<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Ganzfeld &amp; Autoganzfeld Meta-Analysis</title>
    <link>https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai</link>
    <description>Latest research papers, blog posts, and grey literature — curated and classified by AI</description>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:47:35 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    
    <item>
      <title>Are Different Standards Warranted to Evaluate Psi</title>
      <link>https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai/papers</link>
      <description>Throughout the debate on psi, skeptics have almost universally insisted on different standards for evaluating the evidence, claiming that psi represents a radical departure from our current scientific understanding. Thus, there is considerable ambiguity about what standard of evaluation psi must meet. Little attention has been paid to the possible harm to the integrity of scientific investigation from this resulting inconsistency in testing standards. Some have proposed using a Bayesian framework as an improvement on this dilemma in order to more explicitly model beliefs, assumptions, and background scientific knowledge, especially when evaluating a controversial hypothesis. Recently, Kuhn’s notion of paradigms, which constrains scientific research within bound- aries believed to be most productive, has been incorporated into a Bayesian framework. Within this framework, I explore a likely paradigm or meta-theory used by skeptics that typically constrains research and makes it difficult for psi evidence to be accepted. It appears that such a paradigm would in many respects have difficulty accounting for consciousness, which is fundamental to an understanding of psi. I discuss why psi data are likely to play a key role in making progress in solving the problem of consciousness. Thus, applying different standards of evaluation to psi data is likely counterproductive.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W2331274253</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation)</source>
      <category>theoretical_paper</category>
      <category>statistical_analysis</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Eight Decades of Psi Research: Highlights in the Journal of Parapsychology</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2018s.01.03</link>
      <description>This is a short review of the 80 years of existence of the Journal of Parapsychology.Founded in 1937, the journal articulated the experimental research program of J. B. Rhine and his associates at Duke University.Highlights of the journal are discussed, starting with examples of articles reporting experiments of extrasensory perception and psychokinesis.Also discussed are articles about spontaneous cases, the presentation of novel and creative approaches, critiques and discussions, overviews of the field, J. B. Rhine&apos;s use of the Journal of Parapsychology to prescribe for the field, and concepts and theories.The Journal of Parapsychology is seen as an important influence in the development of parapsychology.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2019 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W2945549306</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Parapsychology</source>
      <category>review_commentary</category>
      <category>effect_size_estimation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Reconsidering sensory isolation in floatation tanks as a method of promoting psi-conducive imagery</title>
      <link>https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai/papers</link>
      <description>Since the 1950s sensory isolation by means of floatation has been explored as to its impact on human consciousness. Similar to this, the ganzfeld has been famously used with parapsychology to investigate the psi-conducive nature of impressions perceived through sensory deprivation and homogenous stimuli. Lilly (1969) proposed that parapsychology adopt floatation tanks as a new method of exploration for psi, with some evidence of parapsychologists taking heed of such advice (e.g. Rogo, 1980). This new pilot study aimed to further explore the methodological practicalities of using such tanks with parapsychology. The authors acted as sender and receiver for a total of 12 trials that incorporated the Dalton clips as the target pool of focus. An independent judge was used to rate the mentations, while the receiver also attempted to judge their own mentations against each trial’s target and decoy clips. No statistical significance was found from the scores produced by the participant (z = 0, p = .50, one-tailed) or the independent judge (z = .33, p = .37, one tailed). However, qualitative information produced in instances of correctly identified targets (hits) demonstrated some promise in exploring the floatation tank method further. Limitations of this study are discussed, and recommendations are offered for refining the current methodological procedure. It is planned for this study to be taken forward on a larger scale with the use of a variety of participants.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2020 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W2964497823</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">NECTAR - Northampton Electronic Collection of Thesis and Research (University of Northampton)</source>
      <category>primary_experiment</category>
      <category>protocol_standardisation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Using Virtual Reality to Test for Telepathy: A Proof-of-Concept Study</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31275/20201833</link>
