Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
November 4, 2016
Document Release Date: 
October 27, 1998
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
December 20, 1991
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2.pdf2.75 MB
TedlopiptiarvadcBor Release 2000/0/NAFCIIA-RDP96-00789130311401_4(V0fb-2 Anomalous Cognition in Lucid Dreams Prepared by: Edwin C. May, Ph.D. and S. LaBerge 20 December 1991 AMIVM?N Th___? Science Applications International Corporation An Employee-Owned Company Presented to: The Scientific Oversight Committee Submitted by: Science Applications International Corporation Cognitive Sciences Laboratory 1010 El Camino Real, Suite 330 Menlo Park, California 94025 1010 El Camino Real, Suite 330, P.O. Box 1412, Menlo Park, CA 94025 ? (415) 325-8292 ?therAPOOVelefbEesikere4g6n2010/0011That veTA=RINDS6V9781R0031)001400011-2 UNEDITED DRAFT TeAtftfrtfeacicdtftlffigts2460*871,81-:uoVAIROP96-00789R003100140001-2 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS I OBJECTIVE 1 II BACKGROUND 2 III APPROACH 3 1. Receiver Selection 3 2. Target Selection 3 3. Thal Definition 3 4. Lucid Dream Protocol 3 5. AC Baseline Measures 3 6. Lucid Dream Thal Protocol 4 7. Analysis 4 IV DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 5 V GLOSSARY 6 REFERENCES 7 APPENDIX 8 Approved For Release ARTA!? PFAtEP96-00789R00310014000112 TAPAIRY4A0E61r&IRAMWiligakugittriNf s96-00789R003100140001-2 DRAFT I. OBJECTIVE The objective of this investigation is to determine if anomalous cognition can be ovserved during a lucid dream.* Definitions of terms can be found in Section V (i.e., Glossary) on page 6. Approved For Release ang.isrfai MAIRP96-00789R003100140001-2 TediklAPAPINIAP aftAgiib%g all)iii10811311a0 1104410P96-00789 R003100140001 -2 DRAFT II. BACKGROUND Dreams involving putative anomalous cognition (AC) have been part of every human culture from the times of ancient Greece to the present. The first serious attempt, however, to examine AC in dreams under controlled conditions began under the direction of Montague Ullman, MD in 1962 at the Com- munity Mental Health Center of the Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. The re- search of AC in dreams continued until 1972 where the dream protocol was abandoned in favor of a simpler and more rapid approach to the study of AC. Child has summarized and critiqued this body of research in the American Psychologist1+ In these studies, individuals were asked to sleep in a laboratory and be monitored for brain activity and eye movement. From these records, it was possible to tell when they were dreaming. Upon the onset of rapid eye movement (REM), an experimenter notified a sender, who was isolated in a remote laborato- ry, to begin attending to a randomly selected target. At the end of the REM period, the dreamer was awakened and asked to report the dream content. This procedure was repeated throughout the night using the same target material for each separate dream (e.g., up to ten). The assessment of the AC content was accomplished through independent judges. As described by Child, significant evidence for AC was observed under a variety of conditions. The dreamers in these studies, however, were not necessarily focused upon the AC task. They slept as usual and, when asked, reported their dream content. In our pilot study we will focus the dreamer ex- plicitly on the AC task using the methods of lucid dreaming. A lucid dream is one during which the sleeper becomes conscious aware that the experience is a dream as opposed to the waking state. LaBerge et al. (1981) have found that it is possible for dreamers to know when they dreaming and to signal the waking world, through predetermined eye movements, indicating their awareness.2 Using this ability, LaBerge et al. (1986 and 1988) conducted a number of psychophy- siological studies to determine the differences between waking and dreaming from that prospective.3,4 They found that dreaming is similar to the waking state. Motor action is mostly inhibited from the brain stem downward; however, the cerebral cortex appears not to "know" this. In this preliminary pilot study, we will use the skills developed by LaBerge to teach individuals to lucid dream. Differing from the earlier AC dream studies, our dreamers will be instructed to adopt a proac- tive attitude to seek out and remember the AC target. In this way, we will determine the degree to which lucid dreaming can facilitate the reception of AC material. * References may be found at the end of the document and arc included in their entirety in the Appendix. Approved For Release 219R/BRE1916FW116-00789R003100140001-2 TetaRrEPORclot6irigtMesVaankuPARPFs'96-00789R003100140001-2 DRAFT III. APPROACH 1. Receiver Selection We will use two specialize populations from which to draw receivers for this pilot experiment: (1) Experienced dreamers from LaBerg's research subjects, and (2) Receivers who have demonstrated significant ability in other AC studies. Currently, five and seven individuals have volunteered, respectively. 2. Target Selection Targets will be chosen randomly from the standard set of 100 National Geographic magazine photographs. 3. Trial Definition A trial is defined as a successful lucid dream during which the target material was examined and later transcribed in the waking state. 4. Lucid Dream Protocol All receivers will undertake two forms of training in lucid dreaming: (1) They will complete a lucid dreaming home-study course developed by the Lucidity Institute (i.e., a subcontractor to SAIC), and (2) they will attend two weekend seminars, one at the beginning and one at the end of the proposed three-month pilot study. The first seminar, which was held in December, 1991, introduced receivers to lucid dreaming skills and the the use of the DreamLight, a lucid dream induction device. In previous studies, the DreamLight has been shown to enhance the frequency of lucid dreaming. The DreamLight consists of a sleep mask equipped with lights and eye movement sensors, which are attached to a small battery-operated computer. When the computer detects the eye movements of dreaming (i.e., REM) sleep, it causes the lights in the mask to flash briefly (i.e., either one or two flashes per second). The dreamer frequently incorporates the flashes into the ongoing dream, and thus experiences a cue to indi- cate that he or she is dreaming. Receivers will have free access to DreamLights during the duration of the study. 5. AC Baseline Measures Each receiver will be asked to contribute eight trials in a waking state in the Cognitive Sciences Labora- tory as an AC baseline series. The targets for this series will be chosen at random from a standardized target set that was developed from an earlier program. Each trial will be conducted as follows: After the Approved For Release 2ei3girelbCMPr96-00789R003100140001/ Tegipispbvediceigraehetaem emBioad,049RM96-00789R003100140001-2 DRAFT III. APPROACH 1. Receiver Selection We will use two specialize populations from which to draw receivers for this pilot experiment: (1) Experienced dreamers from LaBerg's research subjects, and (2) Receivers who have demonstrated significant ability in other AC studies. Currently, five and seven individuals have volunteered, respectively. 2. Target Selection Targets will be chosen randomly from the standard set of 100 National Geographic magazine photographs. 3. Trial Definition A trial is defined as a successful lucid dream during which the target material was examined and later transcribed in the waking state. 4. Lucid Dream Protocol All receivers will undertake two forms of training in lucid dreaming: (1) They will complete a lucid dreaming home-study course developed by the Lucidity Institute (i.e., a subcontractor to SAIC), and (2) they will attend two weekend seminars, one at the beginning and one at the end of the proposed three-month pilot study. The first seminar, which was held in December, 1991, introduced receivers to lucid dreaming skills and the the use of the DreamLight, a lucid dream induction device. In previous studies, the DreamLight has been shown to enhance the frequency of lucid dreaming. The DreamLight consists of a sleep mask equipped with lights and eye movement sensors, which are attached to a small battery-operated computer. When the computer detects the eye movements of dreaming (i.e., REM) sleep, it causes the lights in the mask to flash briefly (i.e., either one or two flashes per second). The dreamer frequently incorporates the flashes into the ongoing dream, and thus experiences a cue to indi- cate that he or she is dreaming. Receivers will have free access to DreamLights during the duration of the study. 5. AC Baseline Measures Each receiver will be asked to contribute eight trials in a waking state in the Cognitive Sciences Labora- tory as an AC baseline series. The targets for this series will be chosen at random from a standardized target set that was developed from an earlier program. Each trial will be conducted as follows: After the Approved For Release3igg9fig8:W.F96-00789R0031001400031-2 TeAlpiblwprecicEor fiteleasesMOJA108,1018LugheDgait96-00789 00140001-2 DRAFT receiver and an experimenter (i.e., called a monitor) enter the AC laboratory (i.e., an office with a single desk and two chairs), an assistant will use a computer random number generator to select a target from the baseline target pool. Both the receiver and the monitor will be blind to this specific choice. At a pre-arranged time, the monitor will encourage the receiver to draw and write impressions of the target material, which is located approximately 50 meters away. After approximately 15 minutes of casual questioning, the trial will end; the data will be copied; the originals will be secured; and the actual target will be presented as feedback to the receiver. The analysis will be discussed below. 6. Lucid Dream Trial Protocol During the study, each receiver will attempt to provide six AC trials in a lucid dream state according to the following procedure: (1) Each receiver will receive a sealed opaque envelope containing a target photograph chosen ran- domly from a predetermined set of 100. Receivers will place the target envelope in the room in which they are sleeping. (2) Using the DreamLight, they will attempt, while dreaming, to open the envelope, memorize its con- tent, and awaken as soon as possible. (3) In the waking state, they will write and draw their impressions in detail. (4) During the next day, they will mail the unopened envelope and their response to the principal in- vestigator (PI) for analysis. Upon receipt, the PI will send back a copy of the target photograph as feedback and an additional sealed envelope for the next trial. This procedure will be repeated until six trials are obtained from each receiver. 