed and are therefore more impressive, as well as
entertaining.
In general, The. more participants involved in a study the less litely deception
is, as one would need to posit increasingly complex collusion among different
individuals.
Process-oriented research also mitigates against deception, as the internal
pswems of results would need to be produced fraudulently as well. This is true
especially for individual differences cITcets, where those with some trails do better
than others despile conditions being equal (e.g. Palmer,
1 977).
F.ven here It could be
argued that if some participants produce Lake results and others don't, than any
characteristics held in common by the fakes will be found to be correlated with psi
success.
Anil
i f many participants are. intending to produce fraudulent results but
differ in personal characteristics, it could be argued that certain characteristics might
still emerge as correlated with success because those who possess them (such as
extroversion), will be better able to negotiate weakened procedures. Once again, with
larger population sampler such possibilities become increasingly unlikely unless the
participants aie all drawn fruin the same tightly knit group. This poses a problem,
because many investigators may not have the necessary resources to conduct larger
studies and/or may not be able to locate enough participants capable of the level of
performance that would hot desired for effective proccss-oriented research. Thus, it is
important to employ procedures designed to minimize the likelihood of participant
fraud-
A second area of security concerns precautions against experimenter fraud or
deviation from intended procedure. This is a serious consideration primarily for
protocols dial employ a single experimenter and where fraud would likely to pass
unnoticed by others connected with the study, both colleagues and participants.
Experimenter fraud is of less concern with co-experimenter procedures, where
different sessions are conducted by different experimenters, and where independent
replications exist When considering experimenter fraud it should be noted that
motivation can go in both directions. One may wish to get good results ot keep a
program alive, obtiiin more funding and prestige, etc., especially if one is persuaded
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT
that the effect is really there, although it is 'shy and currently eluding detection.
People who believe no one else will obtain the same results presumably are toss lilcnly
m fsVe. outcomes since their own results will be called into question by the failure of
others. On the other hand, it could be argued that some researchers may be motivated
to produce chance results since Lhuy would Lhen be regarded by many as excellent
scientists, who are doing a fair evaluation of the phenomena but using
methodologically superior procedures, providing an important public service in a
difficult area. This might tv, tnut as wp.11 for researchers who do not expect to get
good results but suddenly find the results starting to be positive, and who arc thus
threatened with the likelihood that their rigorous colleagues will regard them as
fraudulent or ai least incompetent, and will regard them as having been closet
true
believers" all along. Thus, individual researchers may their motives questioned and
be undei suspicion of fraud regardless of their results. This Is more likely ai earlier
stages of research when consistent patterns of findings among researchers have not
yet emerged. Such accusations, even when indirect and merely implied, may sei ve to
damage a
lint*, of research, by casting unwarranted aspersions upon a researcher. This
may thus change the social dynamics of future research attempts in ways that might
reduce the likelihood of replication and extension of findings.
Given the possibility of attribution of fraud or procedural deviation, ideally one
would wish to employ procedures that eliminate these, without hopelessly
constraining die procedures ui those that have no real ecological validity and for
which one would have little reason to expect success.
If the procedure's virtues could
easily be made obvious to all potential critics, all involved may be mots able to relax,
enjoy their participation in the study, and feel confident that whatever results emerged
would not lead to unfounded accusations.
In practice such perfection is undoubtedly
impossible and can only be appioxiuiateiL The most effective solution, in
parapsychology as well as other research, is natural replication and extension, with
ninny participants and researchers involved. Dut it is also important and useful to
have procedures as well safeguarded as possible even at early stages, for several
reasons:
1) as a sign ot general competence;
2) to minimize unfair accusations;
3) to
help all concerned feel comfortable with the way the results are going at various
stages of the study; 4) to provide conditions that will not need to be altered
substantially in later stages, following reasonable criticism of earlier studies;
5) to
discourage fraudulent individuals ftom participating and wasting researchers valuable
lime;
6) to encourage others to feel confident in replication attempts; and 7) to
encourage potential sources of funding to feel confident that their funds will be
intelligently spent.
In the remainder of the paper wo will consider the autoganzfeld procedure
currently inusc at Edinburgh University as an example of attempts to confront these
issues nsing a procedure. Thai has received considerable praise and criticism in the
course of its development.
