V
4r
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
30 June 1975
REVIEW OF PERCEPTUAL
A.IJGMENTATION TECHNIQUES
INTRODUCTION
Several
caveates are necessary
in order that this
review be
considered
a fair appraisal
of the state of the research described.
©
First,
there are available only three progress reports
covering
a period
28 January
to
1 August 1974.
Evidently,
the major portion of research data both basic and applied
has
yet to
be submitted
to the sponsor.
No
interviews
v/ere held with the principal
investigators or
their staff
to clarify some of the techniques and procedures
described
in
the progress
report.
©
Little or
no description beyond
general
impressions
has. been
obtained
by the clients'
monitors of this
project.
®
As
a result of the incomplete reporting and data analysis,
the
reviev;er must
be extremely careful
not to give
a biased report
because supposed weaknesses or strengths of the
initial
reports
may not be perpetuated
in
a
final
and more comprehensive reporting
of the research.
Background Section
The purpose as stated
in the progress report on the program
is
"to determine
the characteristics of those perceptual
modalities through which
individuals
obtain
information about their environment, wherein such
information
is
not
presented
to any
known sense."
The program is"divided
into two categories of investigation of
approximately equal
effort:
applied research and basic research.
The purpose
of the applied research
is
to explore experimentally the potential
for
applications of perceptual
abilities of interest, with special
attention give
to accuracy and reliability.
The purpose of the basic research
is
to
identify
the characteristics of individual
possessing
such abilities,
and
to identify
neurophysiological
correlates and basic mechanisms
involved
in such
functions."
This review must by necessity
be concentrated on what the
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
reviewer assumes
to be the applied research effort.
There are little data
available
in the three progress reports concerning
the neurophysiological
correlates and basic mechanisms.
Since
the information
is
presented
in
progress report form,
the organization of this review must
be artificial
and
perhaps does
not represent
in order of importance of the subjects discussed.
An Overivew
A reading of the three progress reports
leaves
the impression that
the research was done on
a pragmatic and perhaps
"catch-as-catch~can"
basis.
Such an approach may have been necessitated
by the availability of certain
subjects or may
be
a reflection of the absence of a
long-range
plan.
It
is also somewhat difficult to separate the research that was
begun
in January 1974 from research conducted
by SRI during previous
periods.
This
is particularly true because in the first two progress
reports
there are
enclosures
(in
the form of appendices)
that were prepared under different
sponsorship.
One
is undated.
Thus,
it
is difficult
to determine the period
during which the research was
conducted.
The reviewer believes
this
paper,
entitled "Information transmission under conditions
os sensory shielding,"
may have
been sponsored just prior
to
the present reporting period.
It
is
questionable whether this portion of the progress report should
be considered
here,
but the reviewer
has examined
it in order that the review
be comprehensive.
This appendix covers
the work done with
Mr.
Geller who performed
under
a variety of test situations.
When one examines
the data and
the analys
of
Mr.
Geller's ability to reproduce stimulus material
enclosed
in sealed
envelopes,
it
is necessary on two counts
to look at pragmatic useage of the
skills or unique talent demonstrated.
The first point concerns
the degree of replicability of the stimulus
material.
How accurate must the reproduction
be
to
have value or meaning.
If one seeks exact reproduction
as
a criterion one would reach certain
conclusions fromthe test.
If one allows for analyses of symbolism or
near-identity or even similarity, other interpretations are possible.
The second point concerns
the methodology of submitting
Mr.
Geller's
responses
to judges
in order to see
if they can match responses
to stimili.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
The findings of the judges would
indicate
a very high matching of stimulus
to
response material.
The reviewer questions
the value of this matching
procedure.
There were no false responses
or false stimulus
material.
These were very limited test materials for matching purposes.
This
is an appropriate procedure only
if one
is
interested
in
. symbolism or
similarities rather than actual
or exact reproductions.
The reviewer feels
that if one
is not pragmatically concerned with exact reproductions,
or mental
Xerox copies of
the stimulus material,
then
he
has
a purpose for
this
information which would require symbolic analysis
and
interpretation
of the response material
that escapes
the reviewer.
To
see something
like
the target material
rather
than the target material
might give hints
to
its true
identity or configuration but
if the responses made by Mr.
Geller
have elements of symbolism,
and they appear
to,
then interpretation becomes
a
much more ambiguous and difficult
task.
These statements
in
no way imply that
Mr.
Geller's response stimulus
materials are not interesting
or that on the surface without examination of the
experimental methodology are not above chance expectation.
One must,
however,
seek and
interpret these results
in
terms of the objectives of the
research.
The reviewer cannot evaluate the conditions under which these
experiments were conducted.
There
is
no way to exclude the possibility
that clairvoyance precognition, or even elements of psychokinesis,
or
a
mixture of the three,
may not have been operating.
In addition,
one cannot
judge from these reports whether there were flaws
in handling
the test material.
It
is possible
to comment on
the die experiments conducted with the
sensitive,
but only
in
a tentative fashion because of the brief description
and data available.
In order to appropriately evaluate one needs
to know more
about
the pass
circumstances
when
the subject chose not to respond.
