AN AUTOMATED RV EVALUATION PROCEDURE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R003800300001-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 28
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 22, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: May 1, 1985
• Content Type: REPORT

proved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-0 7898003800300001-7
Final Report
Covering the Period October 1983 to October 1984
May 1985
AN AUTOMATED RV EVALUATION PROCEDURE (U)
SRI Project 7408-12
This document consists of 28 pages.
-G-Rttdf- 5
roved Foc33R~I~ ?q% Q1Q$/'FOvr,, iii 'ADt ~L0O7OObOp 300001-7
[phone] ' Cable: SRI INTL MPK TWX: 910-3 3- 0
 Approved For Release U N C L A SCIQ;RQp6-00789R003800300001-7
I OBJECTIVE (U)
(U) The objective of this task was to improve and automate the remote viewing (RV)
evaluation procedures.
(U) RV (remote viewing) is the acquisition and description, by mental means, of informa-
tion blocked from ordinary perception by distance or shielding.
Approved For Release 1"/6 ' Cl 1ID%P-00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Release fIf/L6LA..fTi1gPD00789R003800300001-7
I
CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? .
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? . ? . ?
I OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II SUMMARY OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 3
IV METHOD OF APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. The Princeton Evaluation Procedure (PEP) . . . . . . . . . .w . . 5
1. Target Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Response Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Problems with the PEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
C. The SRI Evaluation Procedure (SEP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Target Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Response Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
a. Target-Pool Dependent Scoring Algorithm . . . . . . . . 11
b. Target-Pool Independent Scoring Algorithm. . . . . . . 15
c. Absolute Figure of Merit (FM) . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
t
V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
VI REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' . 25
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800300001-7
UNCLASSIFIED
ILLUSTRATIONS
1 Score Distribution for 4995 Cross Matches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
TABLES
1 Descriptor-Bit Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2 Binary-to-Octal Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 Descriptor-Bit Weighting Factors for 112 Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4 Single Description Bit Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5 Bit-Dependerit Figures of Merit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6 RV Evaluation 1rocedures Under Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7 0 to 7 Point Assessment Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8 Z Scores Correlated Against the 0-to-7-Point Scale . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Approved For Release 2 &JNcI"O-w Ag~ Q0789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Release 2000/0 /10 : CIA-RD 76-00789R003800300001-7
II SUMMARY OF RESULTS (U)
r
We have modified a computer-automated remote viewing analysis procedure,
first developed at Princeton University, to be more responsive to the needs of the>
community. Our procedure is based upon defining the information content in both a RV
response and its associated target as the presence or absence of a series of items (called
descriptors). Various mathematical comparisons can be made between responses and targets.
By defining RV accuracy as the fractional part of the target information that was correctly
perceived, and defining RV reliability as the fractional part of the response that was correct,
we are able to construct an RV "figure of merit " as the product of the two. The RV figure
of merit is a sensitive, target-pool-independent assessment of the quality of a single, remote-
viewing response.
(U) We have developed a technique to assess an analysts' RV judging ability by using a
standardized test case of a series of remote viewings. Judging consistancy in a training
environment is the most important factor in assessment ability. Thus, it is a requirement that
the same analyst assess the information content in both the response and the target. In a
training environment, an analyst would first determine the information content in all of the
targets in the target pool before assessing the information content in any RV response. All of
the RV assessments are done without knowledge of the particular matching target.
We have suggested ways in which a priori probabilities, on a descriptor-
by-descriptor basis, can be used as RV assessments in the absence of any knowledge of the
site. This technique requires the building of track records for each item on a viewer-by-
viewer basisl; As the track records begin to stabilize, we will be able to
integrate the analysis techniques described in this reportt
2
Approved For Release 200 08/10 : CIA-R P96-00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Release 2000/0 10 : CIA-RDP96 00789ROO3800300001-7
III BACKGROUND (U)
7
(U) Since publication of the results from the initial remote viewing effort at SRI
International,'* two basic questions remained about the evaluation of RV data:
? What is the definition of the target site?
? What is the definition of the RV response?
For example, consider a typical IEEE-style, outbound-experimenter remote-viewing trial.
After an experimenter travels to a randomly chosen location at a prearranged time, a remote
viewer's (RVer) task is to describe that location. In trying to assess the quality of the RV
descriptions (e.g., in a series of trials), an analyst must go to each of the sites and attempt to
match responses to them. For example, while standing at a site, the analyst must decide not
only the bounds of the site, but must also determine the site details that should be included in
his/her analysis. While standing in the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge, should the analyst
consider the buildings of downtown San Francisco, which are clearly and prominantly visible,
as part of the Golden Gate Bridge target? Similarly, the RV response to the Golden Gate
Bridge target might be 15 pages of dream-like free associations. A reasonable description of
the bridge may be contained in the response; however, it might be obfiscated by a large
amount of unrelated material. How should an analyst approach this problem?