      <description>Telepathy is one of the most commonly reported psi-type experiences and represents the idea that one person can acquire information relating to the thoughts/feelings/intentions of another from a distance via a non-usual route. Typically the procedure involves a Sender and a Receiver who are physically separated whilst the former attempts to relay target information to the latter. Refinements to this paradigm have included placing the Receiver in sensory isolation in an effort to enhance the signal to noise ratio of the signal, as seen in the ganzfeld research. Here the aim was to immerse the Sender in a virtual reality (VR) environment in an effort to boost the transmission of the target whilst keeping the Receiver in partial sensory isolation. Using such a paradigm we tested eleven pairs of participants, each acting as Sender and Receiver across five trials. In each trial the Sender was immersed in a VR environment depicting a positive arousing experience (e.g., skiing downhill, driving a racing car). The Receiver’s task was to identify the correct target image from a set of 5 (i.e., 20% chance) matched for mean valence and arousal. Initial analysis of Receiver performance showed hit rates that did not differ significantly from chance. However, a post-hoc analysis comparing participants top two choices to chance showed a mean hit rate of 52% which was significantly greater than chance (at 40%). Examination of possible associations between hit rate and belief in psi as well as the subjectively rated strength of the relationship between Sender-Receiver pairings only showed a correlation with the psi sub-scale of the RPB. Hence, we argue that participant hit rate is more suggestive than conclusive of a telepathic effect. In addition, we outline a number of methodological refinements which we think could help to improve the viability and effectiveness of using VR.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W3104957533</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Scientific Exploration</source>
      <category>primary_experiment</category>
      <category>protocol_standardisation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Anomalous Cognition</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.23206</link>
      <description>Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the results of all meta-analyses on anomalous cognition conducted between 1989 and 2021 in order to find moderators associated with greater effect sizes. Method: We included all meta-analyses of studies related to anomalous cognition published up to 2021. Results: Our dataset, accumulated over more than 80 years of investigation, refers to 11 meta-analyses related to six different states of consciousness. The evidence clearly shows that anomalous cognition seems possible and its effects can be enhanced by using a combination of some non-ordinary or altered states of consciousness (e.g., dreaming, ganzfeld, etc.), coupled with free-response procedures, or neurophysiological dependent variables. These conditions facilitate an alternative form of cognition seemingly unconstrained by the known biological characteristics of the sense organs and the brain. Conclusion: The accumulated evidence expands our understanding of the mind-brain relation and the nature of the human mind.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W3214484324</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition</source>
      <category>meta_analysis</category>
      <category>effect_size_estimation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Testing Precognition and an Altered State of Consciousness with Selected Participants in the Ganzfeld</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2020.01.05</link>
      <description>This study is the first to contribute to a registration-based prospective meta-analysis of ganzfeld Extrasensory Perception (ESP) studies. We sought to maximize the anticipated psi effect size by selecting participants for self-reported creativity, prior psi experience or belief, or practice of a mental discipline. We also employed an automated precognition design for simplicity and security, and to add to the small database of precognitive ganzfeld studies. Targets and decoys were short video clips randomly selected with replacement from a pool of 200. As well as predicting overall significant scoring on the ganzfeld precognition task, the study tested the assumption that the ganzfeld method elicits a psi-conducive altered state of consciousness, by correlating two measures of an Altered State of Consciousness (ASC) with precognition task performance. We predicted higher target similarity ratings would be associated with greater evidence of ASC during the session. Three experimenters each conducted 20 trials. Twenty-two direct hits were obtained (37% hit-rate), thus significantly supporting the planned test of the ganzfeld precognition task (exact binomial p = .03, 1-tailed). No relation was found between ASC and psi task performance, contrary to prediction. We conclude by discussing the reasons why further ganzfeld ESP research is justified.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2020 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4205464478</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Parapsychology</source>
      <category>primary_experiment</category>
      <category>effect_size_estimation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2018.03.10</link>
      <description>commissioned by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) at the</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2019 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4245313914</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Parapsychology</source>
      <category>review_commentary</category>
      <category>effect_size_estimation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>80 Years of the Journal of Parapsychology: An Historical Overview</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2018.03.02</link>