7. Analysis liaditional rank-ordering will be the method of analysis. The set of 100 National Geographic magazine photographs have been divided into 20 packets of five targets each. Within each pack, the targets have been selected to be as visually different from one another as possible. (A series of fuzzy sets were used to provide a quantitative method that was "fine tuned" by human judgment.) When a target is chosen from one of the target packs, the remaining four targets are considered as "decoy" targets for an analyst. For each trial, an analyst, is given the AC response and the target pack (i.e., five targets) from which the actual target was chosen. The analyst is required to rank order the targets from best to least match to the given response, regardless of the quality of the matches. The rank that is assigned to the intended target represents the value of the dependent variable for the trial. A sum-of-ranks is then computed for all the trials for each receiver, and effect sizes and p-values are determined from the known sum-of- ranks distribution. The effect sizes from the lucid dreaming trials will be compared to each receiver's base line data and to historical AC data that is available for the experienced receivers. Approved For ReleasedNed141gb:W9P96-00789R00310014000?41-2 TatapproveditcEer kifibleMis2RINNIN GughkraPf's96-00789 00140001-2 DRAFT IV. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The primary purpose of this pilot study is to determine if AC is possible in the lucid dream state. Be- cause the trials will be conduced in each receiver's home and is unsupervised, it is possible that the tar- get material can be compromised. By using standard enclosure techniques it is possible to determine if any casual attempt has been made to physically open the target material, but an experienced magician could foil the detection precautions. Thus we will be unable to conclude the existence of AC in a formal sense in this experiment. Knowing the historical effect sizes from other AC studies and from the calibrations of the lucid dreamer population can provide circumstantial evidence of AC. If the the lucid dreaming effect sizes are not significantly smaller than the historical or base line effect sizes, then we will recommend that a careful, laboratory-based study be conducted. Approved For Releaset3ROffe8:19M9P96-00789R00310014000?51-2 Te9kipiSkRtictiAr4r*terhydi3et 2896111k8dki8A CLUJ raiR96 -00789 R003100140001 -2 DRAFT V. GLOSSARY Not all the terms defined below are germane to the this study, but they are included here for complete- ness. In a typical anomalous mental phenomena (AMP) task, we define: ? Anomalous Cognition (AC)?A form of information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are absent. That is, some individuals are able to gain access, by an as yet unknown process, to information that is not available to the known sensorial channels. ? Receiver?An individual who attempts to perceive and report information about a target. ? Agent?An individual who attempts to influence a target system. ? Taraet?An item that is the focus of an AMP task (e.g., person, place, thing, event). ? Target Designation?A method by which a specific target, against the backdrop of all other possible targets, is identified to the receiver (e.g., geographical coordinates). ? Sender/Beacon?An individual who, while receiving direct sensorial stimuli from an intended target, acts as a putative transmitter to the receiver. Monitor?An individual who monitors an AC session to facilitate data collection. ? Session?A time period during which AC data is collected. ? Protocol?A template for conducting a structured data collection session. 4) Response?Material that is produced during an AC session in response to the intended target. ? Feedback?After a response has been secured, information about the intended target is displayed to the receiver. ? Analyst?An individual who provides a quantitative measure of AC. ? Specialty?A given receiver's ability to be particularly successful with a given class of targets (e.g., people as opposed to buildings). ? Lucid Dream?A dream during which an individual becomes aware of the dream. Approved For Releasba0Bicygo bfilb9DP96-00789R003100140001-2 6 TepipplabVexioEcorkhohstases2.Qijefik8106w6dutiflaii96-00789R003100140001-2 DRAFT REFERENCES 1. Irvin L. Child, "Psychology and Anomalous Observations," American Psychologist, Vol. 40., No. 11, pp. 1219-1230 (November 1985). 2. S. LaBerge, L. E. Nagel, W. C. Dement, and V. P. Zarcone, Jr., "Lucid Dreaming Verified by Volitional Communication During REM Sleep," Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 52, pp. 727-732 (1981). 3. S. LaBerge, L. Levitan, and W. C. Dement, "Lucid Dreaming: Physiological Correlates of Consciousness during REM Sleep," The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Vol. 7, Nos. 2 and 3, pp.251-258 (1986). 4. The Psychophysiology of Lucid Dreaming, Ed. J. Gackenbach and S. LaBerge, pp. 135-153, Plenum Press, New York (1988). Approved For Releaseimaii6: 8itARP96-00789R003100140001-2 TechpipflOveldc60 pasigeas atitRiaglinticg *Alai' 9 6 -0 0 7 8 9 R003100140001-2 DRAFT APPENDIX This appendix contains the full reprints of the following three papers: (1) "Psychology and Anomalous Observations" (2) "Lucid Dreaming Verified by Volitional Communication During REM Sleep" (3) "Lucid Dreaming: Physiological Correlates of Consciousness during REM Sleep" (4) The Psychophysiology of Lucid Dreaming, pp. 135-153 Approved For ReleasVORKJ8 icapfP96-00789R0031001400931-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 Psychology and Anomalous Observations The Question of ESP in Dreams Irvin L. Child Yale University ABSTRACT Books by psYchologists purporting to of- fer critical reviews of research in parapsychology do not use the scientific standards of discourse prevalent in psychology. Experimerus at Maimonides Medical Center on possible extrasensory perception (ESP) in dreams are used to illustrate this point. The experi- ments have received little or no mention in some re- views to which they are dearly pertinent. In others, they have been so severely distorted as to give an en- tirely erroneous impression of how they were con- ducted. Insofar as psychologists are guided by these reviews, they are prevented from gaining accurate in- formation about research that, as surveys show, would be of wide interest to psychologists as well as to others. In recent years, evidence has been accumulating for the occurrence of such anomalies as telepathy and psychokinesis, but the evidence is not totally con- vincing. The evidence has come largely from experi- ments by psychologists who have devoted their careers mainly to studying these anomalies, but members of other disciplines, including engineering and physics, have also taken part. Some psychologists not primarily concerned with parapsychology have taken time out from other professional concerns to explore such anomali&s for themselves. Of these, some have joined in the experimentation (e.g., Crandall & Hite, 1983; Lowry, 1981; Radin, 1982). Some have critically re- viewed portions of the evidence (e.g., Akers, 1984; Hyman, 1985). Some, doubting that the phenomena could be real, have explored nonrational processes that might encourage belief in their reality (e.g., Ay- eroff & Abelson, 1976). Still others, considering the evidence substantial enough to justify a constructive theoretical effort, have struggled to relate the apparent anomalies to better established knowledge in a way that will render them less anomalous (e.g., lrwin, 1979) or not anomalous at all (e.g., Blackmore, 1984). These psychologists differ widely in their surmise about whether the apparent anomalies in question will eventually be judged real or illusory; but they appear to agree that the evidence to date warrants serious consideration. Serious consideration of apparent anomalies seems an essential part of the procedures of science, regardless of whether it leads to an understanding of new discoveries or to an understanding of how per- suasive illusions arise. Apparent anomalies?just like the more numerous observations that are not anom- alous?can receive appropriate attention only as they become accurately known to the scientists to whose work they are relevant Much parapsychological re- search is barred from being seriously considered be- cause it is either neglected or misrepresented in writ- ings by some psychologists?among them, some who have placed themselves in a prime position to mediate interaction between parapsychological research and the general body of psychological knowledge. In this article, I illustrate this important general point with a particular case, that of experimental research on possible ESP in dreams. It is a case of especially great interest but is not unrepresentative of how psycho- logical publications have treated similar anomalies. The Maimonides Research The experimental evidence suggesting that dreams may actually be influenced by ESP comes almost en- tirely from a research program carried out at the Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. Among scientists active in parapsychology, this pro- gram is widely known and greatly respected. It has had a major indirect influence on the recent course of parapsychological research, although the great ex- pense of dream-laboratory work has prevented it from being a direct model. None of the Maimonides research was published in the journals that are the conventional media for psychology. (The only possible exception is that a summary of one study (Honorton, Krippner, & Ull- man, 1972) appeared in convention proceedings of the American Psychological Association.) Much of it was published in the specialized journals of parapsy- chology. The rest was published in psychiatric or other medical joumaLs, where it would not be noticed by many psychologists. Most of it was summarized in popularized form in a book (Ullman, Krippner, & Vaughan, 1973) in which two of the researchers were joined by a popular writer whose own writings are clearly not in the scientific tradition, and the book departs from the pattern of scientific reporting that characterizes the original research reports. November 1985 ? American Psychologist 0:wish+ um b tbc Amax= IN yetooksical Maxims& lac 002)-066X/S5/103,75 Ng- O. No. 11, 1219-12)0 1219 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R 03100140001-2 How, then, would this research come to the at- tention of psychologists, so that its findings or its errors might in time be evaluated for their significance to the body of systematic observations upon which psy- chology has been and will be built? The experiments at Maimonides were published between about 1966 and 1972. In the years since?now over a decade? five books have been published by academic psy- chologists that purport to offer a scholarly review and evaluation of parapsychological research. They vary in the extent to which they seem addressed to psy- chologists themselves or to their students, but they seem to be the principal route by which either present or future psychologists, unless they have an already established interest strong enough to lead them to search out the original publications, might become acquainted with the experiments on ESP in dreams. I propose to review how these five books have pre- sented knowledge about the experiments. First, how- ever, I must offer a summary of the experiments; without that, my review would make sense only to readers already well acquainted with them. The experiments at Maimonides grew out of Montague ULlman's observations, in his psychiatric practice, of apparent telepathy underlying the content of some dreams reported by his patients?observa- tions parallel to those reported by many other psy- chiatrists.. He sought to determine whether this ap- parent phenomenon would appear in a sleep labora- tory under controlled conditions that would seem to exclude interpretations other than that of ESP. He was joined in this research by psychologist Stanley