(U) The first attempt at quantitatively defining an RV response involved reducing the
raw transcript to a series of declarative statements called concepts? Initially, it was
determined that a coherent concept should not be reduced to its component parts. For
example, a small red VW car should be considered as a single concept rather than four
separate concepts: small, red, VW, and car. Once a transcript had been "conceptualized,"
that list of concepts constituted, by definition, the RV response. The analyst, then, rated the
concept lists against the sites. Although this represented a major advance over previous
methods, no attempt was made to define the target site.
During the FY'82 program, we developed a procedure to define both the target
and the response material.3 We learned that before a site could be quantified, a goal for the
* (U) References are listed in the order of appearance at the end of this report.
Approved For Release 2000/,48/10 : CIA-R
-00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-0 7898003800300001-7
1
overall remote viewing must be clearly defined. If the goal is simply to demonstrate the
existence of the RV phenomena, then anything that is perceived at the site is important. But
if the goal is to gain information then specific
items at the site are important, while others remain insignificant. For example, consider an
office as a hypothetical target. Let us assume that a single computer in the office is of
specific interest. Suppose an RVer gives an accurate description of the shape of the office,
provides the serial number of the typewriter, and gives a complete description of the owner of
the office. While this kind of a response might provide excellent evidence for remote viewing,
the target of interest (the computer) is completely missedl
What is needed is a specific technique to allow assessments that are
LThe procedure developed during FY'82 was a first attempt at solving the
mission orientation problem. In this technique, the transcript is conceptualized as described
above, and a similar process is applied to the sites. A target site is conceptualized as a set of
target elements, which are to be considered "mission independent." In the office example
above, target elements might be: desk, safe, window, telephone, computer, and chair. A
second layer of conceptualization is then applied, which is "mission specific." Each target
element is assigned a number between 1 and 5 corresponding to the mission's relevance.
Again, in the office example, the computer would be assigned a relevance factor of 5 (most
relevant), while all other target elements would be assigned a factor of 1 (least relevant). The
target elements and their relevance factors constitute the site definition and mission
orientation. The final report for the FY'82 task3 described in detail how a mission specific
assessment was made. Although. the procedure proved to be quite sensitive, it was nonetheless
cumbersome and difficult to apply.
This report describes a major advance over the FY'82 technique. The original
idea, which involves computer-automated scoring of RV data, was developed at the Anomalies
Laboratory of Princeton University.4 We have significantly extended and modified the
Princeton technique and have developed procedures that can be used in actual4
applications.
"1 4
Approved For Release 2000/0810 : CIA-RDP -00789RO03800300001-7
 Approved For Release 2000/08/1 : CIA-RDP96t00789R003800300001-7
IV METHOD OF APPROACH (U)
The overall method of approach was to begin with the Princeton group's known
evaluation procedure, then determine what would be appropriate for our environment. The
next step was to expand the analysis concept to be more responsive too - ""
requirements, and to integrate the entire procedure with our on-line data bases.
A. (U) The Princeton Evaluation Procedure (PEP)
(U) In general, the Princeton Evaluation Procedure (PEP) is based on comparing
a priori, quantitatively-defined target information with similarly quantitatively-defined response
information. (A complete description of this procedure can be found in Reference 4.) The
procedure was developed for use as a research tool in the university environment, where
complete knowledge of the target sites could be obtained. Once the target and response
information was defined, the PEP applied various methods of mathematical comparisons to
arrive at a meaningful assessment score.
1. (U) Target Information
i
(U) The definition of a particular target site (usually outdoor sites in and around
Princeton, New Jersey) was contained in the yes/no answers to a set of questions called
descriptors. These descriptors were designed in such a way as to characterize the typical
Princeton target. By definition, the only target information to be considered in the analysis
was completely contained in the yes/no answers of the descriptor questions for that site. For
example, one descriptor from their list, "Are any animals, birds, fish, major insects, or figures
of these significant in the scene?" defines the animal content of the site. The question would
be answered "yes" for a zoo and a pet store target, but answered "no" for a typical campus
building target. Similarly a set (30 for the PEP) of yes/no responses constitutes the target
information.
