—i —l —t t wm. Approved For Release po0oiber0e : cin-Ropke-00789R002200670001-4 (U) (3) Cost effectiveness, i.e., individual subject session times should be kept manageably brief to facilitate rapid turnover; this approach would also tend to sustain the subject’s interest in the task, thereby maximizing the potential for success in the screening process. (U) A_ preliminary survey of the extant technology for attaining these objectives indicates that the most feasible option would include a video camera, a video disk recorder, a video monitor, and a MacIntosh computer. The video camera would be used to photograph a variety of target materials for frame-by-frame inclusion on the video disk, Random access to the target photographs would be computer-controlled and therefore very rapid--i.e., on the order of 0.5-second display time. The disk, monitor, and computer would comprise the equipment actually deployed to the screening site. Overall, this equipment is relatively inexpensive, portable, and durable. c. (U) Target Selection Ty, . . . t A wide variety of target materials should be incorporated onto the disk to exercise the full potential range of the Subject’s abilities. Candidate target materials would include photographs drawn from the following categories: (1) natural scenes, (2) ese Ny alphanumerics, (3) technical Sites] . (4) Zener cards, and (5) the Maimonides target set. A selection of dynamic (i.e., moving video) targets has also been suggested.* A small subset of approximately five targets would be selected from each category for inclusion on the disk: this would tend to minimize the potential for deviation from prescribed screening procedures; it would also enable greater standardization for RV performance across the screened population. d. (U) Subject Populations (U) Judicious selection of candidate subject populations is recommended over the less-efficient and more labor-intensive “shotgun” approach. One possible guideline, which has been derived primarily from the observations of RV monitors, is that a certain richness of the subject’s vocabulary may be important for a comprehensive debrief of the RV Signal. This would * (U) This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of target categories: some may be deleted or others may beadded as the mass screening protocol is developed, deployed, and refined. The samecaveat applies to other research items mentioned in this discussion. 24 Approved For Release sokciosiog:cia-RDb96-00789R002200670001-4
—_ Approved For Release ovoiodes : cia-RbPd6-00789R002200670001-4 (U) tend to imply that subjects should be sought out from groups that have members with superior verbal abilities. (U): Other candidate populations might include groups whose members exhibit superior skills in drawing, draftsmanship, or other visual abilities. This approach is suggested ' because pictorial representation is another rich modality for debriefing the RV signal. t A third approach might center on drawing from populations whose members excel at pattern recognition or in the ability to discern a tenuous signal line ina noisy background. a SE en m és mS mn 4q Also subsumed under this category are groups whose members show an aptitude for institutional decision—making--i.e., what might be referred to in the vernacular as "playing hunches." Such groups might include, for example, police detectives, businessmen who make consistently correct decisions in risky or problematical ventures, or individuals with a special proclivity for locating oil. (U) These are but a representative few of the kinds of populations that might be targeted for screening initially. It is anticipated that other promising populations will emerge empirically as the screening system is deployed on a pilot basis. e. (U) Methodology and Deployment (U) Research issues pertaining to screening methodology and deployment fall into two principal categories: (1) manipulation of intra- “Session variables for arriving at the most meaningful and efficient screening procedure, and (2) standardization of inter-session guidelines for deploying that procedure in a variety of settings. The first area focuses primarily on the most profitable use of the hardware, while the second area emphasizes standardization across screening sessions. (U) Primary research issues concerning the design of the optimal screening package include (1) determination of feedback conditions (e.g., whether there should be a “no feedback” target in each screening session), (2) identification of the optimal number of largets per session and their randomization (e.g., whether targets should be presented on a gradient of complexity, or whether they should be randomly selected), and (3) determination of the analysis techniques to be employed (e.g., forced-choice guess by the subject versus detailed verbal and 25 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : ciasrnpad-o07aeR002200670001-4