FIGURE
(U)
VASSY
PROTOCOL:
TO
1700
MS
-
V002,
8/22/88
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200160001-9
FIGURE
(U)
VASSY
PROTOCOL:
TO
1700
MS
-
V002,
8/23/88
Approved For Release
200J/03/07
CIA-^DP96-00789R0032001 60001 -9
v
amplitude
of the peak
is
greater than
its
earlier amplitude; and
in channel
1,
its amplitude
approaches one-half of the response to the direct stimulus.
(U)
Figure 5 shows MEG data from one run and one detector for
all participants
in the
Vassy protocol.
Since the baseline recording period varied among viewers in length (designated
“Long” and “Short" in Figure 5), the data, displayed at 5-ms intervals, are shown with the onset
of the remote stimulus as a common point.
!
The peak labeled “ERF—RS”
can be seen in data from
all participants.
The
mean time of the peak (one detector per run)
identified in the Vassy protocol
is 98.2 dr 7.1 ms
(three data channels)
after the onset of the remote stimulus.
Figure 6 shows averages across viewers for long, short, and both (“All”) timings.
They are normalized by the individual run with the
largest spread in magnetic
field.
V009 participated in four separate runs:
One in the psi protocol and three in the
Vassy protocol.
The candidate peak across all four runs has a mean of 102.25 dr 1-70 ms.
No
peaks are observed
in the baseline period for four runs with similar timing constraints.
,Several
peaks
in
the
remote
stimulus
(RS)
poststimulus
region
appear
to be
present for
all viewers; however, the candidate peak
is the
first one
after the remote stimulus.
Some peaks shown in Figure 5 are responses to high-frequency (6-cpd) stimulus,
and others are responses to a low-frequency (2-cpd) stimulus. No participant responded to both
frequency stimuli.
|
The
two
protocols under
consideration
(Vassy and
psi)
are
identical
in one
respect:
They both contain a remote stimulus, and a putative response to that stimulus
is sought.
Therefore,
one
might
expect
a
candidate peak
identified
in
the
Vassy
protocol
should
be
observed
in the psi protocol as well.
We have indicated that this
is the case
for V009
(this
is
discussed further in Section
III.C).
j
’ While the averages shown
in Figure
6 appear to provide evidence
for
a strong
response to the remote stimulus, we must recognize that the data shown
in Figure
5 could be
examples of
fortuitous peak
selection.
If
so, then
the
averages shown
in
Figure
are
the
expected result.
Given the caveat about the approach, at least one candidate peak for a response
to the remote stimulus appears to have been identified.
More analysis and/or research is needed
before
a definitive statement can be made.
i
Approved For Release 200^/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200160001-9
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200160001-9
FIGURE
(U) VASSY PROTOCOL—50—TRIAL AVERAGES FOR EACH VIEWER
Should this peak be a response to a remote stimulus, then at least one alternative
(to
thje psychoenergetic interpretation) must be considered.
Since the shielded room
for the
MEG
is nearly transparent at frequencies above 100 Hz, the observed peak might result from a
CNS ^response to an electromagnetic signal related
to the display of the stimuli on
a standard
television monitor.
Approved For Release 2001/j)j3/07
: CIA-RDPp6-00789R003200160001-9