Approved For Release 2000 08/10 :5CIA-RDP 6-00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Release 2000/0 /10 : CIA-RDP 6-00789R003800300001-7
2. (U) Response Definition
(U) The descriptor list for the target sites is used as a definition of the response as
well. For a given RV session, an analyst (blind to the target site) attempts to answer the 30
questions based entirely on the single RV response. Using the same example above, an
analyst would have to decide if a particular verbal passage or a quick sketch could be
interpreted as animals or not. For some responses this might be an easy task, "I get a picture
of a purple cow." Most responses, however, require a judgement, "I hear a funny sound and
there may be an odd smell in the air." Nonetheless, the yes/no answers to the 30 questions
constitute the only response information that will be used in the analysis.
3. (U) Analysis
(U) For a given response/target combination, the information is strictly contained in
the yes/no answers to the descriptors. A binary number (30 bits long for PEP) is constructed
for the target and the response descriptor questions respectively. A yes answer is considered a
binary "1" while a no answer is considered a binary "0." The resulting two 30-bit binary
numbers can then be compared by a variety of mathematical techniques to form a score for
that specific RV session. For a series of RV sessions, a quantitative assessment is made by
comparing a given response (matched to its corresponding target site) against the scores
computed by matching the response to all other targets used in the series. This procedure has
the added advantage of a built-in, within-group control. In other words, this assessment
determines the uniqueness of the target/response match compared with all other possible
matches for the series.
B. (U) Problems with the PEP
There are a number of problems with the PEP when the conditions under
which the PEP was developed are no longer valid. Because we are trying to devel p an RV
analysis procedure that is useful both in the RV training environment as well as i
applications, we have identified four basic problems with using the PEP for our purposes:
? The bit descriptors were not appropriate for our training environment.
? The PEP was not interfaced to a standard data base management system
(DBMS).
6
Approved For Release 2000/08 :10 : CIA-RDP9p-00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Release 2000/08 10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800300001-7
J
? The cross-target scoring procedure was not sensitive tol
requirements.
? Any cross-target scoring procedure is inappropriate for a training
environment.
I
1
T
r
(U) As stated above, the PEP descriptors were optimized for natural outdoor sites in
the Princeton area. Because we planned to use different target material, the PEP descriptor
list was completely inadequate. Having obtained the computer codes used at Princeton, we
noticed that the PEP required a special on-line, within-code data base. We felt this was an
inefficient way to procede because we already had most of our data in a commercial DBMS,
Ingres.5
One of the principal problems of RV used as an adjunct to conventional
"?"? collection techniques is that RVers tend to add information, sometimes called
analytical overlay (AOL), to the response. If training techniques are to be developed that are
sensitive tot requirements, they must attempt to inhibit AOL. Specifically, any
training analysis procedure must be particularly sensitive to the addition of extraneous
information. The PEP was completely insensitive to this requirement.
(U) We also observed that for the purposes of training, any scoring procedure that
cross compares a training response against all targets in the target pool, might penalize
excellent RV simply because of the lack of target pool orthogonality (i.e., how different one
target is to the next). For example, consider a typical National Geographic Magazine
photograph of a flat desert showing few features. A very good description of this site will also
match many other similar sites in the target pool. Thus, a comparison of the actual match
with others in the pool will tend to reduce the score for reasons other than the quality of the
particular RV response.
(U) We, therefore, felt obligated to modify the PEP in such a way to address the above
criticisms.
C. (U) The SRI Evaluation Procedure (SEP)
The SRI Evaluation Procedure (SEP) was developed to address not only various
RV training programs, but also the potential application of the SEP to problems.
Thus, it was recognized that the SEP must contain cross comparison analytical procedures that
7
Approved For Release 2000/ ,8/10: CIA-RD 7 6-00789R003800300001-7
 Jr
Approved For Release 2000/0 10 : CIA-RDP 6-00789R003800300001-7
were sensitive to AOL, and at the same time, provide a meaningful assessment of RV
responses that were independent of other targets in the pool.
1. (U) Target Information
r
) As in the PEP, the SRI Evaluation Procedure quantifies the target material
into binary numbers corresponding to yes/no answers to a set of descriptors. Before any of
the training programs had begun, a descriptor list was developed on the basis of the target
material (National Geographic Magazine photographs), and on the responses that might be
expected for novice RVers. Table 1 shows the 20 questions (descriptors) that were used for
the Alternate Training Task.6 This descriptor list, while applicable to a novice RV training
environment, is not appropriate for either advanced training or* _lapplications. The
questions are strongly oriented toward outdoor gestalts typical of National Geographic
Magazine material. Each descriptor list must be tailored to the application requirements. The
horizontal lines separating the descriptors in groups of three are an aid in translating binary
numbers (derived from the yes/no answers to the questions) into an octal shorthand notation.
