nn cn a a a ce a ce Pc en Se ce Pree | Fl L —) Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200670001-4 (U) visual assessment by an independent analyst). Recent developments in the uses of fuzzy set theory and cluster analysis show promise for affording “on-line” analysis of RV on National Geographic Magazine targets. (U) In the second major area of investigation, several preliminary guidelines have emerged with respect to optimizing inter-session standardization. First,. screening settings must be chosen with the aim of mitigating a subject’s performance anxiety: a one-on-one private or semi-private session with a trained monitor is indicated. Second, a series of general instructions must be devised that serve to inform the naive subject as to what the RV task entails. These instructions must be specific enough to elicit RV performance without biasing the subject towards any particular RV technology. Third, monitors must be thoroughly conversant with a standard set of screening procedures, in order to minimize idiosyncratic variability in such areas as feedback to the subject. Monitors may be required, for example, to memorize seripts that dictate the nature of subject/monitor interactions for each target. Scripts might also serve the function of providing the framework for the systematic elicitation of RV data along a number of predetermined dimensions——e.g., visual, conceptual, functional, depending on the nature of the target material. Fourth, a standardized questionnaire must be devised to address psychological parameters. It would include a section for standard biographical data and a section for questions drawn from the MBTI and the Psychophysical Research Laboratory's PIF. The purpose of the form would be to investigate, across a large population, whether psychological self-report correlates with RV ability. If such correlations were obtained, then the questionnaire might profitably be used as an initial pre-screening device. (U) All of the research issues presented in this discussion will be most profitably determined and refined from actually using the system. If possible, the optimal approach would entail successive pilot deployments of the screening device in a variety of settings. 20. (U) Objective F, Task 8--Host Physiology Conference e ,On 28 July 1987, SRI International hosted a‘ > ee physiology conference. In attendance were D. Arthur, Ph.D., and E. Flynn, Ph.D from Los Alamos National Laboratory; S. Kornguth, Ph.D. from the Neurology Department of the University of Wisconsin; R. Murray, M.D., Chairman, the Department of Medicine, Michigan State University: R. Dickhaut, Spectra Research Institute; M. Hecker, Ph.D., SRI International, 26 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200670001-4
_t i Approved For Release po0orbev0e : cia-rbY96-00789R002200870001-4 ———— $ T, Piantanida, Ph.D., SRI International, E. May, Ph.D., SRI International; a (_ ~} the goal of the conference was to determine the proper direction for investigating possible correlates to psychoenergetic functioning, and to recommend specific experiments to search for correlates. The primary emphasis was on neurophysiology. Attendee comments are available upon request. <a RR, \ After an overview of the Enhanced Human Performance Investigation project by May, the discussions centered upon metabolic measurements (PET) and possible physiological indicators of psychoenergetic. functioning with visual evoked response. {  Fother topics that were discussed were other possible physiological areas of investigation, including technical voice analysis. It was generally decided, however, that except for PET, and certain but ton-pressing experiments, physiological correlates to the subtle forms of psychoenergetic functioning would be difficult to find. i As a direct result of the conference, the Los Alamos group will use visual evoked response techniques with the MEG to replicate earlier successful experiments demonstrating physiological responses toa remote stimulus. (U) A number of the participants responded to the conference in letter form. These letters are contained in Appendix B. 21. (U) Objective F, Task 9--Neuropsychological Assessment (U) During FY 1986 exploratory work was begun to attempt the discovery of neuropsychological correlates of psychoenergetic function. As part of that effort, Dr. Ralph Kiernan of the Stanford Medical School developed a battery of tests designed to test the function of the frontal lobes which he hypothesized to be involved in psychoenergetic function. As a follow-on to his theoretical formulation and hypothesis generation, Dr. Kiernan tested 37 Subjects who had participated in previous RV and Search/Dowsing studies. His test battery was composed mainly of scales from Guilford’s measure of intelligence, and scales were combined to give a score for productive ideation, a component directly related to positive frontal function. 27 Approved For Release ovoloeio8 : CIA- 96-00789R002200670001 -4
Approved For Release pookyosi0e : cia-rbbpos-o07e9R002200670001-4 (U) placed it on a small empty table, and then rang a bell into the telephone, signaling to the viewer to perceive the target. The viewer than declared “yes,” “no,” or “?” and gave his response; he then received immediate feedback from the experimenter. For every trial, the experimenter made a written record of the possible targets, actual target, declared condition, and viewer response, as well as date and time of the trial. (U) The hypothesis being tested was whether Viewer 002 is able to recognize “contact” with the target. If this hypothesis is true, we would expect above-chance, below-chance, and chance results in the “yes,” “no,” and “?” conditions, respectively. The reason that we would expect below-chance results in the “no” condition is that psychoenergetic functioning is required by the viewer if he “knows” that he is not in contact with the target. In other words, the viewer is willing to. declare that he is likely to be wrong. ‘The trials took place at approximately the same time every day between January 5 and February 20, 1987, with a varying number of trials per day. Of 147 trials in the "yes" condition, 88 were hits, where 74 would be expected by chance. Of 59 trials in the "no" condition, 23 were hits, where 30 would be expected by chance. Of the 121 trials in the "2" condition, 66 were hits, where 61 would be expected by chance. The p-values for these three conditions are 0.01, 0.05, and 0.23, respectively. From p-values alone, it appears that the hypothesis is supported. The trend in the psychological sciences is to use some measure of "effect size" in conjunction with p-values. The reason is that p-values are sample-size dependent and, therefore, may mask important results. The "effect size" for the three conditions is 0.20, 0.21, and 0.09, respectively. This result indicates that the equivalent amount of psychoenergetic functioning was used by Viewer 002 to determine his degree of contact with the target. We are encouraged by this result because it represents a modest success toward the goal of recognizing the source of "noise" in forced-choice experiments. (U) During the second half of FY 1987, we conducted another series of trials of the forced-choice format, using the same protocol as described above but with slightly different conditions and testing a slightly different hypothesis. These trials took place from 23 February through 21 September 1987, a total of 82 sessions (one session per day at approximately the same lime every day), with a varying number of trials per session. Before each session the viewer declared how he felt, and he assessed how successfully he would contact the targets in the coming 29 Approved For Release 2009108108 : CIA-RPP96-00789R002200670001 -4