Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
ABSTRACT
Five individuals designated by researchers from JFK University have participated in a
series of remote action (RA) experiments conducted at SRI International.
Each participant
was asked to influence one of a pair of piezoelectric strain gauges, operating in differential
modfe,
in order to produce an event above a predetermined threshold.
Under those
conditions, one of the participants produced a total of 11
signals above threshold.
No
equivalent, uncorrelated events above threshold were detected in control periods.
Known
sources of electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical, infrared disturbance were considered and
wherever possible controlled, minimized, or measured.
However, some potential, but unlikely,
sources of artifact such as cosmic rays or low-frequency magnetic fields were excluded from
consideration in this
initial series of experiments.
The preliminary nature of these sessions
cannot be stressed too strongly, especially because
all possible sources of artifact have not
been excluded.
Nonetheless, our conclusion at this time
is that sufficient data have been
collected to warrant further investigation.
iii
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
iU
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABLES
™
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ix
I
INTRODUCTION
II
METHOD OF APPROACH
A.
Participant Selection and Training
B.
Hypotheses and Variables
C.
Hardware Construction
III
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A.
Individual Results
B.
Control Trials
C.
Possible Sources of Experimental Artifact
;
IV
CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX A—STRAIN GAUGE REMOTE ACTION SCREENING DEVICE
APPENDIX B—ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION
DETAILS OF A PIEZOELECTRIC SENSOR SYSTEM
APPENDIX C—FINAL REPORT JFK 1986 ACTION RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
V
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABLES
FIGURE
Functional Diagram of RA Apparatus
RA Apparatus for PZT Experiment
Sensor Enclosure (Open)
Sensor Enclosure (Closed)
Schematic of Experimental Area for PZT RA
October,
1986,
10:38 a.m., Participant:
032
Typical Control- Session Data
C-l
Screening Results
C-2
Participant Piezo-RA Training Sessions
TABLE
Table of Results
vii
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For over a hundred years, reports have appeared in the psychical literature that claim
interactions with physical apparatus by mental means alone.
If true, such effects will have
far-reaching implications.
The most direct way to examine this purported phenomenon was to
attempt to replicate a claimed effect in our laboratories at SRI International. We began the
process of selecting a candidate experiment by
first reviewing published laboratory research on
remote action (RA)*, placing particular emphasis on recent work which appeared to utilize
modern instrumentation. t
From our review of the literature, we selected as the most
promising experiment, work claiming an interaction with a piezoelectric strain gauge.
The
basis for our selection was threefold:
(1) A nonstatistical effect was claimed,
(2)
effects were
supposedly produced with the subject
at a distance from the sensor, and
(3)
a method of
subject selection and training was claimed.
In the published reports,
a piezoelectric strain-gauge crystal was suspended several
meters from the subject.
The experimenter claimed that several RA
‘agents
could
consistently produce signals, by mental means alone, which were at least
five times the
background noise level.
Occasional events of as much as 100 times background were also
claimed.
Although other experimenters have also reported nonstatistical RA effects, we were
favorably impressed by the emphasis on artifact detection,
at least within an extremely limited
equipment budget.
In subsequent conversations, the experimenter,
J.
Isaacs, was very willing
to discuss additional potential sources of artifact and methods of control.
We formulated a “joint-venture” approach to replicating these claims by awarding a
subcontract to John F. Kennedy (JFK) University where
J. Isaacs
is currently teaching.
The
task was to screen,
assess, train and make available to SRI International promising RA
subjects.
SRI International retained the task of designing and constructing
all experimental
hardware.
In addition,
a series of trials that would be conducted
at SRI, under SRI’s
supervision, were required at the end of the contract year. We agreed in advance that the
*ln
the parapsychological literature, such effects are usually associated with the term psychokinesis (PK).
However,
to be consistent and parallel with remote viewing, we have adopted the term remote action,
t Radin D
I
May, E. C., and Thomson, M.
J.,
"Psi Eiyieriments with Random Number Generators:
Meta-Analysis Part I,”
Proceedings of the 28th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association,
pp. 199-234, Tufts University, Meford, MA (August 1985).
ix
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
outcome of those
trials would determine whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant
proceeding with further experiments.