(U) To illustrate exactly how a target might be coded into an octal number, let's
consider a photograph of San Francisco on a clear day showing the bay, the central city sky-
scrapers, and the centrally-located hill (Twin Peaks). Referring to Table 1 Bit Numbers 1, 6,
8, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 17 would all be answered "yes" and thus would be assigned a binary
"l." The remaining questions would all be answered "no" and thus be assigned a binary "0."
Starting with Bit Number 1 on the left, the binary number that defines the information for this
target is 10000101100110011000. This representation, while convenient for computers, is
difficult for humans; therefore, we convert it to the octal representation as 'a shorthand.
Using the horizontal lines shown in Table 1 as divisions, we consider each triad of bits as a
binary number ranging from 000 to 111. Table 2 shows the binary-number triad to octal
conversion factors.
(U) Rewriting the above binary number with triad separations for clarity, we have
10 000 101 100 110 011 000. Using Table 2, we find that this binary number converts to
20546308. This octal number is the shorthand notation for all the information contained, by
definition, in the San Francisco target example. All targets in the data base are coded by the
same technique.
8
Approved For Release 200 8/10 : CIA-RD 96-00789R003800300001-7
t
 Approved For Release Wre0 ~- SIg r4bp0789R003800300001-7
(U) DESCRIPTOR-BIT DEFINITION
Bit
Descriptor
No.
1
Is any significant part of the scene hectic, chaotic, congested, or cluttered?
2
Does a single major object or structure dominate the scene?
3
Is the central focus or predominant ambience of the scene primarily natural
rather than artificial or manmade?
4
Do the effects of the weather appear to be a significant part of the scene?
(e.g., as in the presence of snow or ice, evidence of erosion, etc.)
5
Is the scene predominantly colorful, characterized by a profusion of color,
by a strikingly contrasting combination of colors, or by outstanding, brightly-
colored objects (e.g., flowers, stained-glass windows, etc.-not normally
blue sky, green grass, or usual building color)?
6
Is a mountain, hill, or cliff, or a range of mountains, hills, or cliffs a.significant
feature of the scene?
7
Is a volcano a significant part of the scene?
8
Are buildings or other manmade structures a significant part of the scene?
9
Is a city a significant part of the scene?
10
Is a town, village, or isolated settlement or outpost a significant feature of the
scene?
11
Are ruins a significant part of the scene?
12
Is a large expanse of water-specifically an ocean, sea, gulf, lake, or bay-a
significant aspect of the scene?
13
Is a land/water interface a significant part of the scene?
14
Is a river, canal, or channel a significant part of the scene?
15
Is a waterfall a significant part of the scene?
16
Is a port or harbor a significant part of the scene?
17
Is an island a significant part of thetscene?
18
Is a swamp, jungle, marsh, or verdant or heavy foliage a significant part of
the scene?
19
Is a flat aspect to the landscape a significant part of the scene?
20
Is a desert a significant part of the scene, or is the scene predominately dry
to the point of being arid?
210041 AC
FU 11
Approved For Release 2~OD/OTU :-G~I~C-~~~36-00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Release 2000/ 8/10 : CIA-RDP6-00789R003800300001-7
(U) BINARY-TO-OCTAL CONVERSION
Binary Triad
Octal Equivalent
000
0
001
1
010
2
011
3
100
4
101
5
110
6
111
7
2. (U) Response Definition
1
1
T
T
(U) The descriptor list shown in Table 1 and the coding techniques described using
Table 2 are prepared in exactly the same way to define each RV response. For a particular
training program, however, a set of a priori guidelines must be defined in order to aid an
analyst in interpreting the various aspects of the training procedure with regard to the
descriptor list. For example, it might be correct within a given training context to advise the
analyst to consider all isolated lines as a land/water interface, and set descriptor Bit Number
13 by definition. How this is done is completely dependent upon the particular training
procedure in question. For an example see Alternate Training.6
3. (U) Analysis
The SRI evaluation procedure involves two different types of analysis:
? Target-pool-dependent analysis
? Target-pool-independent analysis (training).