Krippner, now at the Saybrook Institute in San Fran- cisco, and a little later by Charles Honorton, now head of the Psychophysical Research Laboratories in Princeton, New Jersey. Encouraged by early findings but seeking to improve experimental controls and identify optimal conditions, these researchers, assisted by numerous helpers and consultants, tried out %Par- lous modifications of procedure. No one simple de- scription of procedure, therefore, can be accurate for all of the experiments. But the brief description that follows is not, I believe, misleading as an account of what was generally done. The Experimental Procedure A subject would come to the laboratory to spend the night there as would-be percipient in a study of pos- sible telepathic influence on dreams. He or she met and talked with the person who was going to serve as agent (that is, the person who would try to send a telepathic message), as well as with the two experi- menters taking part that night, and procedures were Requests for reprints should be sent to Irvin L. Child at the De- partment of Psychology, Yalc University, P.O. Box I IA, New Hr.en. Connecticut 06520-7447. explained in detail unl the percipient was a repeater for whom that step not necessary. When ready to go to bed, the percip cot was wired up in the usual way for monitoring o brain waves and eye move- ments, and he or she d no further contac-t with the agent or agent's expen enter until. after the session was completed. The ex ? rimenter in the next room monitored the percipie t's sleep and at the beginning of each period ofrapid ye movements (REM), when it was reasonably certai the sleeper would be dream- ing, notified the agent sy pressing a bbuzzer.The agent was in a remote room in the building, provided with a target icturc (and sometimes acces- sory material echoing t e theme of the picture) ran- domly chosen from a I of potential targets as the message to be concent ted on. The procedure for random choice of a targ t from the pool was designed to prevent anyone else rom knowing the identity of the target. The agent ? d not open the packet con- taining the target until ?lated for the night (except for the one-way buzzer communication). Whenever signaled.that the percip ent had entered a REM pe- riod, the agent was to incentrate on the target, with the aim of communicati g it telepathically to the per- cipient and thus influen 'rig the dream the percipient was having. The percipie it was oriented toward trying to receive this message. ut of course if clairvoyance and telepathy are both is ible, the percipient might have used the former? at is, might have been pick- ing up information dir ly from the target picture, without the mediation ?f the agent's thoughts or ef- forts. For this reason, e term general extrasensory perception (GESP) woul be used today, though the researchers more often s the term telepathy. Toward the approx mate end of each REM pe- riod, the percipient was awakened (by intercom) by the monitoring experi enter and described any dream just experienced ( th prodding and question- ing, if necessary, though c percipient of course knew in advance what to do in each awakening). At the end of the night's sleep, ?e percipient was interviewed and was asked for impr "ons about what the target might have been. (The interview was of course double- blind; neither percipient nor interviewer knew the identity of the target.) The dream descriptions and morning impressions an associations were recorded and later transcribed. The original resear book both present a nu ities between passages the picture that happen These similarities merit themselves yield no sen transcript of a night's dr striking similarity to any be compared. The Mai consisted of carefully pla 1220Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDFIVAVEint# h reports and the popular her of very striking similar- the dream transcripts and to be the night's target. ttention, yet they should in of conviction. Perhaps any ming contains passages of icture to which they might onidcs research, however, ned experiments designed 031effic4061511-21?E)" Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 to permit evaluation of this hypothesis of random similarity, and I must now turn to that aspect. Results To evaluate the chance hypothesis, the researchers obtained judgments of similarity between the dream content and the actual target for the night, and at the same time obtained judgments of similarity between the dream Content and each of the other potential targets in the pool from which the target had been selected at random. The person judging, of course, had no information about which picture had been randomly selected as target; the entire pool (in du- plicate) was presented together, with no clue as to which picture had been the target and which ones had not. That is, in the experimental condition a picture was randomly selected from a pool and concentrated on by the agent, and in the control condition a picture was left behind in the pool. Any consistent difference between target and nontarget in similarity to dream content, exceeding what could reasonably be ascribed to chance, was considered an apparent anomaly. The data available for the largest number of ses- sions came from judgments made by judges who had no contact with the experiment except to receive (by mail, generally) the material necessary for judging (transcripts of dreams and interview and a copy of the target pool). For many sessions, judgments were also available from the dreamer, he or she, of course, made judgments only after completing participation in the experiment as dreamer (except in some series where a separate target pool was used for each night and the dreamer's judgments could be made at the end of the session). For many sessions, judgments were made for the dream transcripts alone and for the total transcript including the morning interview; for con- sistency I have used the latter, because it involved judges who had more nearly the same information as the subjects. The only form in which the data are available for all series of sessions is a count of hits and misses. lithe actual target was ranked in the upper half of the target pool, for similarity to the dreams and in- terview, the outcome was considered a hit. If the actual target was ranked in the lower half of the pool, the outcome was considered a miss. The hit-or-miss score is presented separately in Table 1 for judges and for subjects, in the first two data columns. Where infor- mation is not supplied for one or the other, the reason is generally that it was impossible for the researchers to obtain it, and for a similar reason the number of cases sometimes varies.' 10f course, usable judgments could not be obtained from the subject in precognitive sessions, because at the time of judging he Of She WOLLId already know what the urges had beat. Foe Line F, the single subject was unable to give the extra time required for judging, and for Line 0 one of the four subjects failed to make Each data row in Table 1 refers to one segment of the research, and segments for the most part are labeled as they were in the table of Ullman et al. (1973, pp. 275-277). Segments that followed the general procedure I described?all-night sessions, with an agent concentrating on the target during each of the percipient's REM periods?are gathered together in the first eight lines, A through H (in five of these seg- ments, all but A, C, and H, a single percipient con- tinued throughout a series, and in four of these the percipient was a psychologist). Other types of segments are presented in the rest of the table. Lines 1, .1, and K summarize precognitive sessions; here the target was not selected until after the dreaming and interview had been completed. The target consisted of a set of stimuli to be presented directly to the percipient after it had been selected in the morning. Lines L and M represent GESP sessions in which the percipient's dreams were monitored and recorded throughout the night, but the agent was attempting to transmit only before the percipient went to sleep or just after, or sporadically. Line N refers to a few clairvoyance ses- sions; these were like the standard GESP sessions ex- cept that there was no agent (no one knew the identity of the target). Finally, Line 0 reports on some GESP sessions in which each dream was considered sepa- rately; these formed a single experiment with four percipient& comparing nights involving a different target for each REM period with nights involving re- peated use of a single target. Regardless of the type of session (considering the five types I have described), each session fell into one of two categories: (a) pilot sessions, in which either a new dreamer or a new procedure was being tried out; these appear in lines H, K. and N, or (b) sessions in an experimental series, planned in advance as one or more sessions for each of two or more subjects, or as a number of sessions with the_same dreamer through- out. Most of the researchers' publications were de- voted to the results obtained in the experimental se- ries, but the results of the pilot sessions have also been briefly reported. A glance at the score columns for judges and for subjects is sufficient to indicate a strong tendency for an excess of hits over misses. If we average the outcome for judges and for subjects, we find that hits exceed misses on every one of the 15 independent lines on which outcome for hits and misses differs. (On Line E hits and misses occur with equal frequency.) By a simple sign-test, this outcome would be significant beyond the 0.0001 level. I would not stress the exact value here, for several reasons. There was no advance judgments. In a few of the pilot sessions (Lines H, K, and N) only the subject's judgment was sought, and in some sessions only that of one or more judges: in a few the mean judges' rating was neither a hit nor a miss but exactly at the middle. November 1985 ? American Psychologist 1221 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 - Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 Table 1 Summary of Ma/mon/des Results on Tendency for Dreams to Be Judged More Like Target Than like Nontargets in Target Pool Judges' SubHos' score score Z or t requiem from Isdironto Hit Meg Hlt Miaa Jud011e Sulltsi:to Source, GESP: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; agent "transmitting ' during each REM period A. 1st screening 7 5 10 2 z g. 0.71" z s. 1.33" Ullman, Krippner, & Feldstein (1966) B. 1st Erwin 5 2 6 1 z = 2.53" z = 1.90" Ullman et al. (1966) C. 2nd screening 4 8 9 3 z I= ?.25" z = 1.17" Ullman (1969) D. Posin 6 2 6 2 z M. 1.05c a = 1. 5' Ullman (1969) E. Grayeb 3 5 5 3 z = ?.63' z = 0.? Ullman. Krippner, & Vaughan (1973) F. 2nd Erwin 8 o t = 4.93' Ullman & Krippner (1969) G. Van de Castle 6 2 8 0 z- 2.81' t = 2.7 ' Krippner & Ullman (1970) H. Pilot sessions 53 14 42 22 z = 4.20? z 2. 1b Ullman et al. (1973) Pr nition? Dreams monitored and recorded throuohout n h ? taroet xt da _ I. 1st Bessent 7 1 t = 2.81 ' J. 2nd Bessent 7 1 t = 2.27 K. Pilot sessions ? 