In considering the problem of validating
(or invalidating)
controversial claims for the
existence of paranormal phenomena, SRI recognized two distinct but related,
obstacles:
(1)
No single experiment, no matter how impressive the
results, could serve to prove or disprove
the existence of RA, and
(2) no single
initial experiment, no matter how cleverly contrived,
could claim to have eliminated or controlled
all possible sources of artifactual data.
This
realization prompted us to adopt a modest goal that we believe
is realistic as well as cost
effective:
We required the hardware and protocols to be sufficiently rigorous such that the
presence of any uncorrelated events would warrant continued investigations.
Qur working
definition of “uncorrelated events” was any signal that could not be ascribed to a source
normally occurring in the laboratory environment.
We did not believe that,
at that time,
there was sufficient evidence of an RA. effect to justify the enormous expenditure of funds and
effort required to address every conceivable source of artifact.
Our null hypothesis was that
no uncorrelated events should be detected,
at least for those factors with a routine origin.
At
no time did we conceive of this effort as “proof”
of the existence of RA.
Examples of such
sources of artifact and the method of control are:
SOURCE
REMEDY
ac-line transients
Battery power for
critical
components,
fiber-optic signal
links, shielded enclosures
Audible-frequency acoustic artifacts
Sensor isolation in another room,
enclosed sensors, audio taping
of
all sessions
Motor-frequency (30-Hz) mechanical
vibrations
Three types of vibration-damping
mounts for isolation above 10 Hz
rf transmissions
EMI-shielded sensor enclosures
and windows
A total of 20
trials, each lasting about 90 minutes, were conducted
at SRI.
Five subjects
provided by JFK participated in those experiments.
During those
trials we detected
11 events
that exceeded our determined threshold
(six times the noise background) and that did not
correlate with any of the sources of artifact we examined.
In approximately 30 hours of
control
trials, conducted under the same circumstances except for the absence of humans, no
equivalent uncorrelated events were recorded.
As a consequence we concluded that we had
collected sufficient evidence to justify investigating this phenomenon further.
x
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
I INTRODUCTION
The overall objective of this experiment was to determine whether remote action (RA)
effects can be induced in a piezoelectric (PZT)
strain gauge.*
The parapsychological
literature usually refers to mental effects on material objects as psychokinesis
(often
abbreviated PK).
However,
for the balance of this report we shall refer to these putative
effects as remote action.
In general, these types of RA experiments consist of four basic elements:
(1)
Some system or apparatus
(often a transducer) the output of which
is to
be affected.
(2)
An individual who intends to “modify” by mental means alone the
output of the apparatus.
(3)
A feedback mechanism that displays the output of the apparatus either
in real-time or after the session.
(4)
An a priori defined analysis procedure.
A single
trial that encompasses these elements might proceed as follows:
The apparatus
has been previously actuated, and baseline data collection has been taken in advance of the
effort period.
In most experiments,
a sequence of effort and rest periods then follows when
the participant
is present.
The data record
is then displayed to the participant as feedback,
and where appropriate, some
statistical quantity such as a simple z-score
is computed.
During
a period after the participant has departed, additional control or baseline
trials are taken to
determine the “normal”
characteristics of the apparatus.
RA studies have traditionally been divided into two categories:
(1)
statistical experiments
(sometimes called micro-RA)
in which small effects are observed over many thousands of
samples, and Macro-RA experiments in which large effects were claimed, usually on the basis
of a very few trials.
Although the
statistical experiments have generally been the more
rigorous in both protocol and hardware design, interpretation of the results
is
difficult.
In any
study in which the test of the null hypothesis
is
statistical,
a causal relationship cannot be
*This report constitutes Objective A, Task 8, "An Experiment to Examine the Possible Existence of Remote
Action Effects in Piezoelectric Strain Gauges.”
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
assumed to exist.*
As a consequence, we have surveyed the literature for examples of
nonstatistical effects for which the experimental protocol also appeared sufficiently rigorous to
justify further study.
The experiment we are reporting
is an extension of earlier work by
J.
Isaacs. f
In our
review of published work on RA,
his experiments with PZT strain gauges appeared to meet
the
criteria for attempting replication.
In addition, Isaacs claimed to have developed
procedures for selecting and training individuals who could produce these
effects.
In FY
1986, SRI International awarded a subcontract to John F. Kennedy University (JFK), where
Isaacs
is currently teaching,
for the purpose of reproducing the earlier work.
During the
subcontract negotiations,
it was decided that the experiments would be
a joint venture,
in
which SRI designs, engineers and constructs the hardware, and JFK provides the participants.