      <description>When Etzel Cardea invited me to write a history of the Journal of Parapsychology (JP), I immediately knew that I had to make some difficult decisions about how to cover journal content. If I ignored the content and stuck to process issues such as changes in editorship and publication policy, the finished product would be but a few pages. On the other hand, if I tried to cover all the content, the paper would be way too long, even if I said so little about each contribution that the summaries would not be particularly useful. So it quickly became evident that I had to be selective about the content I covered. I decided to focus primarily on two classes of contributions: (a) articles about the JP per se, including summaries of content over a circumscribed period of time and publication policies, and (b) special sections of a particular issue or successive issues comprised of series of papers on a given topic or theme. Most of these represented controversies about the status of the evidence for psi. I tried to describe these sections in a matter-of-fact way and avoid injecting my own opinions and prejudices. As the piece is historical, I will order the paragraphs more-or-less chronologically.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2019 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4250632941</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Parapsychology</source>
      <category>review_commentary</category>
      <category>protocol_standardisation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191375</link>
      <description>The low reproducibility rate in social sciences has produced hesitation among researchers in accepting published findings at their face value. Despite the advent of initiatives to increase transparency in research reporting, the field is still lacking tools to verify the credibility of research reports. In the present paper, we describe methodologies that let researchers craft highly credible research and allow their peers to verify this credibility. We demonstrate the application of these methods in a multi-laboratory replication of Bem&apos;s Experiment 1 (Bem 2011 J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100 , 407–425. ( doi:10.1037/a0021524 )) on extrasensory perception (ESP), which was co-designed by a consensus panel including both proponents and opponents of Bem&apos;s original hypothesis. In the study we applied direct data deposition in combination with born-open data and real-time research reports to extend transparency to protocol delivery and data collection. We also used piloting, checklists, laboratory logs and video-documented trial sessions to ascertain as-intended protocol delivery, and external research auditors to monitor research integrity. We found 49.89% successful guesses, while Bem reported 53.07% success rate, with the chance level being 50%. Thus, Bem&apos;s findings were not replicated in our study. In the paper, we discuss the implementation, feasibility and perceived usefulness of the credibility-enhancing methodologies used throughout the project.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2023 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4319657189</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Royal Society Open Science</source>
      <category>replication_study</category>
      <category>blinding_procedures</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Four Element-Themed Self-Selecting Mobile Application for ESP Testing</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31275/20222789</link>
      <description>A new computerized test for ‘extrasensory perception’ (ESP) is designed for use in everyday environments and draws on principles in occultism to promote better results. Results suggest that induction techniques and focus contribute to ESP trial success, but are in need of larger sample replication.&amp;#x0D; Abstract&amp;#x0D; The current study engaged in a pilot data analysis for the purpose of examining a newly developed E (Element)-PSI application which was completed in varying real life environments while reporting information about their location, mood, and focus on the ESP task. In addition, participants completed an ESP induction task, and trait measures of Transliminality, Paranormal Belief, and paranormal experience as measured by the Survey of Strange Events. A total of 44 participants from the United States completed the study as part of an initial registration process for an ongoing experiment. Results indicate small, but non-significant effects due to sample size in terms of the induction process and focus on the ESP task towards positive increases in ESP hit rates. Implications from this research in terms of cultural, trait, and contextual variables contributing to ESP success rates are discussed in terms of using these findings towards formal large sample replication.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2023 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4320034930</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Scientific Exploration</source>
      <category>primary_experiment</category>
      <category>participant_selection</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Understanding the Factors at Play in the Sender-Receiver Dynamic During the Telepathy Ganzfeld</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.23878</link>