(U) The first of these involves descriptor weighting that gives more or less credit in
the final score in accordance with an a priori defined algorithm. It is within this analysis that
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP9q-00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Releasq Jff$/OkO t~ tff ff -00789ROO3800300001-7
L J6%
(U)
penalties are levied for "inventing" information that is not present at the site. The target-
pool-independent analysis involves a straightforward counting system that depends upon a
single target/response information comparison.
a. (U) Target-Pool-Dependent Scoring Alogrithm
(U) Consider a finite set of targets, N, each of which has been coded in
accordance with Table 1. Define a weighting factor
W. =
where Pi is the probabililty of occurrence of Descriptor Bit j (j = 1,20) and is given by
Pi =
the number of targets that have Bit j present
total number of targets
The weighting factors will be large for descriptors that are not common, and small for
common elements in the target pool. Table 3 shows an example of a set of probability of
occurrences and weighting factors taken from the Alternate Training Task. This table was
derived from a set ofl 112 National Geographic Magazine photographic targets. We see from
Table 3 that volcanos (Bit 7) are the rarest item in the target pool, and are thus allotted the
highest weighting factor of 9.337. While correctly remote viewing a volcano will significantly
increase an RVers score, inventing one where there is none will be heavily penalized.
(U) Before we construct an assessment score for a single target/response, we
must define the scoring algorithm, and determine a method by which scores can be
compared.] Consider a single target and RV response to that target. Suppose further that the
information contained in each has been coded in accordance with methods described above.
The scoring proceeds as follows. In considering a single descriptor bit, j, in an RV response,
there are four possible ways to match (or not match) that bit with its corresponding bit in the
target:
Approved For ReleaseY0001D 7 6$AI-F-RLL)PP6-00789ROO3800300001-7
 Approved For Release UR08/10 S S I F I E D 07898003800300001-7
(U) DESCRIPTOR-BIT WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR 112 TARGETS
Bit No.
Probability
of Occurrence
Weighting Factor
1
0.4821
2.074
2
0.5089
1.965
3
0.5804
1.723
4
0.2857
3.500
5
0.1875
5.333
6
0.5893
1.697
7
0.1071
9.337
8
0.5268
1.898
9
0.2143
4.666
10
0.2768
3.613
11
0.1964
5.092
12
0.3125
3.200
13
0.5804
1.723
14
0.2768
3.613
15
0.1786
5.656
16
0.1786
5.656
17
0.1339
7.468
18
0.3482
2.872
19
0.3304
3.027
20
0.1786
5.599
(U)
4
? The target bit and the response bit are zero
? The target bit is one; the response bit is zero
? The target bit is zero; the response bit is one
? The target bit is one; the response bit is one.
Approved For Release Yocr4:!-l!?-oo789Roo38oo3ooool-7
 Approved For Release(Mejj gtifffj-00789R003800300001-7
(U)
While there are a number of ways to proceed (the PEP considers them all), we will confine
our discussion to that particular method of comparison that met the requirements stated
above. Because it is difficult to know if a descriptor bit scored as zero is the result of correct
or incorrect RV, a meaningful score can only be constructed from asserted information.
Thus, the SEP only considers the case in which there is an assertive response (i.e., the RVer
positively states that a particular descriptor is present). Table 4 shows the contribution to the
assessment score for all four cases (single-bit comparison) shown above.
(U) We see from Table 4 that if the RVer correctly identifies a target
descriptor bit, he/she is awarded a large contribution to the score if the item is rare (i.e., the
probability of occurrence is small), and not as much if the item is common. Likewise, if the
RVers invent an item, they are penalized more if the item is rare. To analyze the complete
response, the values shown in Table 4 are added to the score--depending upon the
correctness of the bit-by-bit match.
(U) SINGLE DESCRIPTION BIT SCORING
Bit j
Contribution
Target
Response
to Score
0
0
0
1
0
0
1.0
0
1
-
P.
J
1
1
1.0
P.
1c~A~SIFIED
Approved For Release 2 0 0 0 : IA-RDP96-00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For ReleaseQ/1 fl ;ACA- Vfb-00789ROO3800300001-7
(U) To complete the target-dependent scoring algorithm, it is necessary to
normalize the score described above in such a way that comparisons can be made from
session to session. In the PEP, a number of different normalizing factors were explored, but
we have chosen to use the "perfect score" as our normalization.
(U) Let Ti and Rj be the value of the target and the response bit j,
respectively. The most negative score possible would result from inventing all items in the
descriptor list not present in the target. Conversely, the most positive score possible would
result in correctly identifying all present target descriptors. Let N and N
positive and the most negative score, respectively. They are given by
+ n T.
N = F
j=0 P.
I -
where n is the number of descriptors (20 in the example), and T. is one when T.
and is zero when Ti is one. Thus,
Sr =
n Ti X R. Ti X R.
j=0 P. P.
i i
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2 0/0 -RDP96-00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Release V ly/M1~:~i PI 00789R003800300001-7
(U)
For the normalize score, S, to be in the range from -1, to 1,
+ (Sr
N - N
(U) To convert the normalized score for each RV session to a meaningful
statistic, all sessions in a series are scored against all targets in the pool except for the
matching target. Thus, for M RV sessions and a target pool of N targets, there would be
(N X M) - M such cross matches. Figure 1 shows a sample distribution of scores for 4995
cross matches. The solid points are the data and the smooth curve is the best fit gaussian to
the data.