In addition we agreed that a series of
trials
at the end of the contract year would be carried
out
at SRI.
The rationale
for such an arrangement was to make maximum use of expertise
at
each institution and to protect against conscious or unconscious deception.
By using the same
participants and hardware at two institutions,
effects might be detected at both
facilities, thus
providing the basis for future “built-in”
replication.
The FY 1986 program consisted of a screening and preparation phase in order to refine
the protocol and select participants, an evaluation phase to select the most promising
individuals from the screening and preparation phase and a series of trials with those
individuals in a study at
SRI.
May, E. C., Radin, D., Hubbard, G., Humphrey,
B., and Ults,
J.,
“Psi Experiments with Random
Number Generators:
An Informational Model,” Proceedings of the 28th Annual Parapsychological
Association Convention, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts (1985).
Isaacs,
J., "A Twelve Session Study of Micro-PKMB Training,” Research in Parapsychology
pp
31-34
(see Appendix A).
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
II METHOD OF APPROACH
A*
Participant Selection and Training
Staff from JFK screened and prepared interested persons to provide participants and
protocols for the evaluation phase.
The details of the screening, training, and evaluation
procedures may be found in Appendix C.
In summary,
lectures on RA were given to
interested groups, followed by a “hands-on” period during which members of the audience
were given an opportunity to use portable RA devices (described in Section Cl).
Individuals
showing apparent RA
ability were invited to participate further.
The JFK staff then began to train participants in RA using a prototype version of the
laboratory instrument (described in Section C2) to prepare them for the evaluation portion of
the program.
The essential elements of the training rely heavily on the concepts of operant
conditioning and bio-feedback.
Isaacs’ hypothesis
is that providing immediate auditory and
visual feedback about the state of the PZT sensor can enhance latent RA
ability.
In addition
to training, the following items were defined during the preparatory studies:
the RA effect,
the thresholds for events of interest,
valid data
(i.e., circumstances of invalidation), and the
analysis and measures of success.
Using the
final version of the laboratory hardware constructed at SRI for JFK, the
participants who successfully completed the
first two phases were given further training and
evaluation.
Those individuals who performed the best were asked to participate in the series
of experiments at SRI.
B.
Hypotheses and Variables
In the absence of environmental interference, we postulated that selected participants
would be able to modify the normal output of a PZT strain gauge nonstatistically; that
is, the
signal to noise ratio (SNR) was required to be substantially greater than
1,
for an event to be
of interest.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
The independent variable was time.
The dependent variable in this experiment was the
overall measure of a psychoenergetic effect,
as determined from the electrical output of the
PZT gauge.
The specific
criteria were developed during the screening and preparatory phases
at JFK and in calibration
trials at SRI.
From long baseline
trials
(i.e.,
4 to
8 hours for a
single
trial)
with the apparatus, we determined that the system noise was
- 4 mV.
We
decided on an SNR of
-
6:1 as the threshold for events of interest and, therefore,
set the
lower level discriminator at 25 mV.
As
will be discussed
later, the system was always
operated in differential mode as a mechanism for rejecting artifact.
That
is, the absolute
value of the voltage difference in the output of the two sensors was defined as the
signal of
interest.
Although,
for psychological reasons, the participants were told to focus their
attention on only one sensor, the experimenters had agreed to accept any event above the
differential threshold.
It was, therefore, not
critical which sensor the participant actually
affected,
if any.
It was further agreed that the only sessions that would meet the
criteria
for
considering events of interest would be those in which the participant and sensor were located
in separate, but adjacent, rooms and in which no invalidating acoustic signals were recorded
on the tape-recorder.
Three types of controls were employed:
(1)
The SRI formal phase experiments:
environmental monitoring or
shielding or both were used.
(2)
Global controls:
extended runs between sessions to rensure long-term
system
stability.
(3)
Local controls:
data were collected just before or after or before and
after an effort session to ensure short-term
stability of the system.
In future control
trials, we
will also collect data with an individual
in the room whose
attention
is not focused on the sensors.
During the testing and installation of the laboratory instrument,
it became clear that
it
was not possible to test
for, to monitor
for, or to shield against
all possible sources of artifact
in the
initial series of experiments.
Therefore, some potential, but unlikely sources of artifact
such as cosmic rays or extremely low-frequency magnetic
fields were excluded from
immediate consideration.