      <description>Objective. To use meta-analysis to explore five previously uninvestigated factors related to the sender-receiver dynamic in the telepathy ganzfeld. The five factors of interest are: a) did the receiver see the sender’s room prior to the session?; b) could the sender hear the receiver during the mentation period?; c) could the sender hear the receiver during the judging period?; d) was the sender explicitly told to be silent?; and e) did the experimenter assist in the review section of the session? Method: Telepathy ganzfeld studies conducted post Joint Communiqué, with one session per day and the receivers rating the targets, were chosen. Two mixed-effects models were fit: 1) using the study hit rates as the binomial mean; and 2) using the study hit rates as a proportion. Both models have the five factors as binary moderators. Results: Both the binomial mean and proportion models suggest a significant effect of the moderators overall and two factors individually: 1) the sender being able to hear the receiver during the mentation period; and 2) a review period after the mentation period. Permutation tests for both models also show significant effects of the moderators and the two factors. Conclusion: The sender being able to hear the receiver’s mentation appears to increase overall study success, while the review period decreases overall study success</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2023 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4362590668</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition</source>
      <category>meta_analysis</category>
      <category>blinding_procedures</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Special Subsection Afterword: ESP Research and Cognitive Neuroscience: Possibly Incompatible - But Methodologically Complementary</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31275/20233195</link>
      <description>This commentary considers the fields of extrasensory perception (ESP) research and cognitive neuroscience, discussing points of conflict and domains where they may be complementary. ESP research challenges the assumption in cognitive neuroscience that the mind is the product of known physical processes in the brain. Cognitive neuroscience methods and tools applied to ESP research could benefit and bridge the gap between the two fields. Firstly, concurrently studying subjective experiences and neural activity during ESP tasks would allow us to better characterize subjective states typically associated with ESP. Secondly, similarities between mind-wandering and free-response ESP experimental designs allow us to speculate on the potential implication of the default-mode network during the percipient’s experience. Finally, tools developed in computational neurolinguistics and natural language processing may become valuable to automatize judging procedures in free-response ESP paradigms such as remote viewing. Despite potentially incompatible assumptions about the mind and the brain, ESP research can gain new insights from cognitive neuroscience methods and approaches and can contribute in its own way to the study of human subjective experiences and cognition.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4387805280</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Scientific Exploration</source>
      <category>review_commentary</category>
      <category>statistical_analysis</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Assessing 36 Years of the Forced Choice Design in Extra Sensory Perception Research: A Meta-Analysis, 1987 to 2022</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31275/20232967</link>
      <description>This meta-analysis is an update of Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio (2012); a meta-analysis on forced-choice ESP studies (1987 to 2010), which use targets such as card symbols, pictures, and letters. We formed two datasets: New Studies #1 (studies that included actual hit rates) and New Studies #2 (Reaction Time [‘RT’] Studies; which are studies that measured only reaction time, not hits, as indicators of psi responses). New Studies #1: For the period 2011 to 2022, a homogeneous dataset of 38 studies yielded a mean effect size (ES) of 0.02 (Stouffer Z = 5.55, p = 1.43 × 10–8). New Studies #2 (‘RT’ Studies): For the same period, a homogeneous dataset of 23 studies yielded a weaker mean ES of 0.01 (Stouffer Z = 5.50, p = 1.90 × 10–8). The two databases were combined. In this dataset, telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition studies were not significantly different from each other. Nor were target types. We updated the forced-choice database by combining our revised original database with the new studies to form a homogeneous database (N = 141): mean effect size (ES) of 0.02 (Stouffer Z = 8.52, p &lt; 10-16). Effects did not vary between investigators or laboratories, and we found a near-significant incline in ES values over a 36-year period (i.e., no evidence of a decline). These results confirm that the forced-choice design adequately tests extra-sensory perception (ESP). We compare the overall results with those obtained in other domains, focusing on ‘selected’ participants (meditators, psychics, psi-test experienced) and ‘unselected’ (i.e., untrained, naïve) participants.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4387805341</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Scientific Exploration</source>
      <category>meta_analysis</category>
      <category>effect_size_estimation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Trained Transliminals: Exploring Anomalous Experiences and Psi in Magical Practitioners</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31275/20243351</link>