Development
The automated ganzfeld system of the Kocstlcr Chair of Parapsychology at
Edinburgh University is a computer bused system that provides automatic data
recording, highly effective shielding against sensory cues, and resistance to both
subject and experimenter fraud. The program is run on a 33MHz 80380DX
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT
computer, equipped with a 210 MB fixed disk, 8 MB DRAM, four RS 232 serial
ports, an 80387 numeric coprocessor, and a super VGA monitor. The target
presentation system is an NEC PC/VCR, a frame-accurate NTSC videocasseue
recorder equipped with an RS 232 serial interface. AH VCR functions are controlled
by computet software, and video, audio and computer graphics ant mined tn the
appropriate rooms (sender, receiver, or experimenter), through computer control.
The system at Edinburgh was originatly conceived by Chuck Honorton, re-
designed by Dean Ratlin anti Rnhin Taylor ro Improve security features and sensory
shielding, and initially programmed and documented by Dean Rodin. For a
description of the first operational system at Edinburgh, see Morris, el al. 1993.
Additional security features and sensory shielding have been implemented by Kathy
Dalton, who also performed the necessary up-grading of programming and
documentation. Cuusullatiuus from Richard Wiseman were of great help in
improving security measures, and Deborah Delanoy provided helpful insights in the
early conception of the automated ganzfeld security. Bob Morris was involved in all
stages of development.
Laboratory Layout
The Video Ganzfeld laboratory consists ot tour rooms, shown in Figure 1, and
labelled as RECEIVER (R), EXPT (E), VIDEO (V), and SENDER (S).
Receiver
R's room is double walled, double-doored, eiectromagnctically and acoustically
insulated.
It attenuates airborne sounds between R’s and S’s rooms by a minimum of
60 dB and a maximum of 100 dB over the audio spectrum (50 Hz to 8000 Hz,
Madftenzic, 1992).
Some very low Ifequency vibrations can be felt inside R’s room
if people in the Experimenters room jump up and down, and faint noises can heard.
When R is wearing the headphones, listening to white noise, and sitting in the
reclining chair (i.e., in ganzfeld stimulation), R’s ability to hear any airborne sounds
or vibrations originating in the experimental suite is substantially reduced.
In any
event no sound or vibration can be beard or felt in R's room that originated from S’s
room.
Experimenter
E’s room is adjacent to R’s.
It contains the computer that controls the
audio/video target presentation, audio mixing equipment, and other as.sorre.cl
audio/video hardware (shown m detail in Figure 2).
Video Room
The video room is double walled, electromagnetically and acoustically
insulated, and contains the target presentation system.
This consists of two NEC PC-
VCRs, which are computer-controlled NTSC-iutmat video tape recorder/players.
One PC-VCR is used only to send the target clip to S; the other is used to play the
four judging clips to R. No sound from the VCR's can be detected outside the room
when the doors at e closed.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT
Sender
S is placed in a room located about 25 meters, and thiuugh four doora, from R.
S’s nwm Is nor. acoustically or electromagneticaily shielded. The TV monitor which
conveys the target material in S's room is positioned in the far comer away from ihc
door, with a five foot partition between it and the door, effectively shielding against
any extraneous light or color from the monitor being viewed through any cracks
around or under the door. The sound amplifier is similarly positioned, and all suumls
to the iouiu are conveyed through the headphones.
This ensures that no airborne
sounds or vibrations can be heard outside of the senders room through the area around
the door. Thus, anyone standing or lying outside the senders room door cannot see or
hear the display to the sender. The skylight pictured in S's room is completely
covered by an opaque dork green window shade.
Additionally, new locks have been
installed on S's door, with ouly research personnel actively involved in the. ongoing
studies having access to the keys.
nwsirfe wall
stairs down
25 meters
window
experimental suite
skylight
Figure
1. Laboratory layout.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT
EXPERIMENTER
VIDEO ROOM
Figure 2. Audio, virion, and digital communications layout. This design isolates the
audio and video (a/v) paths for S and R/E to avoid introducing sensory cues. The
only direct connection between S's and R's a/v systems is the ornput of the audio
mixer into the inpul of the S audio mixer.
