Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Target and Sender Dependencies
VI 20 March 1994
one in a blind analysis from our 1992 study. The response to the waterfall target in Figure 1 included a
number of pages of material about a city and other man-made elements. In all of our analyses, we strict-
ly adhered to the concept that any material a receiver deletes from the the response prior to feedback is
not counted in the analysis. As the receiver deleted the descriptions of man-made elements during the
trial, the response in Figure
is considered as complete. This target-response pair received a score of
seven.
Figures 2 and 3 show examples of scores offour and one, respectively.
In both cases, these re-
sponses were not edited by the receiver.
Hypotheses
The overall null hypothesis was that the effect sizes will not be significantly different from zero. We used
an X2 to test the hypothesis that the quality ofAC, as measured by rank-order, does not depend upon
target type.
Data Analysis and Results
The analysis for this study was partially automated.
All the trial information was stored in a computer
file and could be read only by the analysis program to guard against inadvertent display. An analyst
initiated the program and selected which receiver to analyze.
Since the program kept track of the re-
sults,
it instructed the analyst which response to examine for the current trial.
If the target for that trial
was dynamic, the program instructed the analyst to insert enough disks, which were unlabled with re-
gard to content, so that the target and four decoys could be copied to the computer hard disk.
If the trial
target was static, this step was unnecessary, as the static targets were already present on the hard disk.
A randomized order of the decoys and the target were presented in tabular form. A mouse click on the
target name would launch either the dynamic or static display of the selected target. By this method, an
analyst could review the entire target pack and rank-order them as usual. The ranks were entered into
an appropriate place on the computer form. The ratings were done at the same time and entered into
the form. Only after the completion of the analysis for this single trial was the data was locked into a file.
The analyst could then select feedback as to the correct answer. The results for individual receivers
were maintained in separate files. Three receivers participated in 10 trials for each target type and a
fourth, 372, participated in 15 trials per target type. Tables 5 shows the average rank, the effect size and
its associated p-value for the static target condition. We see that the combined data is significant and
three of the four receivers produced independently significant results.
Table 5.
Results for Static Targets
Receiver
<Rank>
ES
p-value
2.20
0.565
0.037
372
1.87
0.801
9.7 x 10 -4
389
3.10
-0.071
0.589
518
1.90
0.778
7.2 x 10 -3
Totals
2.22
0.566
7.5 x 10" s
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Target and Sender Dependencies
VI 20 March 1994
TARGET
water flowing
vater spray in the air
vertical drop
1)
City, buildings seems to be a big leap
from what
I am feeling about the target.
I'll
restart
2) Troubled by city feeling. Could be that the
uprights
are
natural
rather
than man-
made.
In which case the city interpretation
is inconect and
I am
feeling MESA.
I'll
check verticals.
3) DELETE
Lights,
structure,
structures,
building, and
city.
We
gots a
waterfall,
dude.
* turbulence
Figure
1.
Target and response with a rating of 7.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
!
two circular shapes
in front
like stepping
stones in a garden
;>
long hollow tube,
like crashing
surf on a
beach - ‘Hawaii Pipeline'
Figure 2.
Target and response with a rating of 4.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Target and Sender Dependencies
VI 20 March 1994
BEGIN—10:30 AM
puffy balls - almost cotton -like.
Cottony
puffy
splotches.
Movement —
whizzing
through these cottony puffs fast
Damp-
ness. A long walkway & metal girders.
BREAK
I keep wanting to say - specifically - air-
field landing strip.
Flat land.
Big airplanes
would land here
like naval carriers. Has a
broken white line down the center of strip &
you see
it straight on - like you would be
coming in for a landing.
Figure 3.
Target and response with a rating of 1.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Target and Sender Dependencies
VI 20 March 1994
Rank-order
We observed a strong increase ofAC for the static targets in the 1993 trials as compared to that of the
1992 trials (X2 = 3.158, df=
1,p< 0.075). Three of the four receivers had improved results in the 1993
trials as compared to those of 1992. Thus, the second hypothesis (i.e., an increase in^C for static tar-
gets) was supported.
Thble 6 shows the same data for the dynamic targets.
Table 6.
Results for Dynamic Targets
Receiver
<Rank>
ES
p-value
1.70
0.919
1.8 xlO" 3
372
1.93
0.754
1.8 x 10 -3
389
3.00
0.000
0.589
518
2.40
0.424
0.091
Totals
2.22
0.566
7.5 x 10~ 5
Using the rank-order statistics above, we saw no difference between static and dynamic targets in this
study. The first hypothesis was confirmed: we observed a significant increase ofAC with dynamic tar-
gets in 1993 from that of 1992
(.X2 = 9.942, df =
\, p < l.OxlO- 3
).
We then examined the question of static vs dynamic targets with regard to our blind rating system.
Fig-
ure 4 shows the relative density for the static vs dynamic targets for the three significant receivers only.
The mean and standard deviation for the static and dynamic targets was 3.30:1.73 and 3.902.06 , re-
spectively^ = 1.32, df = 68, p <0.096). Including all receivers the means and standard deviations were
3.22±l87 and 3.5! ±2.06, respectively (r = 0.690, df = 88, p< 0.246).
Figure 4.
Static (dotted) vs Dynamic Ratings for Three Significant Receivers
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2