Approved For Releasaqg001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R090400100021-6 8 The Journal of Parapsychology scale deflection indicated no shock. If the pen deviated toward the center line (downward) it meant that the animal was on side A at the beginning of the five-second trial; if the pen deviated away from the center line (upward) it meant that the animal was on side B. From this information it could be deduced which side had been the target. During a mistrial no deflections of the upper pen oc- curred, since no target and shock decisions were made. This also al- lowed a machine judgment as to the occurrence of a mistrial, Except for the recorder and the testing cage, the equipment was enclosed in a box surrounded by an inch-thick layer of insulation. The animal species used in the experiment were 14 white mice (Mus musculus Swiss Webster) and 9 jirds (Meriones unguicula- tus).° They were initially housed in homemade cages; but as work progressed, they were moved twice into new cages. They received as much personal attention by the experimenter as possible and were frequently handled. A 12-hour light-12-hour dark cycle was used except for the first two series, during which a 15-hour light—9-hour dark cycle was used. General Procedure There were six series in the experiment, with 25 trials in each run. Since the work was mainly exploratory, there was no preset length for the series; they varied from 7 to 41 runs. The breaks be- tween the series were arbitrarily set by such events as relocation of equipment and changes in personnel, but the series were basically similar in design. The experiment was terminated partly by the departures of the senior authors and partly by the dismantling of the equipment—a decision which was made by someone other than the experimenters and which therefore eliminates the question of optional stopping. The scoring of the data was completed during the winter, but the restilts were not evaluated at that time. The following spring, when the authors were again free to resume work on the experiment and before the results were tabulated, the decision was made to combine the series into a unit because of the lack of any clear basis for de- ® This animal is commonly but erroneously referred to as a gerbil. True gerbils are closely related but different species. Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6
. : 0100021-6 . ot Approved For Releast&s2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787RQ9040 x * Repetition of French Experiments with Mice 9 marcation and to examine the degree to which the results gave pre- liminary indications that we could replicate the French work, Before each experimental session, the experimenter checked the apparatus to be sure it was functioning Properly. He then selected an animal and recorded on the polygraph sheet the experimenter’s name, the date, time, and the animal’s number, He then put the Later, an independent checker removed the chart from the file and scored the data, transcribing the information onto another record sheet. He noted which of the 25 trials indicated random behavior. (See Figure 2.) Hits and misses were determined by the length of Resulis Altogether there were 140 runs of 25 trials each, a total of 3,500 trials. There were 416 occasions when a mistrial} occurred or the light source failed and the animal’s position could not be monitored. This left a total of 3,084 trials, of which 1,154 were random-behavior trials. When evaluated by chi-square, the results were not significant. i However, the experimenters were interested in finding out 7 whether there was any evidence that ESP was Present or operating trond | . (00021-6 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00040010 3
a Approved For Releasée2001/03/07 :‘CIA-RDP96-00787R0H0400100021-6 . bl] 10 The Journal of Parapsychology . Table 1 GENERAL RESULTS No. Hits Percentage No. No. Random- on Random- Random- Trials Behavior Behavior Behavior Series in Series Trials Trials Hits | en 478 201 104 51.7 Zoic ceccee ee eeas 986 423 227 53.7 K 437 210 105 " 60.0 ne 224 139 78 56.1 Bo cccccceeecene 165 62 33 53.2 (a 794 119 65 " 54.6 Total........ 3,084 1,154 612* 52.9 4CR = 2,06; P <.05 (two-tailed), at all in these series. Therefore an overall CR was computed. (See Table 1.) In 1,154 random-behavior trials where mean chance ex- pectation was 577 hits there were 612 times when the animal avoided the shock (made a hit). This gives CR = 2.06, (P <.05, two- tailed). Discussion The experiment reported here was an exploratory attempt to repeat the findings of the French work. It was terminated when the authors returned to school in the fall semester, and as a first effort, with suggestive results, it is a sufficiently successful beginning to warrant the further studies, reports of which are to follow. One of the most crucial questions in this research is the random- ness of the targets—whether or not there was some favoring factor. The empirical check preceding the experiment and the check on the targets actually generated during the experiment showed only a chance variation between the two target sides, thus eliminating non- randomness as a factor in the results. The likelihood that the results could be accounted for by psi on the part of the experimenter appears to have been at least partially reduced by the use of automatic equipment and the fact that the ex- perimenter was out of the room and otherwise occupied while the trials were being run. However, the theory of psi could easily be ex- tended to allow it to work in the absence of the experimenter ; and, Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6