The
fact that
the stimulus material
is
known
(six possible choices) makes
this
a more structured
task,
eliminating confusing
interpretations.
The
results seem impressive.
However,
the reviewer
is
not acquainted with the
potential
means of manipulation of dice
in these circumstances.
More data
should
be collected under controlled conditions.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
A second series of experiments was conducted with
a
hundred target
pictures of every day objects drawn
by the experimenters and artists and
sealed
in envelopes.
The hundred targets were divided randomly into
two groups of 20 for
3 days of experiments.
On each of the
3 days of these
experiments
Mr.
Geller did not respond.
He declined
to associate any
envelope with the drawing that
he had made.
On each day
he made approximately
two recognizable drawings which Mr.
Geller felt were related
to
the target
pool
(100).
On each of the three days,
two of his drawings were considered
reasonably associated with
2 of the
20 daily targets.
On the third day,
two of his drawings were considered close replications
to that day's
pictures.
The experimenters did not consider these results significant nor-
would
the reviewer.
Evidently,
the researchers believed
the significant
factor was
that no person associated with
the research staff
had
knowledge
of what the pictures
or targets were.
This suggests
that Mr.
Geller may need
to read somebody's mental
impressions rather than the target material.
This hypothesis needs
further study and evaluation,
because
it
introduces
variables not controlled for totally
in these studies.
Mr.
Geller's
subjective impression was
that having
a target pool
of 100 stimuli
in
contrast
to
a single target for each judgement confused
the identity of
the target.
This explanation
is difficult
to evaluate.
Perhaps
if Mr.
Geller
is
used
in later studies
the
experimenters
can get at this factor.
Until
this matter
is clarified the precise ESP condition that
is operating cannot
be determined.
Remote Viewing
by
Mr.
Price
There
is
little description of the actual
narratives of Mr.
Price.
One
cannot determine whether
he was aware of the nine sites
or had visited
them
prior
to. the experiment.
It
is
known that he was not aware of which site was
being
visited at any particular time.
It
is also clear that
the experimenter
did not know which site was
visited,
but whether he had knowledge of the
site selected was
not clearly articulated.
In order for the judges
to match narratives against the sites they
visited may
be potentially significant.
However, without more original
data and transcripts of the narratives
it
is
impossible for the reviewer to
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
evaluate
these experiments,
particularly when
it
is
said several
times
that the descriptions contained
inaccuracies.
There
is
a question of
the value of the technique of having judges
compare
narratives and then visit the sites
to match them.
How many
factors are considered
as matches or misses
in
a nature preserve or the
Redwood City Arena or
a drive-in theater
is difficult
to
know.
There are
too
many unexplained variables
here for
a proper review.
Additionally,
from the pragmatic point of view of the client,
one
has
to know the accuracy that
is
necesary
in these narratives
to make
remote viewing valuable.
The REG
Res earch
The findings
of the Targ-Putoff initial
work measuring
EEG activity
as
an
indicator of information transmission between an isolated receiver
and
a remote sender
is
interesting
but certainly preliminary.
Six subjects
were used.
The second analyses gave no evidence of EEG driving
in any
receiver although
in control
runs
the receivers did exhibit driving when
physically stimulated with the flashes.
One of the six subjects,
HH,
showed
a consistent alpha blocking effort.
Therefore,
this
subject was
studied further and most of the data recorded
is
based on HH's performance.
The only other data offered were the guesses or the subjects'
conscious
assessment for each
trial
to see if they could
say when the stimulus was
generated.
This was found
to
be at chance
level.
Thus,
only HH's work
showed significant EEG changes associated with the presence of remote
stimuli
under conditions of sensory shielding.
No judgement can
be made
of this preliminary work on such limited data.
The summary or discussion session section of this Targ-Putoff report
seems
to
be the basis for background
in the present proposal
for work.
Here they state
a channel
exists which may involve either direct reception
of hidden information content,
perception of mental
images of persons
knowledgeable about target information,
precognition,
or some
cotjibination
of these or other
information channels.
The authors
feel
that they have
obtained some evidence that suggests
a channel
exists whereby information
about
a remote location can
be obtained
by
a means that
is
an as yet
unidentified perceptual
modality.
The reviewer cannot challence this finding
but cautions only that these data,
like other data submitted for the same
hypothesis over the years, may leave many unconvinced.
The second
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: ClA-RDP^-00787R0002001 50004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
conclusion appears
to be that the information channel
is
imperfect
containing
noise along with the signal.
This
is
not
a useful
conclusion
because
it does
not define noise,
it does not consider intensity or of
signal,
it does
not explain what other channels of information and
biological
systems may contribute.
Their third conclusion
is that "while
a quantative signal-to-noise ratio information-theoretical
sense cannot
as yet be determined,
the results
of our experiments
indicate that the
functioning
is at
a
useful
level
of information transfer."
The use of
signal-to-noise ratio
has
been discussed previously.
The concept of
usefeulness
is
undefined,
and
it has yet to
be determined whether such
information
so obtained
is useful
for interesting.