      <description>This study examines a body of engaged “ritual magic practitioners” to understand their methods and techniques for facilitating putative parapsychological outcomes in everyday life, as well as outcomes on a computerized test of putative psi. We hypothesized that the combination of meditation, visualization, and related mental exercises at the core of magical practice relates to both invoked anomalous phenomena and spontaneously-occurring anomalous phenomena, and further that the perceptual-personality variable of transliminality (i.e., loose mental boundary functioning) is integral to this process. Likewise, we also anticipated that these associations would enable ritual magicians to score significantly above-chance on the psi test. A split-sample analysis found a positive and statistically significant series of relationships between transliminality and the majority of measured variables within the sample, and notably those involving questionnaire measures of subjective and objective anomalies as well as daily mental exercises. The ritual magicians also performed significantly below-chance (p &lt; .01 for several conditions) on the psi test, as a function of open testing of ESP or using ritual to influence the test. We discuss these results in terms of significant predictions of trait and practice variables on ESP scoring, as well as the evidence that magical practice may represent techniques in which a transliminal dis-ease model might be better remediated.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4401206091</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Scientific Exploration</source>
      <category>primary_experiment</category>
      <category>participant_selection</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What psi research can – and cannot – say about ‘mind beyond the brain’</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2025.2466485</link>
      <description>Research on parapsychological (psi) phenomena is very relevant in the discussion of whether mental processes might go beyond the known limits of brain capacities. Nonetheless, most scientific and philosophical discussions of mind-brain relations do not even mention such research, despite showing similar empirical robustness to that of acknowledged mainstream research in psychology, medicine, and the neurosciences. In this short comment, I briefly summarize the experimental support for psi phenomena, while acknowledging that we are very far from understanding their nature. Acknowledging the relevance of psi research for mind-brain relations should become far more common than is currently the case.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4407813948</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">International Review of Psychiatry</source>
      <category>review_commentary</category>
      <category>effect_size_estimation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Naming Problem in the Recognition of Psi-Encoded Visual Information: Analysis and Implications</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31275/20253449</link>
      <description>A consistent finding in experiments involving telepathic and clairvoyance phenomena is the difficulty of a receiver of visual psi information to name objects and symbols in what they receive. This deficit has been called “the naming problem” by Russell Targ. To gain insight into this issue, the perceptual and cognitive process used by receivers of telepathic and clairvoyant information is examined. Introspective and behavioral data are included in the examination. Factors are identified which contribute to the naming problem. The perception process of a receiver of psi-encoded visual information can be viewed as a form of perception like that in visual imagery but without effective high-level cortical involvement. Psi-encoded information in visual telepathy and clairvoyance is hypothesized to contain information that is decoded into low-level visual features, while higher-level information that organizes sensory information into specific object names and meanings – information known by the sender, or “agent” in telepathy – is absent. The fact that the same naming problem and similar introspective reports about received visual impressions are found in both telepathy and clairvoyance suggests that the data structure of the psi-encoded information in both forms of psi phenomena is identical.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4409052068</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Scientific Exploration</source>
      <category>theoretical_paper</category>
      <category>signal_detection</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Telecommunication Telepathy</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.25934</link>
      <description>Objective: We bring together results from 15 published papers describing 26 telecommunication telepathy experiments published between 2003 and 2024 in a meta-analysis to explore the patterns in these results and their overall significance. Methods: The basic experimental design in these experiments involved four potential callers in remote locations. For each trial one of these callers was chosen at random and asked to call the participant, who was on a telephone without a caller ID. The participant then named the caller before answering the phone. Similar experiments were carried out with email and SMS messages. By random guessing, the hit rate would be around 25%. We collected relevant studies from reference lists and online searches and used a random-effects model in the meta-analysis. Results: Overall, hit rates were very significant above chance level (p = 1x10-7). By contrast, in tests carried out under precognitive conditions, the hit rates were at chance. There was no significant difference between the results of Sheldrake and his colleagues, who carried out most of the studies, and independent replications. Selected participants had significantly higher hit rates than unselected participants, and hit rates were significantly higher when callers and participants shared an emotional bond. The effect sizes in telecommunication telepathy are higher than those in ganzfeld and dream telepathy tests. Conclusion: Research on telecommunication telepathy could become an increasingly fruitful area for psi research, especially in conjunction with automated intuition training apps.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4410643464</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition</source>
      <category>meta_analysis</category>