Hardware
The automated ganzfeld system at the Koestler Chair uses the following system
hardware:
• 2 NF.C PC-VCRs (NTSC video format)
• 3 NTSC video monitors (R, S, E)
•
1 Technics stereo cassette tape recorder (for rhn monwrion & judging)
•
1 Realistic stereo cassette tape recorder (for playing relaxation instructions
and white noise)
• 2 imciopliunex (clip-on for R, handhold for E)
• 2 Realistic four-channel stereo mixers
• 2 Realistic stereo audio amplifiers
• 3 headphones
•
1 MJN brand 33MHz 8U386DX computer equipped with a 21 0 MB fixed disk,
8 MB DRAM, four RS 232 serial ports, 80387 numeric coprocessor, super
VGA monitor, and prinrer
•
1 red incandescent bulb and flexipose lamp
• audio cassette tape with relaxation Lustiuctioas & whice. noise
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT
Software
The program runs under a combination of Microsoft Visual Basic 1.0 and
Windows 3.1/DOS 5. and is passworded. The program produces a rtarafile during
each session which is stored to both the hard drive and a floppy disk, and is sent for
immediate printout to the printer at session conclusion.
All target presentations. VCR
video and audio signals, as well as computer graphics, are computer-controlled. The
target presentation system involves two separate NEC PC/VCR's, which are frame
accurate NTSC vidcoctisscttc recorders equipped with RS 232 serial inletfaces.
Security measures
The automated gan?Xe]d pioccdure developed ai PRl, hy Hononon and
colleagues is widely recognized as one ot the soundest methodologies in
parapsychology, However, it has not been without its criticisms.
Naturally, any
replication atiempL uf complex studies, such as those carried out at the PRL
laboratories, must take into account the advantages and disadvantages encountered in
those studies, and while capitalizing on the former, must attempt to eliminate or
minimize the tatter. We have attempted to evaluate these criticisms m our own wort;
at the Koesiler Chair, and will address those issues here. The main criticisms of the
earlier automated ganzfeld work (e.g., Morris, et al, 1993) have been:
(a) Possible subliminal sound leakage to the receiver,
(b) Repeated playing of the target tape during sending might alter it physically
such as to provide a .subtle am,
(C) Sounds from the VCR might provide cues to the experimenter about which
clip was being played as target
(ct) Sound leakage, from the target room to experimenter might provide cues, if
senders are noisy,
(e) There could be a complex electronic signalling system between sender and
receiver, and,
(0 Deliberate experimenter fraud.
In the case of criticism (a), possible subliminal sound leakage to the receiver,
the audio systems, as well as the video systems, are clecuouically isolated from each
other. The only direct connection between S's and R’s audio or video systems is the
output of the audio mixer into the output of the S audio mixer.
See Figure 2. The
technicians from the Elecuoiucfi/Audiu-Yisual department at University of Edinburgh
have electronically cheeked all such connections, following recommended procedures
(all sound levels at upper limit), and have verified that no such leakage exists in our
facility. These checks were conducted prior to the beginning of Ihe present ganzfeld
study underway, and again at approximately the midway point
In response to (b), that repeated playing of the taigcL la|w during sending might
altet
it physically such as to provide a subtle cue, our system utilizes two separate
tapes for sending and judging, which are housed in two separate NEC PC/VCR's, and
totally under computcr-controL Two separate VCR's arc used, and .sensnrtally
isolated in a separate mom away from E, in response to a theoretical sensory cue (c),
that sounds from the VCR might provide cues to the experimenter about which dip
was being played as target, allowing E to guess S’s target, clip.
The. theoretical cue
may work as follows:
it is possible, although unlikely, that by E hearing S’s VCR
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT
rewinding or fast-forwarding The video tape before it begins to play, that E can get a
hint about which target pool, and possibly which specific target clip, the VCR is
playing. Such a cue would obviously bias E towards curtain targets nr a particular
target.
F. might then Inadvertently transfer this bias to R during the judging process,
and this is clearly unacceptable.
Note this sensory cue Is only possible if
*
•
H is familiar with the locations of the target pools on the video tape,
•
E knows the order of the clips wiltdu each pool.
•
F. pays attention to how long the VCR rewinds or fast-l'orwards, or
perhaps notices the video tape counter, and,
•
die video tape always begins from the same location (e.g., it always
rewinds to the beginning of the tape at the beginning of each session).