This
is
not
to deny that people obtain
information of some quality as yet
to
be determined
through methods we do not understand.
To immediately hypothesize that
it
is
extrasensory,
beyond
the ordinary channels of information,
is not
in
the
reviewer’
mind supportable or parsimonious.
Science
has yet
to exhaust potential
information obtained through the
known and studied sense mechanisms.
More-
over, .the ways
in which these information channels are sources, of data and
function
as
integrators
is
still
not thoroughly
known.
The authors go on
to
say that "the remote perceptual
ability may
be widely distributed
in
the
general
population but because perception
is generally below an
individual's
level
of awareness
it
is repressed or not noticed."
These are loose
statements without evidence for repression or "not noticed."
We have little
evidence whether the perception
is below a person's
level
of awareness.
This
criticism
is directed solely at use of words
that tend
to offer little
explanation.
The statement by the authors
that our cultural
constraints
have
prevented
the surfacing
of these abilities
is of interest.
The
reviewer's experience would
indicate that the present cultural
freedom
for new ideas,
life styles,
and
the
like,
is much more conducive
to the
study and awareness
of these phenomena
than conditions for the last
75 years
have been.
If good cases are
to surface,
if people with
high
ability are going
to
feel
free
to express
this gift,
this
is
the
time.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
The authors conclude that experiments
in the area of so-called
paranormal
phenomena can
be scientifically conducted and that these results offer
a
basis
from which departures
as
a function of other observables can
be
studied.
The
reviewer cannot disagree with
this statement as
long as
it
is
not meant
to
imply that previous studies or others now under way are being conducted
in an
unscientific or un-reliable fashion.
The experimenters have produced
no
new technologies untried
in some fashion
in
the past or present.
The
reviewer believes
the current methodologies are adequate for the study of
these pehnomena
but at present and
in
this study there
is
too great dependence
on probability and mathematical
determinations of events.
Although
such
figures are impressive,
they do not offer much explanation of the events.
They
only tend
to prove;
that something
is
happening above chance level.
It may
be
that they have chosen,
in the case of using judges,
the wrong methodology
or wrong variable
to examine.
Similarly,
the use of such terminology as
noise-to-signal
ratio also
does
not really get at the problem,
but introduces
a concept that
is neither
applicable nor helpful,
at least as far as describing ongoing events.
Progress
Report
Progress
report
2 mentions
the continuation of remote viewing,
including
targets
in Costa
Rica.
It gives
no
real
data for examination.
The report talks about detection of variable-density target material
in
which the goal
was differentiation of
12 low-density cards,
six
pencil
and
nine blank cards.
These were
to
be sorted by the subject after they
had
been randomized and placed
inside unnumbered opaque envelopes.
The
two
series proved
to give results
that did
not differ significantly by change.
They do mention,
however,
the ranking of cards
by number of times
chosen.
This was evidently perceiv ed
to
be significant,
but does
not appear to
this
reviewer to signify much.
Too little
information
is given
to do
a careful
analysis of what these results mean.
These data should
be looked at carefully
and discussed to determine whether they are of value,
but this cannot
be
accomplished
in progress report form.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2
Basic Research
There
is nothing
in the program of the psychological
testing
to
be
commented upon.
The reviewer does
not know that the hypotheses are associated
with the hemisphere specialization of the brain,
except as reported
in the
appendix.
Since there are
no results of data available,
this matter cannot
be reviewed.
The Measurement Program
EEG
There
is reference
here to the EEG work reported
in the first progress
report.
Three trials or observations are repeated
in order
to test the
hypothesis that certain observed characteristics
of paranormal
functioning might
involve right hemispheric specialization.
In the three sessions
the right and
left occipital
regions were monitored,
and
a section of alpha activity
(arousal
response)
that correlated with remote stimuli,
as reported
in the
previous experiments was found.
As will
be recalled,
the results did not
seem very promising for remote receiving except
in one individual,
so
the
meaning and importance of this
section of the report are unclear.
The
authors now believe or say that this occurred eseentially only
in the right
hemisphere where the average alpha reduction was
16 percent
(2 percent in the
left)
during the 16Hz
trials,
as compared woth no flash trials.
These results,
the authors suggest,
indicate
initial
support for the hypothesis of right
hemisphere specialization and that further investigations of that hemisphere
are indicated.
Their reasoning concerning
the placing paranormal
functioning
in the right hemisphere
is quite unclear.
It
is certainly confusing
to hear
now that there were results from remote stimulation
in the earlier studies.
Until
the data are available,
one must trust only the progress
report.
Physical
Measurements
The section
on physical measures
is
a description of what they plan
to
do and data they plan
to have
in April.
The only other part of the second
progress report
is
an appendix which,
a very interesting paper entitled
"Hemispheric Specialization
in the Duality of Consciousness,"
by
Gal in and
Ornstein from the
Institute for the Study of Human Consciousness,
Langley
Porter Neuropsychiatric
Institute.
The reviewer's assumption
is that this
paper
is not
to
be reviewed,
since it evidently
is
included merely as
an
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002001 50004-2