Approved For Releas#*001/03/07 :-CIA-RDP96-00787RQ00400100021-6 ‘ Repetition of French Experiments with Mice 11 unlikely though it seems, it can still be considered a conceivable alternative. This reasoning suggests further measures to put it to test. The second section of the paper goes further into this problem of making a study of the differential responses of the animals that produced the successes. TI. ANALYSES OF THE EFFrect oF THE TEST SITUATION ON THE Test ANIMALS The analyses which follow are based on the results of Section I. They were carried out by J. L. to explore the effect of the test pro- cedure upon the ESP responses of the test animals. Obviously, only a very inefficient demonstration of psi ability was given by the animals, as the pooled totals show. The 1,154 ran- dom-behavior trials gave a CR of 2.06, which represents a psi quo- tient (PQ) of 3.68 as a measure of efficiency, whereas the com- parable figure for the Duval—-Montredon evidence is a PQ of 29.93. It seemed reasonable to suppose that there might be differences in the distribution of the small scattering of hits in our data that would reveal a more meaningful pattern. This, after all, was the type of reasoning that led to the original French findings and the principle of random behavior as a method of concentrating the suc- cesses in the analysis of the data. The selection of random-behavior trials before the checkup was made was intended by the French authors to eliminate trials on which psi was not to be expected under the conditions of the test. This selection concentrated the successful trials and produced the high PQ mentioned above. However, the at- tempt to repeat the French experiments, with all the subtle variables involved in such attempted replication, may have introduced dif- ferences in method that weakened the confirmation, and it seemed possible that there might be some areas of the test situation that were more conducive to the operation of psi than others. In following this line of thought, J. L. saw an opportunity for a more complete analysis of the animal behavior than had been possible in the French study. It has been pointed out that our apparatus monitored the behavior of the animal continuously and gave readings of jumps back and forth between trials that would not have been recorded by the French apparatus, which monitored the mouse only Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6
a Approved For Releast»2001/03/07 :-CIA-RDP96-00787RQP0400100021-6 12 The Journal of Parapsychology at the start of the five-second trial. On inspection, our records gave indications that the relative jumpiness, or nervousness, on the part of the animals was noticeably greater right after a shock trial; that is, a trial in which the animal made a miss and therefore re- ceived a shock. Considering the probable psychology of the animal, it seemed likely that right after a shock trial, his sensory and motor systems would be more dominantly activated and that this might interfere with the spontaneous operation of his precognition. J. L. planned, on this basis, to divide the trials following shock from the trials following nonshock. This breakdown makes up the first step in the present study. , Comparison of Results Following Shock and Nonshock Trials The after-shock vs. after-nonshock breakdown was made by two checkers, who rechecked the original polygraph charts. They totaled the number of times a shock trial was followed on the next trial by a hit (avoidance of shock) or a miss (shock) ; and the number of times a nonshock trial® was followed by a hit or a miss. These data were later rechecked by computer. The results are shown in Table 2. Table 2 CoMPaARISON oF Resutts Fottow1ne SHock AnD Nonsnockx TRIALS No. Random- Behavior Condition Trials Hits Pa After-shock trials 506 257 72 After-nonshock trials 648 355 <.015 aTwo-tailed. There were 1,154 random-behavior trials, 648 of which followed a nonshock trial. (See Table 2.) Of these, 355 were hits (54.8%) with CR = 2.44 (P <.015, two-tailed). The PQ = 9.19, The remaining 506 random-behavior trials were trials which followed a shock. They contained only 257 hits (50.79% success) ; PQ = .25. * A nonshock trial could be preceded either by a hit or a mistrial, as defined in Section I. Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6 ee a mate 3.
