!
.-’s r:~\,
r/=|
•
:
^pprcived^or Release 2000/(^0
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 20002^
I
'
CLIENT PRIVATE
O'
II
BACKGROUND
In
a number
of
laboratories
evidence has been obtained
indicating
the
existence
of
an. as -yet -unidentified channel wherein information
is
observed
to couple
from remote electromagnetic
stimuli
to
the human
nervous
system
as
indicated
by physiological
response,
even
though
overt
responses
such
as verbalizations
or key presses provide no evidence
for
such information transfer.
Physiological measures have
included
plethysmographic response
and EEC activity.
>
Kamiya,
Linds ley,
Pribram,
Silverman,' Walter,
and
others have
suggested
that
a whole
range
of .EEG
responses
such
as evoked potentials
(EPS),
spontaneous
LEG,
and.
the contingent negative variation
(CNV)
might
be
sensitive, indicators
of
the detection
of remote
stimuli not mediated
by usual
sensory
processes.
A pilot
study was
therefore undertaken
at
SRI
to
determine whether
EEG activity
could
be used
as
a reliable
indicator
of information trans-
mission between an isoLated
subject
and
a remote
stiirulus.
Following
the earlier work by
others,
we assumed
that perception could
be
indicated
by
such
a measure even
in
the absence
of verbal
or
other
overt
indicators.
With regard
to choice
of
stimulus,
it
should be noted
tnat Silver-
man
and Buchsbaum attempted,
without
success,
to detect
LP
changes
in
a
subject
in response
to
a
single
stroboscopic
flash
stimulus
observed
by another
subject. 6
Kamiya suggested
that because
of
the
unknown, tem-
poral
characteristics
of
the information
channel,
it might.be more
appropriate
to. use repetitive bursts
of
light
to increase
the probability
of detecting information
transfer.
Therefore,
in our
study we
chose,
to use repetitive
light bursts
as
stimuli.
The results,
described
below,
have been reported
in
the
open literature under
the
title "Information
Transfer Under Conditions
of Sensory Shielding," by R. Targ and
H.
Puthoff, Nature
252
,
18 October
1974,
and
reprinted, in
the IEEE Communica -
tions
13,
January,
1975.
In
the
design
of
the
study
it was
assumed
that
the
application
of
remote
stimuli would
result
in responses
similar
to
those
obtained
under conditions
of direct
stimulation.
For
example,
when normal subjects
are
stimulated with
a
flashing
light,,
their EEG
typically
shows
a decrease
in
the amplitude
of
the
resting rhythm and
a driving
of
the brain waves
at
the
fre-
quency
of
the
flashes.
We hypothesized
that
if we stimulated
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 20002-7
;
i
,
,
'
\
f.
-
Li_>
Lid
i\
f"'-
mm
ed For Release 2000/08/
58^ 0
:
CLIENT PRIVATE
CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 20002-7.
one
subject
in
this
manner
(a -putative
sender),
the EEG
of
another
subject
in
a remote -'room with no
flash present
(a receiver),
might
show changes
in’alpha
(9-11 Hz)
activity,
and
possibly EEG driving
similar
to
that
of
the
sender,
either
by means of coupling
to
the
sender's
EEG,
or
by
coupling directly
to
the stimulus.
i
We
informed
our
subject
that
at certain
times
a
light
was
to
be
flashed
in
a
sender's
eyes
in
a distant
room,
and
if
the subject perceived
that
event,, consciously
or uncon-
sciously,
it might be evident
from changes
in his EEG output.
The
receiver was
seated
in
a visually opaque,
acoustically
and electrically
shielded
double-walled
steel room shown
in
Figure
1.
The
sender was
seated' in
a room about
m
from the
•receiver.
f
0*\n
We
initially worked
with
four
female and
two male volunteer
subjects.
These were designated
"receivers."
The senders
were either
other
subjects
or
the
experimenters.
Wc decided
beforehand
to
run
one, or
two sessions
of
trials
each with
each
subject
in
this
selection procedure,
and
to
do
a more
extensive
study with
any
subject whose
results were
positive.
A Grass PS-2 photostimulator .placed 'about
1 m in
front
of
the
sender was
used
to present
flash
trains
of
1.0
s
duration.
The
receiver's
EEG
activity
. from the
occipital region
(Oz),
referenced
to. linked mas told s,
was
amplified with
a Grass
5P-1 preamplifier
and associated
driver amplifier with
a bandpass
of
1-120
Hz.
The EEG data were recorded
on magnetic
tape with
an Amp ex
SP
300
recorder.
On each
trial,
a
tone burst
of
fixed
frequency was presented
to both
sender
and receiver
and
was
followed
in one
second
by
either
a
s
train
of
flashes
or
a null
flash
interval presented
to
the
sender.
Thirty-six such
trials were given
in an experi-
mental
session,
consisting
of
null
trials--no
flashes
following,
the
tone-- 12
trials
of
flashes
at
f.p.s.
and
12 trials
of
flashes
at
f.p.s.,
all
randomly
intermixed,
determined
by entries
from
a
table
of random numbers
.
Each
of
the
trials
generated
an
ll-s EEG epoch.
The
last
s
of
the
epoch was
selected
for
analysis
to minimize
the. desynchronising action
of
the warning
cue.
