Approved For Releasi*£?001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787l^)0400100021-6
.
*
frO
-
t
an animal and recorded n«
+t, ft
,
g P
perly ‘ He then selected
name,
the date
time
and
th
P° yg
[,
aph sheet the experimenter’s
animal
in ^
ZJ T^
8 nUmben He then put the
animal’s tolerance— imt IT T*
adjUSted
the shock
level
to
the
the shock. The shock level^ ^
^ animal move to avoid
apparatus was run
until on^trialTad \ lT* ^
P°lygraph and the
,?
h
sheet was markfd“
** Pf
at least 26 minutes in order m
•
•
•
,
ter
Ieft
the room
for
y-,»W* ato the re^ wTSfiT'^ *T
included in the experiment
)
A
f 25 Were not to be
perimenter removed the polygraph shtet fmmT
the ex'
bered the trials from
1 tn
•
? a-
m the machine and num-
Placed in a
file
’
mislriaIs-
shoet was then
and^0«dll
dr«te
e
tiT
Ved
tl,e
,r°m ** ^
sheet. He noted which of the ?c ?
0nn*tI0n °nto another record
(See Figure 2
'i uv
i
•
~
tna 3 indicated random behavior
;
ee ri£ure z -) Hits and misses were determine u
a,
,
dVlor'
the shock-indicator pen stroke
a
/
ter“ined by the length of
hi ‘
* atl«“re
d
„l!
polygraph chart
T
^ the
by a second checker who
and who scored
the data directly on the Aarf itself R ,7
r'S“ ItS
scores were then eotnpared by a third independeni checkl
°f
Results
Altogether there were 140 runs of
tr: a i D
.
trials. There were 416 occasions when a mistrial™
&^
°! 3 ’ 5°°
source failed and the animal's position c^ttldTjr
,
' %ht
left a
total
of 3 084
trial, J uu TT
be monitored - This
trials. When
,7"
r“*avior
However,
the experiment wet tee
^1“"'
whether there was any evidence that ESP was tZ
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6
Approved For.Releas^001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-00787l|0p0400100021-6
.
The Journal of Parapsychology
Table
General Results
Series
No.
Trials
in Series
No. Random-
Behavior
Trials
No. Hits
on Random-
Behavior
Trials
Percentage
Random-
Behavior
Hits
478
201
104
51.7
986
423
227
53.7
437
210
105
'
50.0
4.
224
139
66.1
165
53.2
794
119
54.6
Total
3,084
1,154
612*
52.9
*CR - 2.00; 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.ReleasWOOI/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787Nfll)0400100021-6
Repetition of French Experiments with Mice
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.
II. Analyses of the Effect 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
Approved For Releas*2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787^)0400100021-6
•
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 trial6 was followed by a hit or a miss. These data were
later
rechecked by computer. The
results
are shown
in Table
2.
Table 2
Comparison of Results Following Shock and Nonsiiock Trials
Condition
No. Random-
Behavior
Trials
Hits
% Hits
CR
pa
After-shock trials
After-nonshock
506
257
50.79
.36
.72
trials
648
355
54.8
2.44
<.015
•Two-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
Approved For.Releasfc2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787l^)0400100021-6
•
Repetition of French Experiments with Mice
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.
1 his 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. 7 This analysis was carried out on the entire group
addition
0t
•
P°mt to °reak the ^w-jump
vs. high-jump
trials was,
in
°ne
a
, ®a*ematical one stemming from the difference
be-
.Sh’S ’Zt
< th
.e 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
AU
trb1°/
ded
n;
bUt
lf he
jumpccl
. tw ice,
he appeared not
to have moved
at
aU.
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-
elclnlr n
tr,a
aftGr 3 sh°C^’ whe*f
r the number of jumps was odd or even, was
excluded
It was
apparent
that,
while
the scoring
in our experiment gave mar-
gmally significant
results on
the basis
of continuous monitoring,
it was at chance
dktr'h, t
baS 'S f
S
-
e<
TtlVe
,monitoring'
This suggested the occurrence of an uneven
distribution
of psi
;
i.e., that more psi
hits occurred in trials with certain types of
behavior than with others.