(U) Having completed the cross matches and constructed the best fit
gaussian, statistical Z scores are calculated from the RV session scores by
where ? and o are the mean and the standard deviation of the cross-match best-fit gaussian,
respectively. The Z score for each session is a measure of the uniqueness of the target/
response match compared with the remainder of the target pool, and it represents the final
i
output of the target-pool dependent scoring algorithm.
b. (U) Target-Pool-Independent Scoring Algorithm
(U) The target-pool-independent scoring algorithm makes an assessment of
the accuracy and reliability of a single RV response matched only against the target material
used in tle session. As in the case of the target-pool-dependent algorithm, the target and
response materials are defined as the yes/no answers to a descriptor list (similar to that shown
in Table 1). Once the session material is coded into binary, we define session reliability and
accuracy as follows:
Approved For Release 2YOD/0c/'III :'CI~C- PS6~0789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Release J 9t/ SINtFW ff -00789ROO3800300001-7
INV
01--
-0.4
0.4 4
SCORE
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800300001-7
 Approved For Release UQQ/C LA CIA I F I E D 07898003800300001-7
(U)
Accuracy =
Reliability =
number of correct response bits
number of target bits = 1
number of correct response bits
number of response bits = 1
In other words, the accuracy is the fraction of the target material that was correctly perceived,
and the reliability is the fraction of the response that was correctly perceived.
(U) Neither of these measures by themselves is sufficient for an RV
assessment. Consider the hypothetical situation in which the RVer simply reads the
Encyclopedia Britanica as his/her response. It is certain that the accuracy would be 1.0
simply because all possible target elements would have been mentioned, and thus would not
be evidence of RV. Similarly, consider a response consisting of one correct word,. The
reliability would be 1.0, with little evidence of RV as well. We define the figure of merit
(FM) as
Figure of Merit = Accuracy X Reliability
The figure of merit which ranges between zero and one, provides a more accurate RV
assessment. In the example above where the Encyclopedia Britanica is the response, the FM
will be low. Although the accuracy is one, the fraction of the response that is correct (the
reliability) will be very small. Likewise, in the example of a single correct word as a response,
the reliability is one, but the accuracy is low.
(U) A figure of merit can be calculated for each RV session to assess the
progress in an RV training environment. For a series of RV sessions, the FM may be used to
assess a viewer's progress on a descriptor-by-descriptor basis as well. Table 5 shows an
example of FMs calculated for 22 training sessions. The "bit number" corresponds to the
descriptors shown in Table 1. The "number of responses" indicates the number of sessions
(out of 22) that each descriptor was asserted; the "number of targets" indicates how many
targets (also out of 22) that each descriptor was asserted. The "accuracy" and "reliability"
are the fraction of correct target and response material on an individual descriptor basis.
Approved For ReleasPN0 &AS el l FI -00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Relea$gkQ,pc$( jIr596-OO789ROO38OO3OOOO1 .7
(U) BIT-DEPENDENT FIGURES OF MERIT
Bit
No.
Number of
Responses
Number of
Targets
Acc-
uracy
Reli-
ability
Figure
of
Merit
1
8
14
0.500
0.8750
0.438
2
1
10
0.000
0.000
0.000
3
9
13
0.539
0.778
0.419
4
3
6
0.167
0.333
0.056
5
0
6
0.000
0.000
0.000
6
13
12
0.500
0.462
0.231
7
1
2
0.000
0.000
0.000
8
14
12
0.750
0.643
0.482
9
3
4
0.750
1.000
0.750
10
0
8
0.000
0.000
0.000
11
0
2
0.000
0.000
0.000
12
2
7
0.143
0.500
0.071
13
17
15
0.733
0.647
0.475
14
6
8
0.250
0.333
0.083
15
5
6
0.000
0.000
0.000
16
1
6
0.000
0.000
0.000
17
1
2
0.000
0.000
0.000
18
3
9
0.111
0.333
0.037
19
9
8
0.500
0.444
0.222
2d
0
2
0.000
0.000
0.000
i
Approved For ReleaYe'2t00W$tfA!RUP96-00789RO03800300001-7
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800300001-7
UNCLASSIFIED
(U)
Finally, the "FM" is the figure of merit for each bit. For example, Bit Number 9 (city
descriptor) was in the targets 4 out of 22 times. This viewer responded with "city" 3 out of
22 times. Of the 4 times a city was present in the target, the viewer correctly identified the
city 3 times (thus an accuracy of 0.75). Of the 3 times the viewer responded with city,
he/she was correct all the time (thus a reliability of 1.00). Therefore, the figure of merit for
the city descriptor is 0.75. From the FMs of all the bits, we see that this viewer is
particularly adept at remote viewing cities. Considering a large number of remote viewings, it
is possible by this technique to build "viewing signatures" or track records for each viewer.