2 0 a = 0.67' Krippner. Ullman, & Honor/on (1971) Krippner, Honorton, & Ullman (1972) Ullman et al. (1973) GESP: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; agent active only at beginning L. Sensory bombard- 8 0 4 4 z = 3.11 b z = 0.00` ment M. Grateful Dead 7 5 8 4 z = 0.61' z = 0.81' or sporadically Krippner, Horiorton, . Ullman, Masters, & Houston (1971) Krippner, Honorton, & Ullman (1973) Clairvoyance: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; concealed target N. Pilot sessions 5 3 4 5 z = 0.98? z = 0.00" known to no one Ullman et at. (1973) GESP: Single dreams 0. Vaughan, Harris, 105 98 74 79 z = 0.63c z = ?.32' Parise Honorton, Krippner, & Ullman (1972) Note. GESP ii general extrasensory perception. take Silently results obtained with proofs:lures that preserve independarbe For morns series. the published souroa does in this of ludigments in a senes. laboratory reports were also not use the uniform measures entered table. sod frorriso;raphed consult.d. Superscipts indicate which in measure was available, order of priority. ? Ftatings. ? Flanitirips. ? Score (count of hits and misses). plan to merge the outcomes for judges and subjects. sonably be ascribed to chance. Moreover, the various series could be split up in other atic?that is, nonrandom ways. Although I think my organization of the table semblance of dreams to target. is very reasonable (and I did not notice this outcome Despite its breadth, this until after the table was constructed), it is not the to vary greatly in strength. organization selected by Ullman et al. (1973); their dreams?Line 0?suggest table, if evaluated statistically in this same way, would other extreme, some separate not yield so striking a result. What is clear is that the impressive. I will next consider tendency toward hits rather than misses cannot rea- mately evaluate the relative There is some system- --source of anomalous re- "hitting" tendency seems The data on single no consistency. At the lines of the table look how we may legiti- statistical significance of 1222 nentitr713V1kO04316-61216V64?12gisi Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RD - Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 against eventual replicability. In the Maim onides se- ries, likewise, three successive replications (Lines C, D, and E in Table 1) yielded no significant result, yet they arc part of a program yielding highly significant overall results. If results or such potentially great interest and scientific importance as those of the Maimonides program had been reported on a more conventional topic, one might expect them to be widely and ac- curately described in reviews of the field to which thcy were relevant, and to be analyzed carefully as a basis for sound evaluation of whether replication and extension of the research were indicated, or of whether errors could be detected and understood. What has happened in this instance of anomalous research findings? Representation of the Maimonides Research in Books by Psychologists II is appropriate to begin with E. M. Hansel's 1980 revision of his earlier critical book on parapsychology. As part of his attempt to bring the earlier book up to date, he included an entire chapter on experiments on telepathy in dreams. One page was devoted to a description of the basic method used in the Mai in on- ides experiments; one paragraph summarized the im- pressive outcome of 10 of the experiments. The rest of the chapter was devoted mainly to a specific account of the experiment in which psychologist Robert Van de Castle was the subject (the outcome is summarized in Line (5 of my Table 1) and to the attempted rep- lication at the University of Wyoming (Belvedere & Foulkes, 1971), in which Van de Castle was again the subject. Another page was devoted to another of the Maimonides experiments that was also repeated at the University of Wyoming (Foulkes et al., 1972). Hansel did not mention the replication by Globus et al. (1968), whose authors felt that the results encour- aged further exploration. Hansel gave more weight to the two negative outcomes at Wyoming. than to the -stirtroftrie?Mi rtiohid.Esearch,arguing that sensory -ccreg-Stirrpq011y-15ermitted by the procedures at Mai- monides, not possible because of greater care taken by the Wyoming experimenters, were responsible for the difference in results. He did not provide, of course, the full account of procecTures presented in the original Maimonides reports that might persuade many read- ers that Hansel's-in-taw- citation is far from ,compeffing. c-iTZ-d-he consider why some of the other experi- ments at Maimonides, not obviously distinguished in the care with which they were done from the two that were replicated (e.g., those on Lines E, M, and 0 of Table 1) yielded a close-to-chance outcome such as Hansel might have expected sensory cuing to prevent. Hansel exaggerated the opportunities for sensory cuing?that is, for percipient to obtai n Y- -Ordinary sensory means some information about the target for the night. He did this notably by misinterpreting an ambiguous statement in the Maimonides reports, not mentioning that his interpretation was incompatible with other passages; his interpretation vas in fact er- roneous, as shown by Akers (1984, pp. 128-129). Furthermore, Hansel did not alert the reader to the great care exerted by the researchers to eliminate pos- sible sources of sensory cuing. Most important is the fact that Hansel did not provide any plausible ac- count=oTherthan. fraud?' how the opporttiniffet fofte-enia-ry cuing that he claimed existed would be tireTy---i-Olcaillo the striking findings of the research. For example, he seemed to consider important the fact that at Maimonides the agent could leave his or her room during the night to go to the bathroom, whereas in Wyoming the agent had a room with its own bathroom, and the outer door to the room was sealed with tape to prevent the agent from emerging. Hansel did not attempt to say how the agent's visit to the bathroom could have altered the details of the percipient's dreams each night in a manner distinc- tively appropriate to that night's target. The only plausible route of influence on the dream record seems to lx deliberate fraud involving the researchers and their subjects. The great number and variety of personnel in these studies?experimenters, agents, percipients, and judges?makes fraud especially un- likely as an explanation of the positive findings; but Hansel did not mention this important fact. It...appears to me that all of Hansel's criticisms of the Maimonides experiments are relevant only on thElkp-6thesis of fraud (except for the mistaken crit- icism I have mentioned above). He said that uninten- tional communication was more likely but provided no evidence either that it occurred or that such com- munication?in any form in which it might have oc- curred?could have produced such consistent results as emerged from the Maimortides experiments. I infer that Hansel was merely avoiding making explicit his unsupported accusations of fraud. Fraud is an inter- pretation always important to keep in mind, and it is one that could not be entirely excluded even by pre- cautions going beyond those used in the Wyoming studies. But the fact that fraud was as always, theo- retically possible hardly justifies dismissal of a series of carefully conducted studies that offer important suggestions for opening up a new line of inquiry into a topic potentially of great significance. Especially re- grettable is Hansel's description of various supposed defects in the experiments as though they mark the experiments as being carelessly conducted by general scientific criteria, whereas in fact the supposed defects arc relcv-ant only if one assumes fraud. A reader who is introduced to the Maimonides research by Hansel's chapter is likely to get a totally erroneous impression of the care taken by the experimenters to avoid various possible sources of error. The one thing they could November 1985 ? American Psychologist 1225 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-0 not avoid was obtaining results that Hansel considered a priori impossible, hence evidence of fraud; but Hansel was not entirely frank about his reasoning. _An_incidental point worth noting is that Hansel did not himself apply, in his criticaLattacic,...the4taa- -darfffbreviaeliee_he. demanded of the researchers. His conclusions vvere based implicitly on the assump- tion that the difference of outcome between the Mai- monides and the Wyoming experiments was a genuine difference, not attributable to random variation. He did not even raise the question, as he surely would have if, in some parallel instance, the Maimonides researchers had claimed or implied statistical signif- icance where it was questionable. In fact, the difference of outcome might well have arisen from random error for the percipient's own judgments the difference is significant at the 5% level (2-tailed), but for the out- siders' judgments it does not approach significance. Another 1980 book is The Psychology of Tran- scendence, by Andrew Neher, in which almost 100 pages are devoted to "psychic experience." Neher dif- fered from the other authors I refer to in describing the Maimonides work as a "series of studies of great interest" (p. 145), but this evaluation seems to be ne- gated by his devoting only three lines to it and four lines to unsuccessful replications. A third 1980 publication, The Psychology of the Psychic, by David Marks and Richard Kammann, provides less of a general review of recent parapsy- chology than Hansel's book or even Neher's one long chapter. It is largely devoted to the techniques of mentalists (that is, conjurors specializing in psycho- logical rather than physical effects) and can be useful to anyone encountering a mentalist who pretends to be "psychic." Most readers are not likely to be aware that parapsychological research receives only limited attention. The jacket blurbs give a very different view of the book, as do the authors in their introductory sentences: ESP is just around the next corner. When you get there, it is Just around the next corner. Having now tutted over one hundred of these corners, we decided to call it quits and report our findings for public review. (Marks & Kammann, 1980, p.4) Given this introduction to the nature of the. book, readers might suppose it would at least mention any corner that many parapsychologists have judged to be an impressive turning. But the Maimonides dream, experiments received no menti_oo,a/ Anu Notunie:63 psychologist James Alcock (1981), quite clearly purports to include a general re- view and evaluation of parapsychological research. Alcock mentioned (p. 6) that Hansel had examined the Maimonides experiments, but the only account of them that Alcock offered (on p. 163) was incidental to a discussion of control groups. By implication he 789R0031001400012 seemed to reject the Maimonides experiments because they included no control groups. He wrote that "a control group, for which no sender or no target was used, would appear essential" (p. 163). Later he added, 'One could, alternatively, 'send' when the subject was not in the dream state, and compare 'success' in this case with success in dream state trials" (p. 163). The tem ents suggests a relevant use o f con- t_ errs in galling it essential; in other escarch, Alcock would have doubtless ized that Within-subject contra -can, Vh-Erereable, be much more-efficient-and pertinent _control_group...His second staterneni- of experiment that is probably im- se in satisfactory form it seems to re- to dream whether awake or asleep w whether he or she was awake or ond kind of experiment, moreover, ncnce only to a comparison between king, not