a Approved For Releas@a2001/03/07 ::CIA-RDP96-00787RQ90400100021-6 b Repetition of French E.cperiments with Mice 13 Analysis of Intertrial Jumps Encouraged by the results of the after-shock vs. after-nonshock analysis, J. L. undertook a further breakdown of the same results on the basis of the apparent “nervousness” of the animals as indi- cated by the number of times they jumped back and forth during the period between trials when the two compartments, of course, were not electrified. This was a mere behavioral count of activity as re- corded by the apparatus. ; Since the animals could jump into a shock only with difficulty (by jumping at least twice within a five-second period), one could say they were reinforced for jumping. In jumping they eluded shock almost exclusively; hence it was a beneficial behavior pattern for them to adopt. As with the random-behavior selection, one might expect those cases where the animals jumped less to show more ev- idence of psi, since low-jumping is an activity less accountable for by non-psi factors. Also, one would expect less jumping after non- shock than after shock. So this was logically complementary to both the “random-behavior” principle and the shock—nonshock idea. From a rough inspection of the same original data, it appeared that the best separation of the total trials would be to group those in which the animal jumped back and forth not more than two times between trials and compare them with those in which it jumped three or more times.” This analysis was carried out on the entire group * The choice of this point to break the low-jump vs, high-jump trials was, in addition to the one given, a mathematical one stemming from the difference be- tween selective monitoring (the French method) and continuous monitoring. As ‘pointed out, the selective monitoring recorded the animal’s position only at the time of the trial, Thus, if the animal jumped once between trials, a position change was recorded; but if he jumped twice, he appeared not to have moved at all, All trials with even numbers of jumps, therefore, were lost and only trials with odd numbers of jumps were counted, Again, since mechanical jumps were ex- cluded, any trial after a shock, whether the number of jumps was odd or even, was excluded, It was apparent that, while the scoring in our experiment gave mar- ginally significant results on the basis of continuous monitoring, it was at chance on the basis of selective monitoring. This suggested the occurrence of an uneven distribution of psi; ie, that more psi hits occurred in trials with certain types of behavior than with others. Since the trials that are excluded in selective monitor- ing necessarily have an even number of jumps, it would follow that in continuous monitoring the trials with two, four, etc. jumps must be the ones that contributed the positive scoring. It was assumed that as the number of jumps increased, the number of trials with that number of jumps would decrease. Thus there would be fewer trials with four and five jumps than with one or two. This, together with the reasoning about Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6
* Approved For Releaste2001/03/07 :‘CIA-RDP96-00787RQ90400100021-6 . 40° The Journal of Parapsychology Table 3 CoMPARISON OF RESULTs FotLowinc HieH AND Low NuMBer oF INTERTRIAL JUMPS No, Random- Bebavior Condition Trials Hits % Hits CR Ps Three or more jumps 395 199 50.5 15 .88 Two or fewer jumps 759 413 54.5 2.43 .015 *Two-tailed, of data, again following essentially the same procedure as before, first by hand and then by computer. Out of 1,154 random-behavior trials, there were 759 which were preceded by two or fewer jumps before the trial. (See Table 3.) On that next trial there were 413 hits (54.5% success) with CR = 2.43; P= .015, two-tailed. PQ = 7.78. The remaining 395 random-behavior trials, which were preceded by three or more in- tertrial jumps, gave only 199 hits on the next trial. The scoring rate has a CR =.15 anda PQ = .06. The Two Analyses Combined Finally, on the discovery that both of the breakdowns did show a meaningful concentration of the successes in a way that clearly improved the efficiency level as measured by the PQ of the selected category, the obvious next step was to combine the two analyses for the still further improved concentration that would have to follow. There were 422 trials which were preceded by a nonshock trial and before which the animal had jumped only once or twice. Of these, 239 were hits, 56.7% success, and a CR = 2.73 (P = .006, two-tailed). This has a PQ = 17.66. Most of the overall scoring was from this type of trial. jumping activity and shock mentioned above, made it seem that trials with one and two jumps were likely to be scoring better than those with three or more. The one- jump trials’ positive scoring would be brought to chance by the scoring of three- jump and five-jump trials, giving the result obtained with odd-jump trials. Since the two-jump trials greatly outnumber four-jump trials, the overall result with even-jump trials would be positive, as seen. This division of one- and two- versus three- and more jump. trials also gave roughly equivalent numbers of trials in each group, and it was therefore predicted that the data would separate along those lines. Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6
“ Approved For Releas’a2001/03/07 :‘CIA-RDP96-00787RQ90400100021-6 . . Repetition of French Experiments with Mice 15 Table 4 RESsuLTs oF Trrats FotLowine NonsHocx TRIALS AND Two or FEWER JUMPS After Shock After Nonshock Total Three or more jumps 169 trials 226 trials 395 trials 83 hits 116 hits 199 hits 49.1% 51.4% 50.4% Two of fewer jumps 337 trials 422 trials 759 trials 74 hits 239 hits 413 hits 51.7% 56.7% 54.5% CR =.2.73* ee —— 506 trials 648 trials 1,154 trials Total 257 hits 355 hits =~ 612 hits 50.8% 54.8% 52.9% *P = .006 (two-tailed). As can be seen from Table 4, the other three conditions (after shock, three or more jumps; after nonshock, three or more jumps; and after shock, two or fewer jumps) gave lower rates of scoring, as was expected, Discussion This is, in effect, a pilot study in which the method itself was used for the first time and the decisions concerning certain points had to be made with some arbitrariness. The comparison of trials fol- lowing shock and nonshock left little latitude for choice of procedure unless the breakdown might have been based on the results of two trials (instead of one) following a shock trial vs. two trials follow- ing a nonshock trial. This alternative method might, in fact, be worth trying in the future. The selection of the dividing point for the number of jumps made by the mouse between trials had to be an arbitrary one, but there was little choice that would have left a suitable division of numbers of trials for the two groups. Furthermore, unless generalizations are confirmed in the analyses of other data, they are very tentative and soon lost sight of. For- tunately, in this case additional data were immediately available in the work of other staff members of the Institute and in the results of further tests in the present series, While it is permissible to say that these later analyses confirmed the findings reported here, further Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6
a Approved For Releaste2001/03/07 :‘CIA-RDP96-00787RQ$0400100021-6 + 16 The Journal of Parapsychology details must await publication of the other researches on which the evaluations are based. Not all the questions raised by these results can be very fully discussed at this stage. Some will have to wait for the later con- firmation, especially those having to do with the principles involved in the bases for discrimination used in this breakdown. It does look as though shock recency is a deterrent to the exercise of psi, and it does look as though the hyperactivity of the animal, which may owe something to the recency of shock itself, is a sign of unreadiness for a psi response. One view of this situation that might be relevant is that this immediacy may be a rough analogue of consciousness in man and that these results may suggest some parallels between the unconscious control of psi in man and the expression of psi in animals. If these points add up in a rational way, and especially in an experimentally demonstrable way, the summing-up would run like this: if the French workers have found a test animal which, with automation and random-behavior selection, can produce a moderately efficient and fairly reproducible type of psi demonstration, and if, in addition, the selection of trials following nonshock in which the animals are less activated to jump around enhances the psi effect, there would appear to be some advance toward the desirable objec- tive of dependable psi test performance. This leaves the problem of what role the experimenters have in the experiment. With each of the steps summarized in these analyses the segment of the data in which psi is found is re- lated more to the animal’s situation and less to the experimenter’s. Conceivably