Since the trials that are excluded in sekSSto?-
ing necessarily have an even number of jumps,
it would follow that
in continuous
theToTidvVscodng ^ tW°’
f°Ur ’ ^ jUnlpS mUst be the ones
contributed
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 aS
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6
Approved For Releasitf001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787l^)0400100021-6
The Journal of Parapsychology
Table 3
Comparison of Results Following High and
Low Number of Intertrial Jumps
Condition
No. Random-
Behavior
Trials
Hits
% Hits
CR
P»
Three or more jumps
395
199
50.5
.15
.88
Two or fewer jumps
759
413
54.6
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 and a 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.Releasltf?001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-00787l^0400100021-6
Repetition of French Experiments with Mice
IS
Table 4
Results of Trials Following Nonshock
Trials and Two or Fewer Jumps
Three or more jumps
Two of fewer jumps
Total
*P — .000 (two-tailed).
After Shook
After Nonshock
Total
169
trials
hits
49.1%
226
trials
116
hits
51.4%
395
trials
199 hits
50.4%
337
trials
174
hits
61.7%
422
trials
239
hits
56.7%
CR = 2.73*
759
trials
413 hits
54.5%
606
trials
267
hits
60.8%
648
trials
355
hits
64.8%
1,154
trials
612 hits
52.9%
s 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
Approved For .Releas«)01/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787l^flp0400100021-6
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.ReleasW?001/03/07
: ClA-RDP96-00787l^)0400100021-6
Repetition of French Experiments with Mice
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.
References
! Duval,
P-»
and
Montredon,
E.
ESP
experiments
with
mice
/. Parapsychol., 1968, 32, 153-66.
Z
Osis, K., and Foster, E. B. A test of ESP in cats.
J. Parapsychol
,
1953, 17, 168-86.
3. Rhine, J, B., and Feather, S. R. The study of cases of “psi-trail-
ing” in animals.
/. Parapsychol,
1962, 26,
1-22.
4. Schmidt, H. PK experiments with animals as
subjects.
/. Para-
psychol., 1970, 34, 255-61.
Institute for Parapsychology
College Station
Durham, N. C. 27708
r*
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6
Approved For ReleasWoOl /03/07
: ’CIA-RDP96-00787^)04001 00021 -6
LOCATION OF HIDDEN OBJECTS BY A
MAN-DOG TEAM
By J. B. Rhine
S^erwho\?r^
ment J
aS
ca7
ied
ont with two German shepherds and
buriedTa sSh?l?nI
er’
n
Pt
!,
C‘ to
0cate cmpty land
cases that were
I!
V
ght
e f0Ur lnches deeP in sand under 6 to 12 inches of water
tL blti7n
a
cltcnnTnerlT
dC “P
°f
fivC onc:yard units> contained one buried mine^
fc -WKS~
M surface signs except ~
of the
e
mfaes
S*t
Th
VaS
r?
OUt
V
,
1S
j
8^ range °i the man-dog team during the planting
ripples, ifttoSX c^UrlSfjh^wateraa
6 °f^
crosswinds ’ «**«»
factory
cues.
Special
tests
with ™l
,1
.. ter
. Save good assurance
against
ol-
verifyVe adequacy of tlTese Ztrok ^^ ^
Str~
™dc
to
pcetcZipT^OmThnl
1"0
^
U"denvater
tr,
'
als gave 38.9% hits where 20%
is ex-
JeSnS M^vert c^diHons* Pwsibl^nT
f
h^ tf
’
with “> change of
e report given here describes experimental
tests
of the ability
O two man-led dogs to locate underground objects made to simulate
military
and mines.
The purpose of the investigation was to pro-
vide conditions that afforded no sensory guidance to the dog or man
ut 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
/eTdtVV
ngineer 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
eltorts to obtain declassification were unsuccessful until 1969.
. The WOrk was Part of a Iar£cr program of investigation into the
P“ capacity
in animals.
Some of the other studies have been
re-
of thlhisthute foASpsychTlo^.
0"^ 3’ ^ at the WintCr Review Meeting
i
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100021-6
®