Our goal was
to be sufficiently rigorous
to determine whether
further investigation into
this form of RA
is justified .
The null hypothesis under test was that
no events uncorrelated with obvious
artifacts would be observed.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
C.
Hardware Construction
1.
The Screening Device
The purpose of the PK screening device (SD) was to
facilitate the selection of
subjects exhibiting psychokinetic
ability.
Shielding against artifact, although of concern, was
not the principal design consideration for the SD.
In order to allow screening of a large
number of subjects, the SD
is portable and
fairly rugged when packed into two typewriter-size
carrying cases.
It
is quickly and easily assembled on a table or desk top.
The SD consists of two parts,
a strain gauge sensor and preamplifier assembly and
a processing and display unit.
The strain gauge sensor and preamplifier assembly are
suspended from a stand to provide some degree of mechanical isolation.
Miniature coaxial
cables connect the sensor assembly to the desktop display unit.
The display unit contains the
processing and display hardware and the batteries that supply the entire system.
The front
panel of the display unit has a
digital voltmeter (DVM)
that displays voltage in millivolts and
a
twenty-element linear LED bar graph that shows the voltage graphically on a 0- to 2-volt
scale.
Headphone jacks, volume controls, battery test pushbuttons, and a remote handset
jack are located on the right side of the panel.
There are three forms of feedback:
two visual and one audio. A DVM displays
the voltage held by the peak hold circuit of the selected channel, while a twenty-element LED
bar display shows the voltage in a bar graph fashion.
The selected peak hold output
is
simultaneously converted to an audio tone that
is played into two sets of headphones; one for
the subject and one for the operator.
Individual volume controls are provided.
Once above
this threshold, the frequency of the tone increases linearly with the peak held voltage.
The
two peak holds
(signal and control)
are reset by
a single pushbutton.
Both the “reset” and
the “channel select” pushbuttons are mounted on a small hand-held cylinder connected to
the processing and display unit by a
12-foot cord.
The potential participant
is told to focus his attention on the suspended strain
gauge and by whatever mental strategy seems appropriate, to cause the frequency of the tone
to increase and the LED bar graph to
rise.
More details of construction of these devices may
be found in Appendix A.
Additional details on their use in the
field may be found in
Appendix C.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
2.
The Laboratory Apparatus
A schematic overview of the laboratory RA apparatus
is shown in Figure
1,
The
actual apparatus may be seen in Figure
2.
In designing and constructing this instrument a
number of considerations had to be
satisfied:
(1)
Major sources of artifact had
to be shielded against and or eliminated
through proper engineering.
(2)
A complex system of graduated auditory and visual feedback was
required.
(3)
Computer printout and outputs for a chart recorder were both needed to
provide
a permanent data record.
(4)
The need to adjust almost
all session parameters
(e.g. threshold,
gain,
etc.) required that the system be microprocessor based
for maximum
flexibility.
A brief description of each of the system elements
is given below.
More detail
may found in Appendix B.
a.
Sensor Pair
Since
it was impossible to anticipate every possible source of artifactual data,
we elected to use two PZT sensors operating in differential mode as an additional method of
artifact rejection.
In this mode, the absolute value of the difference between the output of
the two sensors was defined as the signal of interest.
An event above threshold would be
detected when one of the sensors was perturbed to a greater degree than the other.
The
intent of this approach was to reject any unshielded transients
(e.g., low-frequency magnetic
fields, wide area acoustic
artifacts,
or building movements)
that could presumably influence
the sensors in a nearly equivalent manner.
Each of the two PZT crystals are suspended from a lead mass.
Each of the
lead masses contains
a charge-sensitive preamplifier that drives a fiber-optic
link.
The PZTs
are coated with a silicone insulator to provide electrical insulation and silver paint to provide
EMI/RFI shielding.
The two PZTs/preamps/drivers are housed in
a Hoffman EMI/RFI shielded
enclosure of dimensions 20 x 16 x
6 inches. A shielded window (combining wire mesh and
a
transparent conductive coating)
of dimensions
13 x
3 inches was installed so the sensor could
be seen:
a requirement that the JFK staff believed was psychologically important.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Rechargeable batteries supply the power for all the PZT instrumentation within the shielded
enclosure.
