Attipnoornd falogloeid Ras CaO GGid Anal eiR DRS EHATTSFHO00300210001-7 V. REFERENCES 1. Braud, W, Shafer, D., and Andrews, §., Electrodermal correlates of remote attention: Autonomic Reactions to an Unseen Gaze. Paper presented to the 33rd Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, Chevy Chase, Maryland (1990). 2. Braud, W., Shafer, D., and Andrews, S., Further Studies of Autonomic Detection of Remote Staring: Replications, New Control Procedures, and Personality Correlates. Paper presented to the 35th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, Los Vegas, Nevada (1992). 3. Block, J., The Q—Sort Method In Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research. Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, (1978). Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300210001-7 8
APhaneasnalealnal Besenisi arch Avawsiasbuetin Fk9"85b0300210001-7 APPENDIX A This appendix contains a copy of the minutes of the. SOC meeting of March 26, 1993. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300210001-7
Approved For Release 2000/08{4 0, GiRYRERAS 1909 87 R000300210001-7 SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE March, 1993 Following an introduction by Ed May, the research team made presentations regarding the various projects that have been proposed for 1993. The first presentation was made by Marilyn Schlitz, who provided an over- view of the remote observation study. The discussion included suggestions for ways of developing a stronger randomization procedure and a method of analysis making use of multiple measurements of autonomic nervous system activity and multiple analysis of varience statistics to increase the effect size. In addition, some minor modifications in the consent form were suggested. - The second presentation was made by Ed May, who discussed the entropy experiment in which the free response target pictures are coded according to change in Shannon entropy. A discussion of experimental com- plexity insued, with suggestions for possible revisions in the method of evaluating free response materials. The third presentation was made by Stephen LaBerge, who discussed the lucid dream experiment. While the discussion offered some criticisms of the initial pilot research carried out last year, specifically related to the lack of control over the free response target picture, the SOC were satisfied that the revised protocol would address the previous limitations. In particular, the confirmation study is designed to increase experimental se- curity, both by separating the target and the subject and by moving the experiment into a laboratory setting, and to increase the yield by asking people to wake themselves up in order to report their experience. Again there was a discussion about the evaluation procedure for free response studies. The fourth presentation was made by Deborah Arthur, who discussed the EEG experiment. Based on pre- vious experiments, in which the results were equivocal, the proposed project is meant to provide a more com- plete test of the anomolous cogntion hypothesis. The main problem involved selection of target material that had never been used before. In the current sutyd, the experimenters will make use of higher entropy targets which are drawn from an already calibrated target pool. Again it was suggested that multiple measures be taken and multiple analysis of varience be employed. In addition, the committee suggested that the researchers collect straight physiology for five minutes (while pseudostimulus and target stimulus are being remotely presented randomly). At the end of 5 minutes, the subject would be presented with a set of 5 National Geographic targets and would be asked to pick a target. This would increase the amount of data that could be collected on a given day The fifth presentation was made by Wanda Luke, who discussed the Q-Sort procedure. The SOC felt that more data needed to be collected in order to increase the meaningfulness of the measurements. In addition, additional forms of psychological assessments were suggested. Following the formal presentations, the group began a general discussion. Ed May offered some comments about research now underway by researchers in the former Soviet Union and China. Differences in orientation and methods of evaluation were discussed. Professor Turzian expressed his concern that results from AC experi- ments are ambiguous and that we may not make much progress over the next three years. After overviewing the major problems that had been discussed during the day, including theory, methods, and evaluation, Professor Zimbardo offered some suggestions on research possiblities. In particular, he felt that it would be useful to work with an already established effect, such as conditioning, and then to systematically separate the subject from the stimuli. He raised a number of testable questions, including whether the monitor is necessary in remote viewing and what specific role they play. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300210001-7