When applied in the application environment, the bit-dependent figure of merit can be used
as a guideline for task-specific viewer selection.
c. (U) Absolute Figure of Merit (FM)
(U) We have obtained an estimate of the meaning of FM on an absolute
basis. Suppose ten viewers have contributed 50 sessions each to a training series. Each
session has a figure of merit associated with it that has been calculated by the above
techniques. If we add the number of responses for all viewers for each of the descriptor bits,
we can obtain an estimate as to "response/analysis" bias that may have occurred across the
training session. For example, suppose, of the 500 sessions, Bit Number 1 was asserted 40
times. On the average, we can assume for this training series the probability of Bit 1 being in
a response is 40/500 or 0.08. By repeating this calculation for each of the descriptor bits, we
can determine the probability of occurrence for all bits under the same conditions used in RV
training. s
(U) To determine the absolute FM distribution, a random number generator
is used to create pseudo responses that are assumed to be free of psychoenergetic functioning.
Each bit in a given pseudo response is generated from the emperical "bias" described above.
Once the response is generated, simple descriptor-bit logical consistency is applied to finalize
the pseudo response. By this technique, 10 sets of 50 pseudo responses containing no RV
information can be generated. The next step ist to select, on a random basis, targets from the
set that were used during an actual training period to complete the pseudo sessions. The
standard target-pool-independent analysis is applied to the pseudo sessions to calculate figures
of merit that have, by definition, no psychoenergetic content. The histogram of FMs is fit
with a gaussian distribution to provide an estimate of the mean (?) and standard deviation (Q)
Approved For Release'4d 01'I'0 SgiFRL3P96-00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800300001-7
UNCLASSIFIED
(U)
FM for random data. Since this gaussian distribution is truncated at zero FM, we must use
the following procedure to determine the p-value for a given figure of merit, f.
Calculate an observed z-score, z = (f - ?)/or.
Determine an intermediate p-value, p', in the usual way given z.
Calculate a normalization z-score, zo = -?/Q.
Determine a normalization p-value, po, as in Step (2).
Calculate the correct p-value, p = p'/po.
For example, during the Alternate Training Task for FY'84, the mean and standard deviation
calculated as described above was 0.132 and 0.163 respectively. Therefore, using the above
procedure in reverse, we find that any FM greater than 0.417 can be considered as
significantly above chance.
4. (U) Testing
r
(U) We used the baseline data from the FY'84 Alternate Training Task to test the
PEP and the SEP scoring procedures. Three analysts were asked to apply a number of
techniques to the set of 6 sessions from 6 RVers each. The procedures and analysis
technology that was used are summarized in Table 6. Using the descriptor list shown in
Table 1, the three analysts independently scored the target pool, which consisted of 112
National Geographic Magazine photographs, and the set of 36 RV responses. After the
scoring was completefl, the three analysts met with two experienced RV judges and reached a
consensus of RV quality for all 36 responses, using the 0 to 7 point assessment scale shown in
Table 7.
(U) Linear correlation coefficients were calculated (using the target-dependent
Z scores as the dependent variable) for Procedures 1 through 5 correlated against Procedure
7 (0 to 7 point assessment) in Table 6. From the results of these correlations, we were able
to assess the effectiveness of each of the RV evAluation procedures, then determine the
relative judging ability of the three analysts.
Approved For ReleasAN"A 51lfA FP6-00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Releasiiwetx,s?tffff-00789ROO3800300001-7
(U) RV EVALUATION PROCEDURES UNDER TEST
No.
Procedure
Technology
1
Concept Analysis
Target/Response Concepts
(equal weights)
2
PEP--Full Scoring*
Descriptor List Analysis
(computer scored)
3
PEP--Selective Scoringt
Descriptor List Analysis
(computer scored)
4
SEP--Full Scoringt
Descriptor List Analysis
(computer scored)
5
SEP--Selective Scoringt
Descriptor List Analysis !'
