Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2 Target and Sender Dependencies V1 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 1 is considered as complete. This target-response pair received a score of seven. Figures 2 and 3 show examples of scores of four 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 X? to test the hypothesis that the quality of AC, 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 0.801 9.7% 1074 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2 11
; Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2 Target and Sender Dependencies V1 20 March 1994 rocks water flowing 1) City, buildings seems to be a big leap from what | am feeling about the target. |'ll restart. 2) Troubled by city feeling. Could be that the uprights are natural rather than man— made. In which cass the city interpretation is incorrect and | am feeling MESA. I'll check verticals. 3) DELETE: Lights, structure, structures, eo and city. We gots a waterfall, ude. turbulence Figure 1. Target and response with a rating of 7. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2 12
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2 Target and Sender Dependencies V1 20 March 1994 white rectangular box {like an upside~down sheet cake o> long Ss “ same box two circular shapes in front, like stepping Cc > stones in a garden 2 long hollow tube, like crashing surf on a beach — “Hawaii Pipeline” dark interior Figure 2. Target and response with a rating of 4. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2 13
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2 arget and Sender Dependencies V1 20 March 1994 BEGIN—10:30 AM BREAK Hard balls — almost cotton—like. Cattony p splotches. Movement — whizzing | keep wanting to say — specifically — air- through these cottony puffs fast. Damp- field landing strip. Flat land, Big airplanes ness. A long walkway & metal girders. would land here like naval carriers. Has a broken white fine down the center of strip & you see it straight on — like you would be coming in for a landing. c) Figure 3. Target and response with a rating of 1. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2 14
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2 Target and Sender Dependencies V1 20 March 1994 Rank-order We observed a strong increase of AC 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 AC for static tar- gets) was supported. Table 6 shows the same data for the dynamic targets. Table 6. Results for Dynamic Targets i 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 of AC with dynamic tar- gets in 1993 from that of 1992 (X2 = 9.942, df = 1, p <1.6x 107). 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 3.3/-E1.73 and 3.912.006, re- spectively (¢ = 1.32, df = 68, p <0.096). Including all receivers the means and standard deviations were 3.22+187 and 3.51+2.06, respectively (t = 0.690, df = 88, p < 0.246). al — w c [) a) o > = As} uy % Dane donve nL 4 "Blind Rating Score 0 -—>7 Figure 4. Static (dotted) vs Dynamic Ratings for Three Significant Receivers Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2 18