      <category>effect_size_estimation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Forced-choice Precognition Experiment with Selected Cohorts</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.26394</link>
      <description>Objective. We report a pre-registered forced-choice precognition study to test a novel collaborative platform for psi experimentation. The study compared a cohort of experienced meditators and a cohort selected merely for its interest in participating in the study. Method. The Internet-based platform, Psi@Home, was developed to allow participants to contribute at-home experimental sessions using custom software. Each session comprised 20 forced-choice trials. Eighty sessions per cohort were collected for the pre-registered study and the hypotheses for each cohort were the increase relative to MCE of: 1) the variance of session hit rates, and of 2) the total hit rate. A third hypothesis predicted a higher variance of session hit rates for the meditator cohort. Hypothesis 1 was confirmatory and the others were exploratory. Results. Only hypothesis 3 was confirmed (p = .03). However, 90 tryout sessions showed a markedly strong increase of session variance (p = .00003). Conclusion. We successfully tested a novel platform for collaborative psi experiments. Two pre-registered cohort studies found no direct evidence for a psi effect. However, for tryout data whose collection was specified in pre-registration using the same participants and protocol, variance across sessions was highly significant. Differences in participant attitudes during the two periods of data collection may account for the discrepancy.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4410643737</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition</source>
      <category>primary_experiment</category>
      <category>protocol_standardisation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Buchrezension: Lance Storm (2025). A New Approach to Psi</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.23793/zfa.2025.152</link>
      <description>The Journal of Anomalistics sees itself as a scientific forum for promoting controversial discourse on scientific anomalies, extraordinary human experiences, and so-called parasciences.Empirical research reports, general papers on methodological, conceptual, philosophical, or history of science aspects, review articles, commentaries and discussion papers, and book reviews are published.Guiding research questions on scientific anomalies, extraordinary human experiences, as well as parasciences are those on truth content and explanatory models, on the psychosocial backgrounds of the associated belief systems, and on the social frameworks of anomaly-provoked advances in knowledge in science.Methodological pluralism, competing scientific theoretical approaches, and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4412638666</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of anomalistics</source>
      <category>review_commentary</category>
      <category>protocol_standardisation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Wave after wave: The suggestibility of noise in the experience of multisensory hallucinations under multimodal Ganzfeld stimulation</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695251376600</link>
      <description>A multimodal Ganzfeld (MMGF) consists of homogeneous stimulation in both the visual and auditory modalities. Exposure to this unique perceptual environment can elicit the awareness of hallucinatory percepts. The nature of these hallucinatory percepts, and specifically the frequency of visual, auditory and multisensorial hallucinations, remains unclear. In this study, an MMGF refers to the stimulation paradigm itself. The perceptual experiences elicited, however, can be unimodal (occurring in one modality), multisensory (simultaneous but thematically unrelated across modalities), or multimodal (thematically integrated across modalities), allowing us to assess multisensory integration in the MMGF. Employing a multimethod approach in which we combine quantitative and qualitative measures, we conducted three experiments, using a between-subjects design with three noise conditions, that is, no-noise, white-noise, and brown-noise. Experiments 1 and 2 were conducted in a laboratory Ganzfeld (GF) space, Experiment 3 was conducted in a GF art installation in a museum context. We conducted half-open interviews, analyzed using inductive content analysis, to grasp the subjective experience and assess congruency of visual and auditory hallucinations. We found that visual hallucinations were frequently reported, but auditory hallucinations were less common. The most consistently reported auditory hallucinations, and importantly, multisensory integrated hallucinations, were water-related, suggesting a potential influence of noise, particularly brown noise, possibly due to its resemblance to water sounds. Our findings also indicate a predominantly unimodal focus on the visual aspect among participants, alongside instances of attention switching between modalities.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W4414434251</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">i-Perception</source>
      <category>primary_experiment</category>
      <category>sensory_leakage</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Response to Kennedy’s (2025) Reviews</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.63499/pxq67c46</link>