FIGURE
FUNCTIONAL DIAGRAM OF RA APPARATUS
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
FIGURE
RA
APPARATUS
FOR
PZT
EXPERIMENT
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Figures 3 and 4 show the entire sensor system.
Details of the construction
and engineering are found in Appendix B.
b.
Signal Processing
The STD bus BASIC controller
is responsible
for
all the operator interface,
real time clock control, feedback control, and transmittal of data to both printer and TRS
Model 102 computer.
The data consist of time, voltage from sensor one (VI), voltage from
sensor two (V2), and the absolute value of the difference between VI and V2.
These data
are fed to two serial ports on the back of the STD controller.
One port
is connected to the
printer, and the other
is connected to the TRS Model 102 computer which stores them for
future processing.
The STD controller also provides chart recorder output for each of the two
sensors.
The signals from the PZT sensor preamplifier are transmitted to the STD
controller via two fiber optic cables.
This effectively isolates the battery powered sensor and
its circuitry from the line powered STD controller circuitry.
The STD controller converts
these signals back into voltages.
This
is accomplished with a fiber optic receiver followed by a
frequency to voltage convertor.
The signals are then filtered and
full wave rectified.
The
software can select the high pass
filter time constant,
is either 100 ms or 30 ms.
The low
pass
filter bandwidth
is fixed at
1 kHz.
After filtering and rectification, the signals are fed to
fast attack slow decay circuits.
These pulse stretcher circuits have a decay time constant of a
few seconds.
This
is slow enough to allow both subject and operator to “view” the sensor
output via the feedback, which
is derived directly from the stretched signals.
The chart
recorder outputs are derived from the pulse stretchers as well.
At this point the two channels are digitized and the remainder of the
processing
is done in software.
A 25-kHz analog-to-digital convertor samples the channels in
rapid succession.
Because of the long decay time of the pulse stretcher circuits the two
channels need not be sampled in a true simultaneous fashion.
c.
Feedback
There are three different modes of operation to drive the feedback:
Channel
A, Channel B, or differential.
Channel A mode uses only the signal from Sensor A to drive
the feedback.
Channel B mode selects the signal from Sensor B
for feedback.
Differential
mode drives the feedback from the absolute value of |A - B|.
Regardless of the feedback
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
mode selected, the data output to the printer and TRS Model 102 computer
is as described
above.
For the purposes of feedback three thresholds are chosen: TO, Tl, or T2
where Tl
is greater than TO, and T2
is greater than Tl.
These threshold values can be
selected by the software.
These three thresholds divide the signal amplitude into four
categories:
s < TO, TO <
s < Tl, Tl <
s < T2, and
s > T2.
For signal values below TO, there
is no feedback and no data are generated.
For signal values between TO and Tl, the audio
feedback generated
is pink noise of increasing volume.
The visual display
is not active below
Tl.
For signals between Tl and T2 both the audio and visual feedback become active.
The
audio feedback
is a tone of increasing pitch beginning with middle C and going up an octave.
The
8 colored bars of the visual display are illuminated with their respective tones.
The
update rate for the feedback
is such that the decaying signal can be clearly seen and heard as
a series of tones with decreasing pitch.
Signals with an amplitude above T2 activate a cassette
tape recorder and play a tape selected by the subject.
The cassette
will remain on
for a
preselected period during which time
all signals from the sensors are ignored.
3.
Experimental Protocol
a.
Session Procedure
(Typical)
Figure
5, shown below,
displays the physical arrangement used during the RA
experimental series at SRI.
The only variations from this layout were during the
first
sessions when the sensor box was located
in the same room as the participant.
The
final eight
sessions were conducted as shown in Figure
5.
A typical RA session lasted approximately 90 minutes.
The sequence of
events
is shown below:
•
Before the JFK experimenter/participant team arrived, the SRI session
monitor checked the equipment for correct functioning and, where
scheduling permitted, collected control data just before the participant,
arrived.
•
The period of the experiment comprised three
trial periods of
approximately 20 minutes and two
rest periods of 10 to
15 minutes each.
Rest periods were generally taken outside of the immediate area.
The
participant’s instructions were always to attempt to affect only the
left
sensor.
•
Following the experimental period, the SRI monitor again checked the
equipment for proper functioning and,
if scheduling permitted, collected
more control data before the next session.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
During the experimental session, the tasks of the SRI monitor were
as
follows:
•
All session record-keeping, such as time, conditions, personnel, and the
like were entered into
a laboratory notebook.
