Phmm&J&Jto
001 60001 -0
111 PROGRESS TO DATE
This section describes the progress to date for each of the sub-tasks listed under items 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 (basic
and applied research and research methodology, respectively).
The section numbering corresponds to the
numbering in the Statement of Work.
6.2 Basic Research
6.2.1
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) Investigations
From 8 through 22 September 1991, the first of a three-part MEG investigation was carried out using
receivers from a variety of populations. Details of the protocol may be found in a separate document,
which has been approved by the Scientific Oversight Committee (SOC).
1 *
It is beyond the scope of this
report to describe the protocol in detail; however, we provide a brief overview here.
Each of twelve receivers contributes ten blocks of data. Each block consists of ten two-minute runs each
of which contain approximately 100 remote and 100 pseudo stimuli. Each block of data is accompanied
by a control block of equal length during which the conditions are identical to the experimental block;
however, no receiver is present under the MEG. The dependent variable is the average effect size of the
RMS relative phase shift (i.e., prestimulus to poststimulus) of the dominant alpha rhythm.
Table 1 shows the results in the experimental condition for the first six receivers. The shaded receiver
number indicates those that were specified a priori as being among the formal participants. The average
effect size, the total number of stimuli and the p-value, which was determined by Monte Carlo tech-
niques, are shown as 1, N, and p, respectively. The differences between the remote and pseudo stimuli
are shown as t-scores with df degrees of freedom and an associated p-value ofp.
Thble 1.
Preliminary Results for the Experimental Condition
Remote Stimuli
Pseudo Stimuli
t(RS-PS)
df
¥
P
Receiver
E
N
*
P
E
N
*
P
WMIH
0.110±0.053
578
0.74
0.050±0.071
575
24.10
1.615
7.24
IBIalClBB
0.086±0.059
577
1.94
0.056±0.032
576
8.95
0.970
18.03
172
0.081±0.052
445
5.86
0.030±0.037
431
20.66
1.596
8.07
m
0.009±0.033
449
38.82
-0.038±0.049
468
78.04
1.600
8.04
S—
0.0002±0.014
449
49.33
—0.043±0.0 11
476
99.99
4.920
0.13
041
-0.080±0.037
414
98.55
— 0.069±0.047
481
92.57
-0.376
63.99
0.057±0.028
2053
1.81
0.011±0.027
2095
34.43
2.415
2.61
* Times 10
* References may be found at the end of this document.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0031 001 60001-0
phd«wftvwib|ftra
001 60001 -°
We see in Tkble 1, that fotmal receivers 708 and 308 produced individually significant results in the absolute
magnitude of the effect size (i.e., compared to zero). The totals shown in Table 1 do not include the data
from receivers 172 or 041, but do account for 45% of the expected data from the remaining receivers.
Nonetheless, trends are evident. Averaged over the formal participants, the absolute effect size is sig-
nificant (i.e.,/? < 0.018) and the difference between remote and pseudo stimuli is significant (i.e., t =
2.415, df = 6,p< 0.026).
Table 2 shows the same data for the control blocks (i.e., no receiver present).
Thble 2.
Preliminary Results for the Control Condition
Receiver
|
Remote Stimuli
Pseudo Stimuli
t(RS-PS)
df
P*
E
N n
£
N
*
P
-0.010±0.037
573
60.67
0.034±0.036
588
17.05
-1.906
95.35
mm
-0.020±0.031
573
73.01
-0.006±0.030
588
57.54
0.726
75.59
172
-0.004±0.036
476
58.61
0.076±0.056
470
5.46
-2.394
97.32
—
0.053±0.061
462
19.14
0.020±0.055
466
35.58
0.796
22.80
illlll
0.112±0.020
436
10-6
0.014±0.067
500
41.70
2.800
1.55
041
0.026±0.039
427
25.22
0.023±0.045
441
30.61
0.118
45.47
IB
0.027±0.030
2044
17.99
0.015±0.009
2142
38.83
0.779
23.29
* Times 10
The totals are for the formal participants only. The average absolute effect size and the difference be-
tween remote and pseudo stimuli are well within mean chance expectation.
Thble 3 shows the comparison between the experiment and control conditions.
The differences are
shown as t-scores with their associated p-values for the remote and pseudo stimuli, respectively. Re-
ceivers 708 and 308 show individually significant differences between the experiment and control condi-
tion for remote stimuli, and a trend is evident for the combined data of the formal participants (i.e., t =
1.464, df=6,p< 0.233). The combined result for the pseudo stimuli is within mean chance expectation
(i.e., r = -0.314, df=6,p< 0.618).
Table 3.
Comparison between Experiment and Control Conditions
Receiver
Remote Stimuli
Pseudo Stimuli
t(E-C)
df
P’
t(E-C)
df El
;
• I-
4.592
8 son
0.448
33.28
'
•
:
' BBS
'
3.526
0.39
3.161
0.67
172
2.701
1.77
-1.359
88.86
* Times 10
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0031 001 60001-0
001 60001-0
Table 3.