      <description>A response to Kennedy&apos;s (2025) reviewsWith enthusiasm but mild trepidation, I read James Kennedy&apos;s (2025) combined review of my two books A New Approach to Psi (Storm, 2025a) and A New Approach to Synchronicity (Storm, 2025b).I must say I appreciate the effort Kennedy took in reviewing not one but two rather lengthy books.I found it overall supportive, though it&apos;s not a deep dive-which other reviewers also refrained from doing (e.g., Daw, 2025;Mrck, 2025).Of course, I realize that readers may not wish for density, and perhaps a review is not the place for serious theoretical probing.However, I do wish to respond to a few of Kennedy&apos;s criticisms, though he makes reasonable points that I do acknowledge, or have no need to challenge, as is the case with the two Society for Psychical Research website reviews just listed.Labelled as &quot;Book 1&quot;, the first major issue Kennedy tackles in A New Approach to Psi is my approach to experimenter effect in psi research (aka &apos;E-psi&apos;).My point here is that I don&apos;t generally propose &quot;that concern about experimenter effects in psi research is not justified&quot; (p.157).Fortunately, Kennedy corrects himself in a subsequent paragraph, noting that I do feel concern is justified in the case of within-study E-psi, of which there is ample evidence.And he also correctly points out that I do claim between-study E-psi is overblown, and indeed I do use the meta-analyses to back up my claim: But Kennedy points out that there have been those who contradict such a claim: J. B. Rhine may well have &quot;had no doubt that experimenters have differing [psi] abilities&quot; (p.157), but we have come a long way since the 1930s, and one man&apos;s experiences and assumptions, or those of a few, are surely outweighed by the meta-analytic findings which show there are no marked (significant) differences.The same goes for Rosenthal (1986; as cited in Kennedy, 2025); his finding of significant effect size differences between ganzfeld investigators is nearly 40 years old.My claim was based on the most recent data, from a number of different meta-analyses covering a range of experimental paradigms, not just ganzfeld (Storm, 2025a, Chapter 2).Here we come to the real issue for Kennedy-the general problem some in academia have with meta-analysis.On the one hand, I do not think the resistance to, and criticisms of, meta-analysis are entirely justified to the</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W7116048476</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of the Society for Psychical Research</source>
      <category>review_commentary</category>
      <category>experimenter_effects</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Towards a Natural History of Psi: An Evolutionary Proposal Based on Consilience of Inductions</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31275/20263647</link>
      <description>For almost a century since its establishment as a scientific discipline, the field of Parapsychology has been very fruitful in terms of positive experimental outcomes that suggest the existence of psi. However, it has not been possible to integrate this body of results into an appropriate biological framework rooted in evolutionary biology. Some interesting attempts have been proposed throughout the last few decades, but almost all draw their interpretations from an anthropocentric perspective. Here, by means of an approach known as consilience of inductions, I try to overcome this problem by analyzing complementary evidence from different disciplines that point toward a common conclusion: that psi might be an ancestral capability widely distributed in many non-human organisms. Such pieces of evidence are the following: 1) That psi is not paranormal but natural and normal, as indicated by the historical record and by recent surveys applied to people around the world; 2) The reports that suggest the presence of psi in domestic and non-domestic animals, including the positive results of a large number of animal psi experiments; 3) Common brain structures to all vertebrates, which take part in certain functions and processes that have been associated with psi; 4) The apparent role of the outer layers of the brain—which are recent evolutionary innovations mainly developed in primates—in the inhibition of psi function; and 5) The evolutionary advantages that psi might confer in many human and non-human organisms, mainly those related to survival. Altogether, these pieces of evidence point towards a scenario in which psi emerged long ago, perhaps before the divergence of vertebrates, and in which it might have been preserved by biological evolution given the obvious advantages that could represent for organisms, even if it operates in an unconscious way. Furthermore, many experimental results in the field of parapsychology suggest that one specific kind of natural selection, known as stabilizing selection, might be operating behind the evolution of psi or, more specifically, its biological bases. Finally, I point out that, if we want to unravel the neurobiological bases of psi function, it is crucial to start focusing on brain regions or structures widely distributed in vertebrates and, from here, it would be possible to try to identify the genetic bases of this extraordinary function, which in turn would allow us to elucidate its evolutionary history.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W7140818573</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Scientific Exploration</source>
      <category>theoretical_paper</category>
      <category>statistical_analysis</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sensing Accuracy:</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.27505</link>