APpowombehotdgidabRes2Q00l0aintDA r@ipsaDinsere RBHR000300210001-7 APPENDIX B This appendix contains a translated copy of the paper presented by Mr. Yuri Dolin of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) during his visit to SAIC’s Cognitive Sciences Laboratory in Menlo Park, California, on March 11, 1993. , Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300210001-7 10
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300210001-7 EEG-Objectivization of Human Distant Influence on Human Subjects Yuri §. Dolin, Victor I. Dymov, Nicolai N. Khatchenkov CPYRGHT Summary In the experiments, a subject was located in a dark, sound-proof, electrically-shielded chamber, and his electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded. Two standard electrodes were placed in positions C3, C,. The reference electrode was placed on the mastoid projection. The upper limit of the EEG frequency range was 50 Hz, with a time constant of 0.1 sec. The EEG signal was fed into a computer for on-line processing. Between 4 and 6 trials per day were conducted, some of them being control trials and some "distant influence" trials. For each given trial, casting lots determined whether it was a test or control. The direction of influence (activation or inhibition of the subject's alpha rhythm) was determined by the "sender" (the person attempting the "distant influence"). The subject was blind as to whether the given trial was a test or control. EEG of the subject was recorded for 5 seconds which was followed by a 10 second interval to allow for the computation of the Fourier trans- formations of the signal. The results were shown graphically on the display screen. During each trial, between 20 and 40 of these time periods were recorded, the length of the trial being specified in advance. There were experiments conducted both at short distances (when the tsender" was from 5 to 100 meters from the subject) and at longer distances, from 1 to 10 kilometers. The tests were conducted from July 1, 1992 to November 25, 1992. The tests at short distances were carried out from July 30, 1992 to September 7, 1992. About 150 short-distance tests were conducted, with 6 subjects and 10 "senders." Two subjects with a stable alpha rhythm were selected. The data obtained from the "senders," who worked only for one or two days (performing 6 to 8 trials each), were excluded from the analysis, since it required a longer time (usually from 2 to 6 days) for each "sender" to develop his "strategy" of "distant influence." With 4 senders and two subjects ("receivers") 109 trials were conducted: 53 control trials and 56 test trials. From these, 21 test trials had the sender attempting "activation" of the subject (thereby intending to decrease the subject's alpha power) and in test 21 trials attempting "inhibition" (thereby intending to increase the subject's alpha power); in the rest of the test trials, senders did not specify the direction of influence. Thus, the main analysis was conducted with the trials in which the direction of influence was specified, in the range of alpha (8-13 Hz). The data for beta and theta were also recorded; they later turned out to be non-significant. For each test (5 min. duration), the following dimensionsless parameters were calculated: Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300210001-7
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300210001-7 CPYRGHT KOHTPOMb Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300210001-7 Puc. 3.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300210001-7 CPYRGHT NEACT BUE BOSTEMCT BUE influence baseline pm =) & Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300210001-7
a a Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300210001-7 CPYRGHT control ("placebo") baseline ~ aE 25 e = ®ann Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300210001-7
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00747R000300210001-7 CPYRGHT noc AE- HEMCT BUE influence baseline Gana: exp89.bin S 5 E 5 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300210001-7
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP9§H0787R000300210001-7 CPYRGHT Mm - AKTHBALHS *@- - KOHTPOMb , rAadOoOnAanotdog 9.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1,5 OTHOCHTSNBHAAH UAHTCHCHBHOCTE “i ~ AKTHBAUHA \ ‘@ = KOHTPOAD , riconmianotvog ANb&A-PUTM 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 OTHOCUTEGNEHAAH ARHTOCHCUBHOCTLh Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA; RDP96-00787R000300210001-7
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : cia-f5p96-00787R000300210001-7 CPYRGHT .  ~- TOPHONEHHES = KOHTPOM , r4HoOoOnrdneo vag 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.5 OTHOCUTSNBHAH WAHTOCHCHNBHOCTE, “M - TOPMOBEHHES ‘@ = KOHTPOMb , rHeoonrHtnovog 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.8 OTHOCHTEGNBHAA MHTCGHCHBHOCTL Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96100787R000300210001-7
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDPPB-00787R000300210001-7 CPYRGHT r4oidOtHuotoag r4aoeomunovoyg aH - SOSAERCTBHE x * = KOHTPONb.. AeSeBnoe Iionyuapne OTHOCUTEIILBHAA WMHHTGHCHBHOCTH ~™@- - BOSLEACTSHE, - = KOHTPONb Mpansoe Monywapne