To eliminate these potential cues in our facility, we have taken Lite following
steps in our procedure. The VCR’s have been placed in a separate non-adjoining,
sound attenuated room in the experimental suite, behind two doors.
It has been
verified by research personnel dial auy video tape movement sounds cannot be heard
in the experimental suite or in E’s room. The digital tape counters have been
completely blocked from view from inside the housing of the VCR. which also
effectively removes any possibility of accessing control of the VCR through the
remote control.
The front control panels are inaccessible, being enclosed by the metal
housing unit for the VCR's. The video cEps themselves are all exactly one minute
long, eliminating any cueing from The. lengih of time the clip is played, even if
they
could be heard. The order of the clips within each target pool is fixed by the recorded
order on the video tape, but the order in which Uiey arc played during the judging
process is always freshly randomized for each session.
Thus, fj s that are not iamiliar
with the order on the video tape will never know the actual target sequence within
each pool. The sender video tape is never rewound to the beginning of the tape, but
starts up where the tape stopped at the end of the last session.
It has been verified by
research personnel that no sound can be heard from the video room, and llie coiupulci
program is written in ensure Thai no timing cues (c.g. tape, rewind times, etc.) are
available to the experimenter, thus, E cannot receive any information regarding tape
movement The R and S video tapes are locked into die two VCR’s via die specially
designed moral homing unit, with a brittle plastic security tab, eliminating the
possibility that E may surreptitiously retrieve one or both of the tapes and view all of
the targets to learn theii position ou the tape. This also prevents other forms of
potential fraud, such as substituting S’s actual video with a specially prepared sham
tape with only one target repeatedly recorded throughout the tape. By doing this. E
could produce fraudulent hits if (a) F knows how to read digital addresses on the real
S video tape, (b) has access to another PC-VCR to dub the digital addresses to the
sham tape and, (c) can retrieve the sham tape and substitute the real one ar the end of
each session.
Another concern we have attempted to rectify is that of (d), that sound leakage
from the target room to experimenter might provide cues, if senders are noisy. As
was nuLed above in the description of both the experimenter and sender's rooms, theso
rooms are separated by some distance (approximately 25 meters), and a small flight
of stairs.
In addition, wc have had our facilities acousdcally evaluated (sound
attenuation between S’s room and the foyer of the experimental suite was above 55dB
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT
from 125Hz on np, and presumably higher for the experimental room itself), and
ventied that even without headphones on, our experimenters could not hear shouts
from the target room.
In addition, there is tut tsleclricst] sensing system connected to
the door of S's room that was designed u> detect the opening of the door by activating
a Hashing red light in E's room. Consequently, if S left the room during the
experiment, E would uisumily be alerted. As an added pmcanrlon, the door into the
experimental foyer is kept locked during sessions. In thB present study currently
underway only laboratory staff are used as senders, who all know to be quiet-
Tn the cast*, of (e), that there could be a complex electronic signalling system
between sender and receiver, we consulted with several security firms in our attempts
to evaluate arid address this.
They coufimred that while we could conceivably do a
greai deal to prevent and detect loiown signalling systems, given the present state of
technology it would be extremely expensive to guard against all available types of
signalling systems. Furthermore, ihr. Technology of such signalling systems is rapidly
expanding and any detection systems would necessarily require continuos, and
expensive, upgrading. Using only laboratory staff as senders is one way of
addressing this, ax is The clRcrrlral sensing system mentioned above to detect any S
leaving the sending room before the proper time. There remains the possibility of a
fixed monitoring system in the sender's xootu. or monitoring or the sender^ mom hy
an accomplice outside of the room. Our present physical circumstances make this
unlikely, as the room is periodically inspected and we monitor the environment
during sessions fur strangers. The layout of the sender's room is designed to prevent
any one standing or lying outside ol' the door to receive any visual or auditory
information about the target clip.
Additionally, such systems involve die co-
operation of the receiver. We currently use each receiver for only one session, thus
meaning that any deliberate fraud by receivers would involve several people.
The last criticism to be addressed is drat uf CO. deliberate experimenter fraud.
We advocate ihe use of multiple experimenters in any automated ganzt'eld
experiments. We are currently using three main experimenters, plus four sendee.