the experimenter could affect the apparatus controlling the frequency of shock in some such way as must be happening in the experiments described by Schmidt (4) when he had subjects try to influence the frequency of the lighting of lamps which were determined by a similar selector system. The complexity of the operations is comparable in both these experiments, and the question is still good enough to deserve attention, as indicated earlier in the paper. A suc- cession of steps such as the ones in these analyses removes the ex- perimenter very considerably from the suspicion that he may be in- volved. It was not the experimenter who experienced the shock and Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6
“ Approved For. Releas&a#001/03/07 “CIA-RDP96-00787RQ90400100021-6 . Repetition of French Experiments with Mice 17 it was not the experimenter who was jumping back and forth be- tween sections in the apparatus; but these two considerations mark off almost exclusively the area in which the efficient performance was produced. Perhaps the experimenter is as much exonerated here as is possible at this stage of psi research. However, the question may be reconsidered when the further analyses are reported. Perhaps there will be other indications of how to distinguish man from animal in the psi test. 1. 2. 3. 4. REFERENCES Duvat, P., and Montrepon, E, ESP experiments with mice, J. Parapsychol., 1968, 32, 153-66, : Osis, K., and Foster, E. B. A test of ESP in cats. J. Parapsychol,, 1953, 17, 168-86. Rutng, J. B., and Featuer, S. R. The study of cases of “psi-trail- ing” in animals. J. Parapsychol., 1962, 26, 1-22. Scumipt, H. PK experiments with animals as subjects. J. Para- psychol., 1970, 34, 255-61. Institute for Parapsychology College Station Durham, N.C. 27708 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6 yor {
a tana . i = - a Approved For Releast#001/03/07 :‘CIA-RDP96-00787R0p0400100021-6 | r LOCATION OF HIDDEN OBJECTS BY A Z MAN-DOG TEAM! By J. B. Ruine ABSTRACT: The experiment was carried out with two German shepherds and their trainer who, as a team, attempted to locate empty land mine cases that were buried in a straight line four inches deep in sand under 6 to 12 inches of water, Each five-yard section, made up of five one-yard units, contained one buried mine, the location determined by a random number table. All surface signs except sec- tion and unit locations were removed by raking, The test site was out of visual range of the man-dog team during the planting of the mines, The dog was led over each section as a single trial, continuing to retrace until it indicated a location by sitting. The experimenter who buried the mine remained silent and invisible ‘to the team during the test, but from a screened position he was able to observe and record the team’s responses. When an assis- tant was present, the recording observer did not know the target locations, Both dogs gave significant results. The presence of steady crosswinds, surface ripples, and strong side currenis in the water gave good assurance against ol- factory cues. Special tests with colored liquids and streamers were made to verify the adequacy of these controls, Two hundred and three underwater trials gave 38.9% hits where 20% is ex- ‘ pected (P << .001), but a decline set in with both dogs, even with no change of personnel or overt conditions, Possible psychological factors are recognized that suggest an essential link in the man-dog relation.—Ed, <0 en nite te eal se The report given here describes experimental tests of the ability of two man-led dogs to locate underground objects made to simulate military land mines. The purpose of the investigation was to pro- vide conditions that afforded no sensory guidance to the dog or man . but allowed the possibility of extrasensory perception. The experiments were conducted by the Parapsychology Lab- oratory of Duke University in 1952 at the request of, and under contract to, the Engineer Research and Development Laboratories (ERDL), Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The reason for the delay in pub- lication of the report is that the material was classified and that efforts to obtain declassification were unsuccessful until 1969. The work was part of a larger program of investigation into the psi capacity in animals. Some of the other studies have been re- * This paper was first presented on Jan. 3, 1970, at the Winter Review Meeting * of the Institute for Parapsychology, i Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6