•
An audio,
cassette tape-recorder with two microphones was employed to
monitor the
last
1 1 sessions for possible acoustic artifactual sources of
signals.
Recording was begun at the
start of the
first
trial and continued
through through the end of the session.
The only gap in the record was
the few seconds necessary to turn over the cassette.
•
The monitor observed closely
all aspects of the session, ensuring that the
JFK team was always accompanied during the breaks and that
all
experimental rooms were locked when unattended.
b.
Session Condition and Options
The history of parapsychology
is replete with examples of conscious and
unconscious deception, particularly when large-scale effects have been claimed
(e.g.,
macro-RA).
For this reason, the principal duty of the SRI monitor was to ensure that there
were no substantive deviations from the agreed-upon protocol while simultaneously preserving
an atmosphere of friendliness and encouragement.
This requirement was met in part by
allowing the participants to interact with the system at three levels of increasing rigor.
Those
three conditions are listed and discussed below.
Only data collected under Condition
III were
considered to be of interest.
•
Condition
I— Sensors in the same room with the participant, door to the
sensor enclosure open.
There
is no question that artifactual events are
easily produced in this condition.
However a key feature of the JFK
approach to training RA ability
is to build confidence by starting the
participant with the most sensitive feedback condition possible and then
by gradually introducing more restrictions.
Because moving from the
JFK to the SRI
facility was a dramatic change in psychological
setting,
a
few participants used this condition once as a “warm-up.”
Obviously
data from this condition were not considered.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
FIGURE
SCHEMATIC OF EXPERIMENTAL AREA FOR PZT RA.
The experimenter
is designated by “E,” the participant by “P,”
and the session monitor by “M.”
Microphones are located at
Positions
1 and 2
.
Ambient noise was recorded by the microphones
at Position
2, audible noise or body movement by the
participant was recorded by the midrophone
at Position
1.
•
Condition
II—Censors
in the same room as the participant with the
enclosure sealed.
This condition was artifact free as long as the
individuals were
silent and relatively
still.
Although
in principle one
could monitor sound and motion
artifact induction through appropriate
video-tape recording,
it was believed that such a procedure would be
invasive and probably inhibitory.
Because
it
is impossible for any human
monitor to observe
all possible
activities of the individuals
in the room,
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
events over threshold in Condition
II were discussed.
Condition
III— Sensors located in a temperature controlled computer
room adjacent to the participant's room, enclosure sealed.
The sensor
enclosure was
still visible through a double-pane
glass window especially
constructed for this purpose
(cf Figure
5),
a feature considered by JFK
to be psychologically necessary.
Considerable noise and movement could
now be tolerated in the participant's area without triggering an event over
threshold.
However, the SRI
staff
felt that possible effects of combined
mechanical and acoustical resonances were not well understood.
As a
consequence, any audio signal on the tape-recorders correlated with an
RA event invalidated that data.
The presence of such signals invalidated
several events collected in Condition
III for Subject 034.
None of the
other 4 participants produced any events in Condition
III
trial sessions
even though 2 of them generated noises.
Again, we wish to reiterate our
null hypothesis.
Based on our testing of the instrumentation during
Condition
III, we hypothesized that no candidate events would be
produced in Condition
III that were not rejected by our instrumentation
or invalidated by our audio recording.
The presence of any residual
events would not be considered as evidence
for RA but rather as
motivation for continued experimentation.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
As
is obvious from Table
1, the number of sessions was not equally distributed across
participants.
The experimental time was heavily weighted in favor of Subject 032, who was
the best participant in the preliminary
trials at JFK and ultimately produced the only
candidate events at SRI.
Because we were seeking evidence that would support the existence
of an effect we consider that we are quite justified
in our division of experimental time.
Should the effect continue to be observed we
will of course design the experiments that have
balanced conditions across subjects.
Figure
6 displays the computer printout from one of the two sessions with Participant
032 in which valid events were detected.
The events of interest, which occurred in the
first
and third
trials,
are time stamped.
No events occurred during the
rest periods.
The events
are printed in the following order;
left sensor output,
right sensor output, absolute value of the
difference.
(The following letter “R” has no meaning and may be ignored.)
The units in
which the data are printed are computer ADC conversion units.
To get millivolts,
multiply by
2.5.
Thus, the
first event in Figure
is equal to 30 mV,
(12 x 2.5).