to the question of whether ed in dreaming. short, did not seem to recognize that Maimonides experiments was based ctly parallel to those used by innu- ogists in other research with similar (and even implied, curiously enough, d suggestion). He encouraged readers Maimonides studies are beyond the le experimental design, whereas in e examples of appropriate use of ntrol rather than between-subjects ! of thinking with which Alcock con- onides research appeared also in a ot refer to it by name. Referring to ed in The Humanist by Ethel Grod- ote, firs____Loigicas PsYchole readily recog ihrn-a separat _ . suggests a t possible (bcca quire the subj and not to kn asleep). This has special pe dreaming and ESP is manifes Alcock, in the design of th on controls ex merable psycho logical structure in his own seco to think that th pale of accepts fact they are fi within-subject control. The quality fronted the Mai passage that did an article publis zins Romm, he Rornm (1977) argu the dream telepath is that the reports s Language; she cited in a room draped i down his back. A mediately judged t panel. Yet, as she "wet", or "icy" wou obvious need is for (p. 163) What Romm d preting events to fi kind of error that i of everyday occur are psychic. But th monides was well by the painstaking to have noticed. S some other and ve that a fundamental problem with both research and the remote viewing tests ffcr from what she called "shoe-fitting" study in which the sender was installed white fabric and had ice cubes poured iver who reported "white" was im- have made a "hit" by an independent bserved, words suth as "miserable", d have been better hits.. . . Again, the control group. Why are they not used? ribed as "shoe fitting" (misinter- one's expectations) is an important repeatedly made in interpretation ences by people who believe they dream telepathy research at Mai- rotected against this kind of error controls that Alcock seemed not rely Romm must be referring to y sloppy dream research? 1226 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-0017, 51001/400111n2Psychologist Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 ? _Jigt_a_ap. The details in this paragraph, and even rkireiri Romm's article, point unmistakably, though inaccurately, to the fifth night of the first pre- cognitive series at Maimonides. The actual details of target and response would alone deprive it of much of its value as an example of shoe fitting. As reported by Krippner, Ullman, & Honorton (1971), the target was a morning experience that included being in a room that was draped with white sheets. The subject's first dream report had included the statement, "I was just standing in a room, surrounded by white. Every imaginable thing in that room was white" (p. 201). There is more similarity here than Rornm and Alcock acknowledged in mentioning from this passage only the single word "white." More important, however, is the fact that the ex- periment they were referring to provided no oppor- tunity for shoe fitting. The procedures followed in the experiment were completely misrepresented in a way that created the illusion that the possibility existed. There was no panel, in the sense of a group of people gathered together and capable of influencing each other. The judges, operating independently, separately judged every one of the 64 possible combinations of target and transcript yielded by the eight nights of the experiment, not just the eight correct pairings, and they had no clues to which those eight were. Their responses are hardly likely to have been immediate, as they required reading the entire night's transcript. Because each judge was working alone and was not recording times, there would have been no record if a particular response had been immediate, and no record of what particular clement in the transcript led to an immediate response. I looked up in a 1977 issue of The Humanist the article by Romm that Alcock cited. The half page on shoe-fitting language gave as examples this item from ? the Maimonides research and also. the...SR:Li-emote- _ viewifFg -experiments (Puthoff.& Targ,..1976)-done at SRJ International.lkkoth cases what was said was pure fiction, based on failure to note what y?as done in the experimentiSWin PartiCiilar siliatthe.experi- -Meiners were well aware of the danger of shoe-fitting Iguage and that. the design &their experiments in- corporated procedures to ensure that it could not oc- cur. Romm's ignorance about the Maimonides re- search and her apparent willingness to fabricate false- hoods about it should be recognized by anyone who had read any of the Maimonides research publica- tions. Yet Alcock accepted and repeated the fictions as though they were true. His presentation insthe con- -kV or a-book iififiarently in the scientific tradition seems to me more dangerous than Romm's original article, for anyone with a scientific orientation should be able to recognize Romm's article as propaganda. Its title, for example, is "When You Give a Closet Occultist a PhD, What Kind of Research Can You Expect?" and it repeatedly speaks of "cult phuds," meaning people with PhDs who are interested in parapsychological problems. Alcock's repetition of Romm's misstatements in a context lacking these clues may well be taken by many a reader as scholarly writing based on correct information and rational thought. Paradoxically, both Alcock's.paragraph and Romm's article are excellent examples. orthe Om- fiEMIT?rror that both decry in others who arc in fact carefully avoiding it.. ? The last of thc five books that bring, or fail to bring, the Maimonidcs research to the attention of psychologists and their students is Anomalistic Psy- chology: A Study of Extraordinary Phenomena of Be- havior and Experience, a 1982 volume by Leonard Zusne and Warren H. Jones. This is in many ways an excellent book, and it is also the one of the five that comes closest to including a general review of important recent research in parapsychology. Its brief account of the Maimonides dream experiments, how- ever, misrepresented them in ways that should seri- ously reduce a reader's interest in considering them further. Zusne and Jones's description of the basic pro- cedure made three serious errors. First, it implied that one of the experimenters had a chance to know the identity of the target. ("After the subject falls asleep, an art reproduction is selected from a large collection randomly, placed in an envelope, and given to the agent" p. 260). In fact, precautions were taken to en- sure that no one but the agent could know the identity of the target. Second, the authors stated that "three judges. . rate their confidence that the dream con- tent matches the target picture" (p. 260), leading the reader to suppose that the judges were informed of -the identity of the target at the time of rating. In fact, a judge was presented with a dream transcript and a pool of potential targets and was asked to rate the - degree of similarity between the transcript and each member of the pool, while being unaware of which member had been the target. Third, there was a sim- ilarly, though more obscurely, misleading description of how ratings were obtained from the dreamer. This misinformation was followed by even more serious misrepresentation of the research and, by im- plication, of the competence of the researchers. Zusne and Jones (1982) wrote that Ullman and Krippner (1978) had found that dreamers were not influenced telepathically unless they knew in advance that an attempt would be made to influence them. This led, they wrote, to the subject's being "primed prior to going to sleep" through the experimenter's preparing the receiver through experiences that were related to the content of the picture to be telepathically transmitted during the night. Thus, when the picture was Van Gogh's Corridor of the St. Paul Hospital, which depicts a lonely figure in the hallways of a mental hospital, the receiver (I) November 1985 ? American Psychologist 1227 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : C heard Rosza's Spellbound played on a phonograph; (2) heard the monitor laugh hysterically in the room; (3) was addressed as "Mr. Van Gogh" by the monitor; (4) was shown paintings done by mental patients; (5) was given a pill and a glass of water, and (6) was daubed with a piece of cotton dipped in acetone. The receiver was an English "sensitive," but it is obvious that no psychic sensitivity %inn required to figure out the general content of the picture and to product an appropriate report, whether any dreams were actually seen or not. (pp. 260-261) ? If researchers were to report positive results of the experiment described here by Zusne and Jones and were to claim that it provided some positive ev- idence of ESP, what would a reader conclude? Surely, that the researchers were completely incompetent, but probably not that they were dishonest. For dishonesty to take such a frank and transparent form is hardly credible. Incompetence of the researchers is not, however, a proper inference. The simple fact, which anyone can easily verify, is that the account Zusne and Jones gave of the experiment is grossly inaccurate. What Zusne and Jones have done is to describe (for one specific night of the experiment) some of the stimuli provided to the dreamer the next morning, after his dreams had been recorded and his night's sleep was over. Zusne and Jones erroneously stated that these stimuli were provided before the night's sleep, to prime the subject to have or falsely report having the desired kind of dream. The correct sequence of events was quite clearly stated in the brief reference Zusne and Jones cited (Ullman & Krippner, 1978), as well as in the original research report (ICrippner, Honorton, & Ullman, 1972). I can understand and sympathize with Zusne and Jones's error. The experiment they cited is one in which the nocturnal dreamer was seeking to dream in response to a set of stimuli to be created and pre- sented to him the next morning. As may be seen in Table I, results from such precognitive sessions (all done with a single subject) were especially strong, This apparent transcendence of time as well as space makes the precognitive findings seem at least doubly impos- sible to most of us. An easy misreading, therefore, on initially scanning the research report, would be to suppose the stimuli to have been presented partly in advance (because some parts obviously involved a waking subject) and partly during sleep. This erroneous reading on which Zusne and Jones based their account could easily have been cor- rected by a more careful rereading. In dealing with other topics, they might have realized the improba- bility that researchers could have been so grossly in- competent and could have checked the accuracy of their statements before publishing them. Zusne and Jones are not alone in this tendency to quick-misper- ception of parapsychological research through pre- IA-RDP96-00789R ?mxption.aacti2tc,itidi Alcock's book. Alcock Zusne and Jones's book the book-review jou ical Association, and he error, even though very Maimonides research Discussion The experiments at the on the possibility of ES ful attention from reason, are interested in believers in the impossi lenge to skill in detecti understanding of other can conceive that ESP suggestions about some its appearance or absen investigating it. This attention is n chologists whose knowl