All of the experimenter participate as needed in the role as sender, plus one. other
laboratory staff member. Thus, each session will havo two members of the
experimental team involved. The automated ganzfcld program records session data
nut oidy u> die bard drive, hw also to floppy disk.
This floppy disk is stored m a
secure location by one of the experimenters, and produced before each trial
Immediately after each session, as soon as the cuuiputer has recorded the .session as
completed, mnlTlple copies of the session datafile are printed out. Each experimenter
receives one of these session records, and one is included in the session fdc which,
along with the audio taped subject mentation, is placed in the unit's Security Cabinet.
For more detail on the security precautions involved in accessing the Parapsychology
unit's Security Cabinet, please see Dclanoy, et al, (1993). The session records on
computer disk are compared it) primouK in the. experimenters' possession for
discrepancies before any data are analyzed. A minimum of two experimenters arc
required to sign off on the hand-written record of the pailiuipaub target responses,
which is then included in The subject file with the computer print-out.
in addition to the above security measures, wc have also conducted periodic
randomness chocks cm the program, using a chi square test for numbers solecTed
uniformly at random.
The. interpretation of the RNG output by the program war.
checked by running a series of mini-trials, using the program to generate requests for
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT
targets and conditions, and verifying these as above. These checked were carried out
prior 10 the current study and at intervals throughout. These were conducted not only
by the experimenters in ihe Parapsychology unit, but also by specialists in Artificial
Intelligence and Computer Engineering in the Psychology Depailmcnl. Randomness
checks and program interpretation were found to be within specified parameters.
Example of a Proccss-Oricntcd Autoganzfeld Study
The system described above can easily be tailored in produce a variety of
different experimental conditions, to explore those that work best in general, or best
for specific participant populations.
It can also vary conditions in accordance with
the design of process-oriented studies.
Currently it is being used in a study to
Evaluate the role of the sender.
Although previous autoganzfeld research has always
employed senders (Honorton, et al. 1990). earlier ganzfeld studies have produced
results both with and without scudeis (Hoxiorum, 1985).
The present study employs three conditions, each with 32 participants pre
selected to match the characteristics of earlier autoganzJeld successes as best we
:ould, e.g. aidstic or musical udent, positive auitiide toward psi. and so on. In two
renditions, participants arc introduced to a lab associate who is described as a lielpei
vho may or may not be serving as a sender. Die initial preparation of the receiver
)rocccds as usual. W hen the helper arrives at the target room, the computer system
andumly selects whether the sender stays to send or is asked to leave, and displays
his decision on the monitor screen.
If asked to leave, die sender goes elsewhere in
he building.
In this way receiver and experimenter remain blind as to the sender's
imv.net> until the end of the session. In the third condition, there is always a sender
md all parties know this from the sum
Tn this way we hope to assess the
:ontribution of die physical presence of the sender as well as the psychological effects
>f knowing there is a sender. Only lab personnel are used as senders. The study
; inishes in early June, and the basic results for each of the three conditions will be
< ivailable lor presentation
at. the convention.
Discussion
In our efforts to set up appropriate automated ganzfeld procedures from which
( o attempt replication of Honorton’s successful scries of ganzfeld trials, we feel we
i ;ere moderately successful
In any study undertaken in the ganzfeld the
I sychoiogical comfort and well being of the participant must be taken into account.
1 u studies which du involve receivers bringing in their own sender, tor example, the
i Emote location of the sender's room, which is up a flight of stairs and down a
c onidor, may impart a sense of isolation to the sender, and a sense of being 'cut-off
1 rom that sender for the receiver. Wc see no solution to this while still maintaining
L ic integrity of the protocol.
In addition, there is no direct, line-nf-xight connection
i rilh the sender's room for the experimenter, making it difficult for the experimenter
t > be sure that the sender does not some how de- activate the electronic signalling
c cvice on the door and leave the sending room, possibly in some attempt to
c cnmuunicate with the receiver. We have chosen not to monitor the sender and
r sccivcr rooms via cameras as tills can give participants the feeling that Trig brother' is
s matching' thorn, making thorn feel uncomfortable and self-conscious. Honorton
ii tinsel f cautioned against the use of cameras inside the sender/receivcr rooms
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0