As mentioned
earlier,
the instructions to the participant were to attempt to affect the
left sensor only.
That this was
the actual outcome
is of interest although the absolute value of the difference was defined as
the threshold, and therefore,
either sensor could have been selectively affected to meet the
event criteria.
It should be pointed out that the candidate signals occurred in clusters of
4,
4 and
events,
respectively.
In each group, the signals
all appeared within
1 to 2 seconds.
Therefore, the most conservative evaluation would be to say that there were
3 events rather
than
11.
During any subsequent experiments, we
will record the above threshold voltage
as a
function of a shorter time scale
(e.g., milliseconds)
in order to more clearly identify events of
interest.
During the early sessions,
it was found that the chart recorder created a substantial
amount of background noise, which was distracting to the participants.
It had been agreed
that only that data that were above the threshold as processed by the computer ADC would
count as an event of interest.
We therefore elected to disconnect the chart recorder for this
initial series of trials to minimize the environmental distractions and reduce another source of
potential acoustic
artifact.
Using the charge output equations supplied by the PZT manufacturer, we have
calculated the amount of energy necessary to produce an event of 30 mV from the PZT
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
GO) H
GO) C
Pi
s 47
*39
R
^
: 4 7
: 40
*47
: 40
1 1
R
*47
S 40
R
pi «dS»
pleas*
?Redo
o
GO) H
GO) H
END
OF
GO) H
GO) C
please
please
please
?Redo
•y
GO) M
GO) H
GO) C
please
please
please
^Redo
?
GO) H
GO) M
TRIAL
CANDIDATE
enter subject’s name
(up to £0 characters)
enter
ex per i ment or ’ s name
(up
to
20 characters)
enter the session number
SESSION
}
TRIAL
NO EVENTS
enter subject’s name
<up to 20 characters)
enter exper imentor’ s name
<up to 20 characters)
enter the session number
enter subject’s name
(up to 20 characters)
enter exper imentor’ s name
(up to 20 characters)
enter the session number
1 1
1 49
*24
R
s 49
*24
R
*49
*25
R
TRIAL
CANDIDATE
FIGURE 6
OCTOBER, 1986, 10:38 A.M., PARTICIPANT:
032
EVENTS
:
REST
t
t
I
REST
i
I
«
TRIAL
EVENTS
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
(including, of course amplifier gains).
Such an event would require about
1.4 x 10- 16 joules,
or around 900 eV.
If the source of this energy were radiation,
that would correspond to a
low energy x-ray.
B.
Control Trials
During control
trials conducted after the
first few experimental sessions,
a building
resonance that triggered events over threshold was discovered.
This resonance could be
excited by personnel walking in a specific area of the hallway.
By additional vibration
isolation
(a partially inflated inner tube) between the sensor enclosure and
its floor stand,
this
source of artifact was eliminated.
For the balance of the experimental series, control
trials of
up to
six hours in length were recorded with no one present in the experimental room but
with normal
activity in the rest of the building.
No uncorrelated events above threshold
equivalent to those detected in the experimental
trials were detected in those control periods.
A typical example of the chart record obtained during these control periods
is shown
in Figure
7.
Note that the
left sensor
is somewhat noisier than the right.
This extra noise probably
results from small differences in the
electrical contacts between the preamps and sensors.
However,
this small difference should not be significant because the threshold
is
set a factor
of six above the noise of the
left sensor.
Certainly in any future hardware development we
will attempt to further reduce contact noise.
C.
Possible Sources Of Experimental Artifact
The sensor must be isolated from mechanical vibration conducted to
it from the
surrounding structures.
Second, the sensor must be shielded from acoustic vibrations
transmitted through the
air.
Third, thermal influences resulting from either conducted,
convected, or radiated heat must be removed.
Finally, because the
signal of interest
is an
electrical charge, any external influence caused by electric or magnetic
fields must be isolated.
1.
Mechanical Vibration
The sensor
is in a laboratory environment, coexisting with many humans and
equipment such as elevators, motor-driven machinery,
vehicles, and the
like.
The building
is
in an urban area in which large truck and train
traffic,
as well as
aircraft, pass nearby.
Because considerable motion vibration exists in the floor of the room in which the sensor
is
located, the sensor had to be isolated.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
.4
••
*
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
FIGURE
TYPICAL CONTROL-SESSION DATA
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6