comes from the books that purport to review Some of those books c fitinOf the facts WAY neglect them. I Ii??e of these books has in the Maimonides ex evam only to the hypo priate statistical reasoni calculations from the pu that the Maimonides ex and execution. I have design flaw that prevents the experiments; and the olated at one session, as the basis of the full info inal report. (Neither o mentioned in any of th here, an indication of correct information abo ments.) Readers who doubt treme as I have pictur sources I have referred t reduced by familiarity research (1981, 1984). In similar misrepresentatio -ness of procedures of Psychologists would not be thought to have nearly the strength of preconceptioli that many are known to have about ESP. How miich more likely, then, faLsi- laden a topic as ESP is for e earlier article, Bradley ental evidence (for college psychologists) that confi- 03100140001-2 ?we have already seen it in (1983) wrote the review of or Contemporary Psychology, of the American Psycholog- 'd not mention this egregious slight acquaintance with the ould suffice to detect it. aimonides Medical Center in dreams dearly merit care- ologists who, for whatever the question of ESP. To firm ility of ESP, they pose a dial- experimental flaws or to the urces of error. To those who ight be possible, they convey f the conditions influencing and about techniques for t likely to be given by psy- . ge about the experiments y their fellow psychologists parapsychological research. ge in nearly incredible fal- ut the experiments; others lieve it is fair to say that rrectly identified any defect ments other than ones rel- esis of fraud or on inappro- g (easily remedied by new fished data). I do not mean merits are models of design ready called attention to a sensitive analysis of some of control procedures were vi- ers (1984) pointed out on tion supplied in the orig- these genuine defects was five books I have reviewed eir authors' general lack of the Maimonides experi- t the falsification is as ex- it need only consult the . Their doubt might also be th some of James Bradley's 's 1984 article, he reported of fact on a topic, robust- 'cal inference, on which fic:ation on so emotional' many psychologists! In (1981) presented experi students, in this case, no 1228 November 1985 American Psychologist Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 den= in the correctness of one's own erroneous opin- ions is positively correlated with the degree of expertise one believes oneself to have in the field of knowledge within which the erroneous opinion falls. This finding may help in understanding why the authors of some of these books did not find it necessary to consider critically their own erroneous statements. A very considerable proportion of psychologists have a potential interest in the question of ESP. In a recent survey (Wagner & Mon net, 1979) of university professors in various fields 34% of psycholcw6s-ts were found to consider ESP sstablislisstfactot.4. ay possibility, exactly, sidered it an impoiiibility. In this survey, psychologists Trs rec''--R-.1enily expressed a positive opinion than did members of other disciplines, a finding that may be attributable to psychologists' better understanding of sources of error in human judgment. There seems to be no equally sound reason for the curious fact that psychologists differed overwhelmingly from others in their tendency to consider ESP an impossibility. Of natural scientists, only 3% checked that opinion; of the 166 professors in other social sciences, not a single one did. Both of these groups of psychologists have been ill served by the apparently scholarly books that seem to convey information about the dream experiments. The same may be said about some other lines of para- psychological research. Interested readers might well consult the original sources and form their own judg- ments. REFERENCES Akers. C. (1984). Methodological criticisms of parapsychology In S. Krippner (al.), Advances in parapsychological research (Vol. 4, pp. 112-164). Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Alcock, J. E. (1981). Parapsychology. science or magic? A psycho- logical perspective. New York: Pergamon Press. Alcock, J. E. (1983). Bringing anomalies back into psychology. Contemporary Psychology. 28. 351-352. Ayeroff. F., & Abelson, R. P. (1976). ESP and ESB: Belief in personal sucorms at mental telepathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 34.240-247. Belvedere, E, & Foulkes, D. (1971). Telepathy and dreams: A failure to replicate. Perceptual and Maar Skills. 33. 783-789. Blackmore, S. J. (1984). A psychological theory of the out-of-body experience. Journal of Parapsychology 48, 201-218. Bradley., J. V. (1981). Overconfidence in ignorant experts. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 82-84. Bradley, J. V. (1984). Antinonrobustness: A ease study in the so- ciology of science. B.ulittin of the Psychonoenic Society 22. 463- 466. Braud, W. (1977). Long-distance dream and presleep telepathy. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, & R.. L Morris (Eds.), Research in parapsychology 1976 (pp. 154-155). )Actucben, NJ: Scarecrow. Chikl, I. L, Kanthamani, H., & Sweeney, V. M. (1977). A simplified experiment in dream telepathy. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roil, & R. L. Morris (Eds.), Research in parapsychology 1976 (pp. 91- 93). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow. Crandall, 1. E.. & Hite, D. D. (1983). Psi-missing and dispLicement: Evidence for improperly focused psi? Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. 77.209-228. Foulkes. D., Belvedere, E., Masters, R. E L., Houston, J., Krippner, S., Honorton, C., & Ullman, M. (1972). Long-distance "sensory- bombardment" ESP in dreams: A failure to replicate. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 35,731-734. Globus, G., Knapp, P., Skinner, J., & Heaky, J. (1968). An appraisal of telepathic communication in dreams. Psychophysiology 4,365, Hall, C. (1967). Expaimente zur telepathischen Beeinflussung von Treumen. (Experiments on telepathic influence on dreams). Zeitschnfi feir Parapsyclsologie und Grew:thine der Prychologie 10, 18-47. Hansel, C. E. M. (1980). ESP and parapsychology A critical rt. evaluation. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. Honorton, C., Krippner, S., & Ullman. M. (1972). Tekpathic per- ception of art prints under two conditions. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Converuion of the American Psychological Associ- ation, 7.319-320. Hyman, R. (1985). The ganrfeld psi experiment: A critical appraisal. Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 3-49. Irwin, H. J. (1979). Psi and the mind: An information processing approach. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow. Jahn, R. G. (1982). The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An engineering perspective. Proceedings of the Institute of Elec- trical and Electronics Engineers. 70. 136-170. Krippner, S., Honorton, E., & Ullman, M. (1972). A second pre- cognitive dream study with Malcolm Bessent. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. 66.269-279. Krippner, S., Honorton, C., & Ullman, M. (1973). An experiment in dream telepathy with "The Grateful Dead." Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine. 20, 9-17. Krippner, S., Honorton, C., Ullman, M., Masters, R., & Houston, J. (1971). A long-distance "sensory-bombardment" study of ESP in dreams. Journal oldie Armerio2n Sociery for Psychical Research, 65. 468-475. Krippner, S., & Ullman, M. (1970). Telepathy and dreams: A con- trolled experiment with electroeneephalogram-electro-oculogram monitoring. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 151, 394- 403. Krippner, S., Ullman, M., & Honorton, C. (971). A precognitive dream study with a tingle slibject. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 65. 192-203. Lowry, R. (1981). Apparent .PK effect on computer-generated ran- dom digit series. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 75, 209-220. Marks, D., & Kemmann, R. (1980). The psychology of the psychic. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. Mostcller, F., & Bush, R. R. (1954). Selected quantitative techniques. In G. Lindzey (Eel.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 289-334). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Neter, A. (1980). The psychology of transceruiersce. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Puthoff, H. E., & Tart. R. (1976). A perceptual channel for infor- mation transfer over kilometer distances: Historical perspective and recent research. Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. 64. 329-354. Radio. D. I. (1982). Experimental attempts to influence pseudo- randrxn number siquences. Journal of the American Society for " Psychical Research. 76.359-374. Rechtschaffen, A.(1970), Sleep and dream states: An experimental design. In R. Cayenne (Ed.), Psi favorable states ofconsciousness (pp. 87-120). New Nrbrk: Parapsychology Foundation. Ftrgam, E G. (1977). When you give a closet occultist a Ph.D., what kind of research can you expect? The Humanist. 37(3), 12-15. Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Straucia. I. (1970). Dreams and psi in the laboratory. In R. Cayenne November 1985 ? American Psychologist 1229 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 . Approved For Release 2000/08108 : CIA-RDP96-00789R 03100140001-2 (Ed.). Psi favorable states of consciamsess (pp. 46-54). New \brie:. Paraprychology Foundation, Ullman, M. (1969). Telepathy and dreams. Experimental Medicine d Surgery. 27. 19-38. Ullman, M., & Krippner, S. (1969). A laboratory approach to the nocturnal dimension of paranormal experience: Report of a con- firmatory study using the REM monitoring technique. Biological Prychiatry, J. 259-270. Ullman, M., & Krippner, S. (1978). Experimental dream studies. In M. Ebon (Ed.). The Signet handbook of parapsychology (pp. 409-022). New York New American Library. Ullman, M., Kripprier, S., & Feldstein, S. (1966). Experimentally induced telepathic dreams: Two studies using EEG-REM moo- 1230 itorirrg tazhnique. Internati 420-437. Ullman, M., Krippner, S., & Va New Nbrk: Macmillan. Van de Castle. R. L.(1971). The by means of drams. Journal o Vhgner, M. W., & Morinet M. (19 toward extra-sensory percepti WthOill, B. B. (Ed.). (1977). II Nbrk: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Zusne, L., de Jones, W. H. (1982). of caraordinary phenomena of . NJ: Erlbaurn. November 1985 ? Journal of Neuroppchiatry. 2. , A. (1973). Dream telepathy. udy of GESP in a group setting Purameho/ogy. 35.312. 