This
Z|-s
segment was
subjected
to Fourier analysis
on
a
LING
. 8 computer
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 20002-7
r--
r'
i.J
At
'CLIENT PRIVATE
j/ed For Release 2000SQ$/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 200^7
Spectrum analyses
gave
no evidence
of EEC driving
in any
re-
ceiver,
although
in control
runs
the receivers
did exhibit
driving when physically
stimulated with
the
flashes.
But
of
the
six
subjects
studied
initially,
one
subject
(II. H.)
showed
a consistent alpha blocking effect.
We
therefore undertook
further
study with
this
subject.
Data
from seven
sets
of
trials
each were collected
from
this
subject
on. three
separate
days.
This
comprises
all
the data
collected
to
date with
this
subject under
the
test
conditions
described
above.
The
alpha band
was
identified
from average
.spectra,
then scores
of average power
and peak power were
ob-
tained
from individual
trials
and
subjected
to
statistical
analysis..
'Of
our
six
subjects,
II". IT
.
had
by
far
the most monochromatic
EEC
spectrum'.
Figure
shows
an overlay
of
the
three averaged
spectra
from one
of
this
subject's
36-trial
runs,
displaying
changes
in her alpha activity
for
the
three stimulus
conditions.
r
Mean values
for
the average power
and
peak power
for each
of
the
seven experimental
sets
are given
in Table
1,
The
.power measures were
less
in
the
f.p.s.
case
than
in
the
f.p.s.
in
all
seven peak power measures
and
in sik out
of
seven average power
measures..
Note
also
the reduced
effect
in
the case
in which
the
subject was
informed
that
no
sender
was present
(Run
3),.
It
seems
that
overall alpha production
was
reduced
for
this
run
in conjunction with
the
subject's
ex-
pressed
apprehension
about conducting
the experiment without
a
sender..
This
is. in contrast
to
the case
(Run
7)
in which
the
subject was
not
informed.
Siegel's
two-tailed
t
approximation
to
the nonparametric
random!-
zation
test'
was
applied
to
the data from all
sets,
which
in-
cluded
two
sessions
in which
the
sender was
removed.
Average
power
on trials
associated with
the occurrence
of
f.p.s.
was
significantly
less than when
there were no
flashes
(t
-
2.09,
d.f,
=
118,
P < 0.04).
The
second measure,
peak power,
was
also
significantly
less
in
the
f.p.s.
conditions
than in
the null
condition
(t
=
2.16,
d.f.
=
118,
P < 0.03).
The
average response
in
the
f.p.s.
condition was
in
the
same
direction
as
that associated with
f.p.s.,
but
the effect
was
not
statistically
significant.
As
part
of
the experimental protocol
the
subject was
asked
to
indicate
conscious
assessment
for
each
trial
as
to
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 20002-7
7b. T'A
iJ vij
!.
f% Pi!
"¥
\U\A
' Approved For Release 200(^/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001200^7
CLIENT PRIVATE
nr
nrURE 2
OCCIPITAL EFG FREQUENCY SPECTRA, 0 TO 20 Hz, OF ONE SUBJECT (H.H.)
acting as receiver, showing amplitude changes in the 9-1
1 Hz
RAND AS A FUNCTION OF STROBE FREQUENCY
iiluAAl
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 20002-7
Approved For Release 2000/0§^0
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 2000^
CLIENT PRIVATE
D-l
Ed
Pd
H wQ
Eh
Ed
m w
PI
ndw Q
iS
fS
c/i
O <
(J
p-(
'd,
I—
!
u
od
C
S3
Er—
<
M M
PU
to
CM
O'
r-*
O
PJ
Ed
ed
pd
Lu H
Pd
S3 o
lil
is < w
O
>-l o
Pj
fa
<]
Pd
W
Pi W
O O >
W O
Ed
> h
<d
< HU
CP
a
Ed M
b
M
Pi
>-l
o*
Pd
<J H
X
Ed
c/1
,W
<d
•
u
X
^
tJ
q m
X
X
<rj H
P0
u
o
Jr!
X
fl
X
N a
in
(l)
txj
<|
<!
w
r-f
CP
r—l
pt-(.
0)
<
r—l
u
l
Q
H
U
/
w
/
w
/
MD
‘ o
r--
CO
vO
r—l
co
in
0^
LO
i—
i
ON
<f
.
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
CO
o
CM
O
LO
CM
r—
T—
r—l
• r—l
CM
r—l
CM
o
m
o
CM
VO
co
T—
l
uo
O
CO
O
CTs
CM
VO
cn
•
r->
n-
h-
CO
VO
CO
r—l
.
r~
r—l
t—
I
T—
h"-
n*
m
vD
CM
i '
I
.uo
r~.
O'
r>»
T—\
. O
m
CO
n
vO
co
OV
Mt
<]•
r—l
r—l
CO
i—
l
CM
r—l
CO
CM
co
o
CM
00'
co
CO
r—l
vO
r-*.
CM
o
CM
CO
(Mi
CO
co
n
r—l
n
l>
CO
CT>
ON
o
<1*
n
in
n
. o
co
CO
n
n
CM
n
CO
CO
i—i
•
CM
co
CO
o
.. I—
n
v.O
ctn
vO
a>
O-l:
n
n
co
•H
a
/•—
\
u
M
rd
0) U
CL)
4J
CO
T1
o
nD
Cl
u
B
a)
CD
<D
U
61)
a)
*r_)
QJ
•r-1
o
0)
00 n
•
•
CO
,.Q
4-1
Ui
o
(-3
H
o)
£
0)
CO
o
CO
*i-4
';>
X w
O
>o
£5
<rj
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 20002-7