Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200600001-1
B.
Monte Carlo Estimates of Significance
To determine if the changes that are seen qualitatively are exceptional, we analyzed the data
by the Monte Carlo procedure outlined in Section II.D. We simulated the RS by generating 500
sets of Monte Carlo stimuli using the same random timing algorithm and number as in the original
data. For each set, the RMS phase was calculated as described in Section II.C. The resulting 500
Monte Carlo RMS phases were sorted as a descending array, and the fraction of phases equal to or
larger than the observed RS value was represented as a p-value.
(The p-value is bounded on the
low end by 1/500.)
Figure 15 shows a histogram of one such Monte Carlo run, again using the data
from viewer 002 as an example. The values of the RMS phase for the remote and pseudo stimuli
are marked by vertical lines (see the key in Figure
15).
In accordance with the earlier study6 in which we observed changes in alpha power, we
established a single criterion for the selection of a sensor for analysis:
the pre-stimulus average
alpha power above background is larger than
it is in any other sensor.
Table
1 shows the viewer
identification, date, sensor chosen for analysis, and the p-value
(as defined above) for the RMS
phase
shift for the remote and pseudo stimuli, respectively.
0.50
0.40
r
&
0.20
0.10
0.00
i—
i
«
i—
\—
i—
i—*—
i—
»—
•—
r
112
RMS Phase (deg)
Key
Passes:
500
P-Values
Real:
0.002
—
Pseudo: 0.846
160
Figure
15.
Viewer 2: Date 8/25/88: Session
1: RMS Phase: Sensor:
2 rs = 118
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200600001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200600001-1
Table
Results of Monte Carlo Calculation for RMS Phase
I.D.
Date
Sensor
P-Value
(1-tail)
Z-Score
(2-tail)
Remote
Pseudo
Remote
Pseudo
009
06/24/88
0.650
-0.524
-
002
08/25/88
0.002
2.653
0.513
08/26/88
0.904 mSM
0.871
1.491
372
10/19/88
0.094
0.168
0.885
0.423
374
03/29/89
0.154
0.810
0.501
0.305
007
03/29/89
0.970
0.180
1.555
0.358
389
05/23/89
0.288
0.040
-0.191
1.405
05/24/89
0.260
0.016
-0.050
1.852
05/25/89
0.120
0.922
0.706
1.011
531
05/24/89
0.814
0.134
0.274
0.619
454
05/25/89
0.732
0.052
-0.090
1.259
The p-values shown in Table
1 are all single tailed
(i.e., the area in the upper tail).
Because the
distribution of means is approximately normal, we have converted the empirical p-values to their
respective two—tailed z—scores.
If the p—value was less than 0.5, the z—score shown in Table
1 was
computed from the inverse normal distribution assuming a p-value twice the one shown.
If the
p-value was more than 0.5, we subtracted
it from
1.0, doubled the result, and computed the
z-score as above. To test the null hypothesis that the combined RS phase shifts are characteristic
of the data, we computed a standard Stouffer’s Z (Z.) for the
1 1 sessions shown in Table 1. There
is statistical evidence that the data within i 0.5 seconds of the RS are not characteristic of the data
at large (Z» = 1.99, p < 0.024, effect size = 0.599).
Similarly, the combined statistic for the PS
indicates that these data are also not characteristic (Zi = 2.92, p < 0.002, effect size = 0.924).
Therefore, there appears to be some statistical anomaly associated with the RMS phase shifts for
both stimuli types.
C.
Results: Button Presses
In the early SRI study6
, significant changes in alpha production were observed in response to
an RS. The statistical evidence, however, did not indicate that the viewer was able to recognize an
RS cognitively
(i.e., the viewer's button presses relative to the RS did not exceed mean chance
expectation).
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200600001-1