9). Attitudes of college professors Zesetic Scholar, no. 5,7-16. of ParaPsIcholont New rsornalistic psychology: A study ior and erperienix.Hillsdale, Approved For Release 20,39168/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R mcrican Psychologist 03100140001-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 Perceptual end Motor Skills, 1981, 52, 727-732. C) Perceptual and Motor Skills 1981 LUCID DREAMING VERIFIED BY VOLITIONAL COMMUNICATION DURING REM SLEEP1 STEPHEN P. LA BERGE, LYNN E. NAGEL, WILLIAM C. DEMENT, AND VINCENT P. ZARCONE, JR. Stanford University Summary.?The occurrence of lucid dreaming (dreaming while being con- scious that one is dreaming) has been verified for 5 selected subjects who signaled that they knew they were dreaming while continuing to dream during unequivocal REM sleep. The signals consisted of particular dream actions having observable concomitants and were performed in accordance with pre- sleep agreement. The ability of proficient lucid dreamers to signal in this matter makes possible a new approach to dream research?such subjects, while lucid, could carry out diverse dream experiments marking the exact time of particular dream events, allowing derivation of precise psychophysiological correlations and methodical testing of hypotheses. That we sometimes dream while knowing that we are dreaming was first noted by Aristotle. According to accounts of conscious or "lucid" dreaming, as this phenomenon is commonly termed, the dreamer can possess a conscious- ness fully comparable in coherence, clarity, and cognitive complexity to that of the waking state, while continuing to dream vividly (Van Eeden, 1913; Brown, 1936; Green, 1968; Tart, 1979; LaBerge, 1980b). As a result of theoretical assumptions about the nature of dreaming, contemporary dream re- searchers have questioned whether these experiences take place during sleep or during brief periods of hallucinatory wakefulness. The purpose of the present study was to give an empirical answer to this question by determining the physiological conditions in which lucid dreaming occurs. Our experimental approach was suggested by previous investigations (An- trobus, et al., 1965; Salarny, 1970; Brown & Cartwright, 1978), showing that sleeping subjects are sometimes able to produce behavioral responses highly correlated with dreaming. Since these subjects have nor, according to Cart- wright (1978), been conscious of making the responses, these earlier studies do not provide evidence for voluntary action (and thus, reflective conscious- ness) during sleep. However, we reasoned that what could be done uncon- sciously could also be done consciously. The experience of one of us (S.P.L.) indicated that, if subjects became aware they were dreaming, they could also remember to perform previously 'The writing of this manuscript was supported, in part, by the Holmes Center for Re- search in Holistic Healing. We are grateful to Drs. J. van den Hoed and R. Coleman for helpful comments and Mr. R. Baldwin, Ms. S. Bornstein, and Mr. S. Coburn for expert technical assistance. Request reprints from Stephen P. LaBerge, Ph.D., Sleep Research Center, Stanford University, School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R 03100140001-2 728 S. P. LA BERGE, ET AL. intended dream actions. Because dreamed gaze and limb times shown very good correlations with polygraphically r meats and muscle activation (Rechrschaffen, 1973), it see lucid dreamers could signal that they knew they were dr intentional dream actions having observable physiological c METHOD AND RESULTS Five subcjects, trained in the method of lucid dream in described by LaBerge (1980c), were selected on the basis ability to have lucid dreams on demand, and studied for 2 to nights (see Table 1). Standard polysomnograms (Rech 1968), i.e., electroencephalogram (EEG), electro-oculogram electromyogram (EMG), were recorded, as well as left and (for signaling). The subjects attempted to follow a predete of signaling whenever they became aware that they were drea of signals were specified, generally consisting of a combina eye movements and a pattern of left and right dream-fist de jects demonstrated the signals during pre-recording calibratio not to practice further while awake. In the course of the study, 35 lucid dreams were repor spontaneous awakening from various stages of sleep as follows ment (REM) sleep in 32 cases, non-REM (NREM) Stage ing the transition from NREM Stage 2 to REM once. The subjects reported signaling during 30 of these luci each recording, the reports mentioning signals were submitte respective polysomnogram to a judge uninformed of the tim TABLE 1 SUMMARY OP LUCID DREAM SIGNALING EXPERIME Subject (age, sex) Nights recorded Lucid dreams reported (sleep stage) tions have some- orded eye move- ed plausible that ing by means of relates. uaion (MILD) of their claimed 0 nonconsecutive affen & Kates, EOG), and thin right wrist EMG mined procedure ing. A variety tion of dreamed aches. The sub- but were asked subsequent to rapid-eye-move- twice, and dur- dreams. After along with the s of the reports. ucid dream signals erifieds/reported S.L. ( 32 yr., M) 20 17 (REM) 14/15 R.K. (28 yr., M) 4 5 (REM) 3/5 L.L. (34 yr., F) 2 1 (REM) 0/0 2 (NREM-1) 0+/1 B.K. (27 yr., F) 6 6 (REM) 5/6 1 (NREM-2/REM)++ 0/0 S.P. (26 yr., M) 2 2 (REM) 2/2 *Blindly matched for correspondence between reported and observed s +On awakening from NREM Stage 1 sleep (2 min. after having awak the subject reported performing the agreed-upon signal during a vivid dream. However, neither her EOG nor wrist EMG showed any sig signals, as might be expected from the normal lack of correspond gaze and eye movements during descending Stage 1 sleep (Rechtsch + +The subject awoke, in this case, during the transition from ignals. ed from REM), and lengthy lucid of the reported between dream fen, 1973). Stage 2 to REM. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 LUCID DREAMING 729 The judge was asked to determine whether one (or none) of the polysom- nographic epochs corresponded with the reported lucid dream signal. In 24 cases, the judge was able to select the appropriate 30-sec. epochs (out of about 1000 per polysomnogram) on the basis of correspondence between re- ported and observed signals (Table 1). The probability that the selections were correct by chance alone is astronomically small. All signals associated with lucid dream reports occurred during epochs of unambiguous REM sleep scored according to the standard criteria (Rechtschaffen & Kales, 1968). The lucid dream signals were followed by an average of 1 min. (range: 5 to 450 sec.) of uninterrupted REM sleep. Inspection of the polysomnographic epochs preceding the lucid dream signal reports suggested the failures with blind matching (the "false nega- tives") were due to high baseline EOG and wrist EMG activity, resulting in an unfavorable signal-to-noise ratio. However, no clear instances of signals were observed except where reported, i.e., there were no "false positives." On the other hand, in many cases, the reported signals were unequivocal (see Figs. 1 and 2). The most reliable signal was a series of extreme horizontal eye movements (left, right, left, right.) EEG ?,w, EMG chin EMG isft wrist mist LLL L L I. tlf 1 FIG. 1. Polygraph record of a subject signaling that he knows he is dreaming. The subject awoke approximately 20 sec. after this excerpt and reported recognizing that he was dreaming and performing the agreed upon signal in the dream, i.e., he directed his dream gaze upwards momentarily (U) and then executed a sequence of dreamed left (L) and right (R) fist clenches, Morse code for S.L., the subject's initials. Note that unlike the predominantly horizontal eye movements (above right), the extreme upward eye movement (U) produces characteristic artifact in the EEG channel. All three of the scoring criteria for REM sleep are met: low amplitude chin EMG, episodic REMs, and low-voltage, mixed-frequency EEG (Rechtschaffen & Kates, 1968). The EEG shows occasional 10-Hz (alpha) activity as is normal during REM sleep (Rechtschaffen, 1973); integration of the alpha band-pass filtered EEG showed the amount of alpha activity during the lucid dream did not significantly differ from that during the preceding non- lucid portion of the REM period. (Calibrations: 50AV; 5 sec-) Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R 03100140001-2 730 S. P. LA BERGE, ET AL. The most complicated signal (shown in Fig. 1) consi ward dream-eye movement followed by a series of left ( dream-fist clenches in the order "LLL LRLL." This segue the subject's initials in Morse code (LLL = . . . = S; L). The complexity of this signal argues against the poss discharges might be spontaneous. That all cases of lucid dream signaling occurred durin REM sleep specifies, to a certain extent, the physiology o "a relatively low voltage, mixed frequency EEG in conjun REMs and low amplitude electromyogram (EMG)" (R 1968). This definition allows variation in the three par of which will be reported elsewhere. In brief, the variatio terns of the lucid dream polysomnograms were typical sporadic "saw-tooth" waves as well as alpha and theta rhy fulness. The occasional, but normal, appearance of alph wave usually associated with wakefulness), in the EEG d raises the possibility that lucid dreaming could occur duni tial arousals or "micro-awakenings" (Schwartz & Lefebvre, alpha rhythm need not be present during lucid dream si by Fig. 2. Furthermore, some of the lucid dreams were ruling out any explanation based on the notion of brief int ness. (A) AWAKE G 4/04$44444444044644441110014 (B) LUCID DREAM EQ 101 h P'triON'A,44.001441044111461,14,viii'!. EMG wrist ed of a single up- ) and right (R) cc is equivalent to ility that the EMG epochs scored as lucid dreaming as ion with episodic tschaffen & Kales, eters, the details in the EEG pat- f REM sleep, i.e., , and not wake- rhythm (a brain ing REM periods g momentary par- 1973). However, aling, as is shown eral minutes long, sions of wakeful- FIG. 2. Comparison of EEG (C3/A2) during lucid dream si mediately after awakening (A). The continuous waking alpha ( this subjea is clearly distinct from the mixed frequency patterns Although other EEG patterns are compatible with wakefulness, the the pattern normally exhibited when subjects awaken from sleep. activity prominent in the lucid dream sample (B) is highly charact (Calibrations: 50 ?V; 1 sec.) DISCUSSION How do we know that the subjects were "really asleep' when they com- municated the signals? If we allow perception of the external world as a ing (B) and im- 10 Hz) activity for during REM sleep. tracing illustrated is e 2- to 4-Hz EEG istic of REM sleep. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R 03100140001-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 LUCID DREAMING 731 criterion of being awake, we can conclude the subjects were indeed asleep: Although they knew they were in the laboratory, this knowledge was a mat- ter of memory, not perception; upon awakening, they reported having been totally in the dream world and not in sensory contact with the external world. Neither were the subjects merely not attending to the environment, e.g., as when absorbed in reading or daydreaming; according to their reports, they were specifically aware of the absence of sensory input from the external world. If subjects were to claim to have been awake while showing physiological signs of sleep, or vice versa, we might doubt their subjective reports. However, in the present case, the subjective accounts and physiological measures are in clear agreement, and it would be extremely unparsimonious to suppose that subjects who believed themselves to be asleep while showing physiological indications of sleep were actually awake. The two principal conclusions of this study are that lucid dreaming can occur during REM sleep and that it is possible for lucid dreamers to signal intentionally to the environment while continuing to dream. These findings have both theoretical and practical consequences. The first result shows that under certain circumstances, dream cognition during REM sleep can be much more reflective and rational than has been commonly assumed. Evidence in- dicating that lucid dreaming is a learnable skill (LaBerge, 1979, 1980a, 1980b, 1980c), taken with the second result, suggests the feasibility of a new ap- proach to dream research: lucidly dreaming subjects could carry out diverse experiments marking the exact time of occurrence of particular dream events, which would allow the derivation of precise psychophysiological correlations aad methodical testing of hypotheses. REFERENCES ANTROBUS, J. S., ANIRosus, J. S., & FISHER, C Discrimination of dreaming and non- dreaming sleep. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1965, 12, 395-401. BROWN, A. E. Dreams in which the dreamer knows he is asleep. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1936, 31, 59-66. BROWN, J. N., & CARTWRIGHT, R. Locating NREM dreaming through instrumental responses. Psychophysiology, 1978, 15, 35-39: CARTWRIGHT, R. [Response to review of Brown and Cartwright (1978).] Sleep Reviews, 1978, 166, 30. GREEN, C Lucid dreams. London: Hamilton, 1968. LABERGE, S. Lucid dreaming: some personal observations. Sleep Research, 1979, 8, 153. LABERGE, S. P. Induction of lucid dreams. Sleep Research, 1980, 9, 138. (a) LABERGE, S. P. Lucid dreaming: an exploratory study of consciousness during sleep. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Univer., 1980. (University Microfilms International, 80-24, 691) (b) LABERGE, S. P. Lucid dreaming as a learnable skill: a case study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1980, 51, 1039-1042. (c) RECHTSCHAFFEN, A. The psychophysiology of mental activity during sleep. In F. J. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R 732 S. P. LA BERGE, ET AL. 03100140001-2 McGuigan & R. A. Schoonover (Eds.), The psychophysiology of thinking. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Pp. 153-200. RECHTSCHAFFBN, A., & 1CALEs, A. (Eds.) A manual of standa,iiized terminology, techniques and scoring system for sleep stages of human smby cu. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1968. (N ional Institute of Health Publication No. 204) SALAWI, J. Instrumental responding to internal cues associated with REM sleep. Psy- chonomic Science, 1970, 18, 342-343. ScHwArrz, B. A., & LEFEBVRE, A. Contacts veille/P.M.O. II: Les P.M.O. morcelees. Revue d'Electroencepbalographie et de Neurophysiologie Clinics, 1973. 3, 165- 176. TART, C. S. From spontaneous event to lucidity: a review of attempts t control nocturnal dreaming. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of dreams. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1979. Pp. 226-268. VANEEDEN, F. A. A study of dreams. Proceedings of the Society for sychical Research, 1913, 26, 431-461. [Reprinted in C. T. Tart (Ed.), Altered ales of conscious- ness. New York: Wiley, 1969. Pp. 145-158J Accepted April 7, 1981. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R S 03100140001-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP9f340789R0c31'00.140001-2 IC I.,nrnal a COGNITION AND DREAM RESEARCH Edited by Robert E. Haskell, Ph.D. The Journal of Mind and Behavior SPECIAL ISSUE Volume 7, Nunthem 2 and 3 SI g and S.,.,. 1Ynn. Volume 7. Number, 2 and I Paw, 251 11211 258 11281 ISSN 0271 0117 ISBN 0.9/01115 02 7 Lucid Dreaming: Physiological Correlates of Consciousness during REM Sleep Stephen LaBerge Stanford University and The Saybrook Institute Lynne Levitan and William C. Dement Stanford University 251 11211 Reports of lucid dreaming (dreaming while being conscious that one is dreaming) were verified for I 3 selected subjects who signaled by means of voluntary eye-movements that they knew they were dreaming while continuing to dream during unequivocal REM sleep. Physiological analysis of the resulting 76 signal-verified lucid dreams (SVLDs) revealed that elevated levels of automatic nervous system activity reliably occured both during and 30 seconds preceding the onset of SVLDs, implicating physiological activation as a necessary condition for reflective consciousness during REM dreaming. The ability of proficient lucid dreamers to deliberately perform dream actions in accordance with pre. sleep agreement makes possible the methodical and precise determination of psycho- physiological correspondence during REM dreaming. It is not the usual case for dreamers to know that they are dreaming while they are dreaming. Nevertheless, significant exceptions sometimes occur when dreamers realize while dreaming that they are dreaming. Although lucid dreaming, as this phenomenon is called, has been known since the time of Aristotle, it has only recently become the subject of scientific inquiry (LaBerge, I985a). Studies in our laboratory and elsewhere have demonstrated that lucid dreams occur almost exclusively during REM sleep (Dane, 1983; Fenwick, Schatzman, Worsley, Adams, Stone, and Baker, 1984; Hearne, 1978; LaBerge, Nagel, Dement, and Zarcone, 1981; Tyson, Ogilvie, and Hunt, 1984). However, until now little light has been shed on the detailed physiology of dream lucidity. The purpose of the present study was to investigate physiological correlates of REM lucid dreams. The volunteer subjects were seven males and six females (age ranging from The authors would like to thank the Institute of Human Development for financial support. Requests for reprints should be sent to Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D., Sleep Research Center,'Stan- ford University, Stanford, California 94305. Swim! anii Stumm 'r 198i Approvea ror Keibase z000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 252 1122] LaBERGE/LEVITAN/DEMENI12[1.1r?qQLQQY OF LUCID DREAMING Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 21-51; mean= 28), trained in the MILD technique of lucid dream induction (see LaBerge, 1980). Subjects were selected on the basis of their claimed abil- ity to have lucid dreams on demand and were studied in a sleep laboratory for 2-25 non-consecutive nights. Standard polysomnograms (Rechtschaffen and Kales, 1968) (i.e., electroencephalogram [EEG], electro-oculogram [E0G1, and chin electromyogram [EMO]) were recorded, as well as, in certain cases, a variety of additional physiological measures. Before bedtime on recording nights subjects were instructed to immediately signal whenever they realized they were dreaming. A variety of signals were specified, typically two pairs of extreme horizontal eye-movements (left, right, i. rive_cLakiditional instructions to carry, out specific activities in the dream state once they became lucid. In the course of the study, 88 lucid dreams were reported subsequent to spontaneous awakenings from the following stages of sleep, scored according to the standard criteria (Rechtschaffen and Kales, 1968): REM in 83 cases (94.3%), NREM Stage-I in four cases (4.5%), and at the transition between NREM Stage-2 and REM in one case (1.1%). The subjects reported signaling in 80 cases (90.9%), all following REM awakenings (96.4% of the REM reports). After each recording, reported lucid dream signals were verified by means of a blind judging procedure previously detailed elsewhere (LaBerge et al., 1981). Briefly, the reports mentioning lucidity signals were submitted along with the respective polysomnograms to a judge who attempted to determine which 30" epoch of the physiological records corresponded to a given reported signal. The judge (blind to the times the reports were made) successfully matched 76 (95%) of the reported signals to an epoch from the correct REM period. The probability that such a large number of matches could have been made by chance is infinitesmally small. The 13 subjects contributed varying numbers of signal-validated lucid dreams (SVLDs) ranging from 1-25, each with the median number of SVLDs per subject being four. Although four subjects furnished a single SVLD each while another two subjects together supplied 43 (56% of the total), the number of SVLDs contributed by the two sexes did not significantly differ. Potential problems arising from the unequal N of observations per subject were averted by statistically analysing summary scores for all physiological variables (i.e., the mean of each subject's mean values, yielding a maximum N=13). The polysomnograms corresponding to each of the SVLDs were sleep- staged. Additionally, every SVLD REM period was divided into 30 second epochs aligned with the lucidity onset signal; up to 60 epochs of data from the preceding (non-lucid) REM period and 15 epochs from the lucid dream were collected. For each epoch, sleep stage (STATE) was scored and rapid eye movements (EM) were counted; if scalp skin-potential responses were observable as artifacts in the EEG, these were also counted (SP). Heart rate ? ? l? 253 [123] . (HR) and respiration rate (RR) were also determined for SVLDs recorded with the relevant measures. For the first lucid epoch (during signals), STATE was unequivocal REM in 70 cases (92%). The remaining six SVLDs were less than 30" long and hence technically unscorable by the orthodox (Rechtshaffen and Kales, 1968) criteria. For these cases, the entire SVLD was treated as a single epoch and scored as if they were of standard length; with this modification, all qualified as REM. The lucid dream signals were followed by an average of 115 seconds (range: 5 to 490 seconds) of uninterrupted REM sleep. Anecodotal reports indicate that lucid dreams are sometimes initiated from -e-F4-1-968- LaBerge, 1985a). Since lucid dreams initiated in these two ways would be ex- pected to differ physiologically, SVLDs were dichotomously classified as either "Wake-initiated" (WILD) or "Dream-initiated" (DILD), depending on whether or not the reports mentioned a transient awakening (i.e., conscious percep- tion of the external environment). Fifty-five (72%) of the SVLDs were classified as DILDs and the remaining 21(28%) as WILDs. For all 13 subjects, DILDs were more common than WILDs (binomial test, p0 Respiration Rate (RR) RRL > RRN RRLND > (t(12)=4.36; It(12)=3.93; 107)=4.07; (t(7)=4.49; K.00011 p SPN (08)=3.00; K.011 SPLND > [08)=2.41; K.011 epochs of SVLD REM periods are characterized by significantly higher levels of physiological activation than are epochs of preceding non-lucid REM from the same REM period (see Table 1). In order to follow the temporal variations of physiology correlated with the development and initiation of lucidity, for each SVLD REM period the physiological variables were converted to Z-scores and averaged across dreams and subjects. Figure 3 is a histogram of the resultant mean Z-scores for the ten minutes before and the five minutes after the initiation of lucidity. Note the highly significant increases in physiological activation during the 30 seconds before and after lucidity onset. Physiological data (EM, RR, HR, and SP) were scored for 61 control non-lucid REM periods (NLREMPs), derived from the same 13 subjects, in order to allow comparison with SVLDs (LDRE1v1Ps). Mean values for EM and SP were signifi- cantly higher for LDREMPs than NLREMP controls (RR and HR did not differ). If lucid dream probability (LDPROB) were constant across time during REM periods, lucid dreams should occur most frequently in the first few minutes of REM. On this hypothesis, LDPROB should be a monotonically decreas- ing function of time into REM, following the survivor function of mean REM period lengths (REMLEN). Although REMLEN proved to be an excellent predictor of LDPROB (r= .97, p