(continued)
Comparison between Experiment and Control Conditions
Receiver
Remote Stimuli
Pseudo Stimuli
t(E-C)
df
*
P
t(E-C)
df
+
P
mm
-1.263
87.32
-1.580
91.73
|BM
-9.273
99.99
-1.681
92.87
041
-3.946
~6~
99.62
-2.794
98.43
BH
1.464
23.29
-0.314
61.81
* Times 10
We have collected and analyzed 15% of the total expected data. With a small sample it is difficult to
speculate about the final result; however, if the trends shown in Thbles 1-3 continue, then we can expect
to replicate the earlier MEG result. Additionally, the new result would provide circumstantial evidence
that a technical error may have occurred in the original study. We believe that we may have mislabeled
remote and pseudo stimuli for one half of all of the data in the original study. This would account for the
overall significant result for the pseudo stimuli in that study.
The absolute magnitude of the effect size resulting from the neuromagnetic response to remote stimuli
is consistent with a “medium-sized” behavioral phenomenon according to accepted definitions.2
6.2.2
Data Patterns/Correlations
6.2.2.1 AC/Target Feature Correlations
We have reviewed our standard static target pool of 100 National Geographic magazine photographs
and a set of 30 clips of popular video movies and documentaries and analyzed them with regard to the
total change of Shannon entropy (AS). The complete details of that analysis can be found in the techni-
cal protocol, which is pending approval from the SOC. 3
We identified eight clusters of static targets. Each cluster is comprised of photographs of near-constant
AS, but the
clusters are
significantly
different from each
other.
From these
eight
clusters, we
constructed ten packets of five targets each. The targets within a packet were drawn from the same
entropy cluster; however, they were selected on the basis of visual dissimilarity to provide a basis for
visual rank ordering in the analysis of the AC data.
We identified four clusters of dynamic targets. Each cluster is comprised of video clips of near-constant
AS, but the clusters are significantly different from each other. From these four clusters, we constructed
four packets of five targets each. The targets within a packet were drawn from the same entropy cluster;
however, they were selected on the basis of visual dissimilarity to provide a basis for visual rank ordering
in the analysis of the AC data.
Figures 1 and 2 show the cluster diagrams for static and dynamic targets.
In both cluster diagrams, only
the selected targets are shown with their associated AS, and dashed boxes indicate the cluster boundaries.*
Targets that were not included in the analysis packets are indicated by truncated cluster diagrams.
* Because two different technologies were used to digitize the static and dynamic targets, the scale ofAS is not accurate between
static and dynamic targets. This scale factor does not affect the relative clustering and the differences will be normalized before
formal analysis of the AC begins.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0031 001 60001-0
prélRRR@HetbG Rial ¥eleesrcR OATHS fl NRA? frd99GR9ROO3100160001-0 De kt eee wee eee ew ee ew oe (siiq) so8ersay Jo sousIagIG Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100160001-0 Figure 1. Cluster Diagram for Static Targets
Ph^ftRfft^lbiftra
001 60001 -0
62.2.2 Experiments Testing AC/Tkrget Feature Correlations
Eight individuals will participate in an experiment that is scheduled to begin in early February. Each
receiver will participate in 40 trials that will be counter-balanced between sender and no sender condi-
tions and static and dynamic targets. The trials will be conducted remotely and will be unmonitored.
The AC responses will be sent by facsimile to the principal investigator, and will be analyzed using the
standard rank-order technique.
6.22.3 Geomagnetic Activity Correlations to AC
Background.
Persinger, Thrt, Krippner, and others have reported an association between AC perfor-
mance and indices of geomagnetic field (GMF) fluctuations. This work has shown that both anecdotal
reports of spontaneous AC, as well as higher-scoring laboratory AC trials, tend to occur at times of rela-
tively low GMF activity. The published evidence is not entirely compelling. The anecdotal AC data are
contaminated to an unknown extent with confounding factors of reporting bias, timing errors, and the
difficulty of establishing the veracity of such reports post hoc. The retrospective studies of laboratory
AC data, while largely free of these problems, have demonstrated only small correlations to GMF in-
dices. There is, however, increasing interest in the possibility of biological effects of small amplitude
magnetic field variations. Recent work has shown that melatonin and serotinin levels are modulated by
GMF activity both in vivo and in vitro. Other research is exploring the physics of possible mechanisms
whereby low-amplitude magnetic field variations could interact with cells.
Anomalous Cognition.
To investigate the relationship between scores in laboratory AC experiments
and GMF fluctuations, we are combining various experimental databases.
Currently, we have as-
sembled a database of approximately 1000 free-response AC trials from several laboratories. There is a
very small (i.e., q = —0.05, p < 0.09) correlation between trial scores and GMF fluctuations in the ex-
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0031 001 60001-0