(computer scored)
6
Post Hoc Assessmentt
0 to 7 Point Scale
* Scoring includes all response bits, asserted or not.
t Scoring includes only asserted response bits.
t Assessment scoring done after all others.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Releas MLA 591FI -00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Release V lWeLH ?~t r 1?bOO789R003800300001-7
(U) 0 TO 7 POINT ASSESSMENT SCALE
Score
Assessment Criteria
Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail
7
(e.g., naming the site), with essentially no incorrect
information.
Good correspondence with good analytical information
6
(e.g., naming the function), and relatively little incorrect
information.
5
Good correspondence with unambiguous, unique matchable
elements, but some incorrect information.
4
Good correspondence with several matchable elements intermixed
with incorrect information.
3
Mixture of correct and incorrect elements, but enough of the
former to indicate viewer has made contact with the site."
2
Some correct elements, but not sufficient to suggest results
beyond chance expectation.
1
Little correspondence.
0
No correspondence.
Approved For Release U00Q#`CTA' ~E! 00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For ReleasCiWiffft-flgrffY 6-00789R003800300001-7
V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (U)
(U) The first, and most striking, result was the necessity for the RV response coder and
the target coder to be the same individual. Correlations between all scoring methods and the
0-to-7-point assessments were calculated for all possible cross-coder combinations. Only
those correlations corresponding to the case where the coder of responses and targets was the
same analyst, were statistically significant. This was the expected result because an analyst
might be willing to adopt a liberal scoring attitude (i.e., find most descriptors present) in both
the responses and targets, whereas a second analyst might adopt a conservative scoring
procedure and assign few descriptors as present. As long as a particular analyst's "bias" is
consistant for the targets and responses, a good assessment of RV lability can be made. Thus,
in the results described below, no cross-coder data are considered.
(U) Table 8 shows the linear correlation coefficients (which were calculated for all
procedures listed in Table 6 against the 0-to-7-point assessment scale) for each of the three
analysts. Because all the correlations are statistically significant, any analyst/procedure
(U) Z SCORES CORRELATED AGAINST THE O-TO-7-POINT SCALE
Princeton
SRI
Analyst
Full
Selective
Full
Selective
374
0.462
0.410
0.566
0.523
642
0.388
0.364
0.385
0.339
802
0.530
0.433
0.503
0.453
Approved For Relea Ne' 200'0/08/'1? c!IfKDF96-00789R003800300001-7
 Approved For Release 2000/ 8/10 : CIA-RDP 6-00789R003800300001-7
(U)
combination would provide good RV assessments. The correlation coefficients averaged over
all analysts were 0.431 and 0.462 for the Princeton and the SRI procedures respectively.
While this difference is not significant, there is a bias in favor of the SRI procedure. Within
the SRI procedure, No. 642 was the least consistent analyst. There were no significant
differences between the full and the selective scoring.
i In summary, we have developed a computer-based RV analysis tool that is
applicable for both the training* The figure-of-merit analysis
allows target-pool-independent assessment of the relative progress of RV trainees. Within a
given training program absolute probabilities (against chance) can be assigned for a single
training session.
I - ' By carefully creating an appropriate i descriptor list, and by tracking
figures of merit on a bit-by-bit basis,
The figure-of-merit analysis requires that complete descriptor
-MMMk information of the site be known./ as feedback information is
available, descriptor track records (figure-of-merit analysis) can be kept, over many sessions to
provide accuracy and reliability data on a viewer-by-viewer basis. Thus, viewers can be
selected on the basis of their a priori probabilites on theL idescriptors of interest,
and a priori assessments of their responses can be made by using the same track record.
Approved For Release 200/08/10 : CIA-RDQ96-00789ROO3800300001-7
 Approved For Re1easUW(8A(S Si/F EI?6-00789R003800300001-7
VI REFERENCES (U)
1. H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ, "A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer Over
Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research," Proc. IEEE, Vol. 64,
No. 3 (March 1976) UNCLASSIFIED.
2. R. Targ, H. E. Puthoff, and E. C. May, "1977 Proceedings of the International
Conference of Cybernetics and Society," pp. 519-529, UNCLASSIFIED.
3. E. C. May, "A Remote Viewing Evaluation Protocol (U)," Final Report (Revised), SRI
Project 4028, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (July 1983) SECRET.
4. R. G. Jahn, B. J. Dunne, and E. G. Jahn, "Analytical Judging Procedure for Remote
Perception Experiments," The Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 207-231
(September 1980) UNCLASSIFIED.
5. E. C. May, "Data Base Management (U)," Final Report, SRI Project 7048, SRI
International, Menlo Park, California (October 1984) SECRET.
6. E. C. May and B. S. Humphrey "Alternate Training Task," Final Report, SRI Project
7048, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (October 1984) SECRET.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R0038003000Q