      <description>Objective. Remote viewing data frequently contain a mixture of accurate and inaccurate elements, which has raised concerns regarding its reliability in applied contexts. The objective of this study was to examine whether remote viewers report being able to recognize when specific pieces of information are correct. Methods. A survey using an experience-centered, phenomenological approach was administered to remote viewers with varying levels of training and experience, recruited through snowball sampling, yielding 122 valid responses. Analysis. Quantitative analyses and thematic coding of open-ended responses were conducted. Results. Results showed that 89% of participants reported experiencing a sense of correctness regarding specific target details that were later verified. Among those endorsing this experience, 37% reported it occurred occasionally, 42% often, and 7% during every session. Most respondents (86%) indicated this awareness was developed independently through personal practice while 14% attributed it to instruction. Participants identified recurring phenomenological markers associated with correctness, including unexpected or surprising information, persistent or repeating impressions, vivid or unusual imagery, suddenness or immediacy, emotional impact, and instant cognitive “downloads.” Attitudes toward the study’s focus were mixed, with participants expressing both supportive and critical perspectives. Conclusions. Remote viewers report subjective cues they associate with accuracy at the level of specific target elements, paralleling reports from participants in forced choice psi experiments, which may have implications for future research on confidence judgments and reliability in remote viewing applications.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W7147106012</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition</source>
      <category>primary_experiment</category>
      <category>signal_detection</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Questions about Questionable Research Practices</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.27502</link>
      <description>Parapsychologists have made considerable gains over the decades. For example, they have an informative (and constantly growing) series of meta-analyses, out of which have developed ongoing debates and critiques over methodologies. Some critiques, well-intentioned though they may be, center on so-called questionable research practices (QRPs), and it has even been argued that QRPs alone may account for psi effects. In this article, I critique an article by Bierman et al. (2016) on QRPs that finds a much-reduced but still significant overall effect in a meta-analysis of ganzfeld studies by Storm et al. (2010). The series of “hypothetical” analyses undertaken by Bierman et al. are themselves argued to be questionable. Researchers are advised to be watchful of methodological oversights that misrepresent the available data and ultimately cast parapsychological research in a dim light.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W7147261836</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition</source>
      <category>review_commentary</category>
      <category>statistical_analysis</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Remembering the future : Facilitating the recall of future events</title>
      <link>https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai/papers</link>
      <description>The field of parapsychology is concerned with ‘impossible things’ - reported events or abilities that conflict with what the philosopher C.D. Broad (1949, p. 291) called the ‘Basic Limiting Principles’ of science, tenets that have been “so overwhelmingly supported by all the empirical facts … that it hardly enters our heads to question them”. Broad’s four principles can be summarised as follows: – Effects cannot come before causes. – A person’s mind cannot produce any direct change in the material world except those caused via the brain / senorimotor system. – Any mental event is an event in the brain of a living body, and cannot occur in the absence of a functioning brain. – All knowledge of the world comes to us through our conventional senses or by inference from known facts. However, there is widespread belief in and reported personal experience of phenomena that prima facie are exceptions to these principles, which seems to be independent of culture, creed or historical period (e.g., Castro, Burrows &amp; Wooffitt, 2014; Dagnall, Drinkwater, Parker &amp; Clough, 2016). Examples of such phenomena include: – Premonitions such as dreams that refer to (or are ‘caused by’) a future event. – Psychokinetic events such as the movement or distortion of objects, or the production of wellbeing changes in another organism as a result of mental intention alone. – Out of body experiences, where the centre of experience seems to be located away from the body; or near-death experiences, in which mental events seem to occur when the brain is apparently incapable of sustaining conscious activity. – Telepathic and clairvoyant experiences, in which people seem to be able to acquire information from the mind of another person or directly from the environment without the mediation of the known sensory systems. Parapsychology represents our best attempt to account for these phenomena, either in terms of existing constructs (such as misperception, errors of recall, and deception) or by invoking new constructs that can accommodate them. Given the theme of this symposium, I shall focus on the first of these, apparent violations of the cause-effect temporal relationship. With only limited space, I shall restrict myself to just one line of research that has been loosely (and rather inaccurately) labelled ‘feeling the future’.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2023 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W7148197113</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">NECTAR - Northampton Electronic Collection of Thesis and Research (University of Northampton)</source>
      <category>theoretical_paper</category>
      <category>signal_detection</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Myth of Publication Bias in Psi Research: A Comparison Between Parapsychology and Mainstream Psychology</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31275/20263793</link>
      <description>This study investigates the persistent claim that publication bias contaminates (indeed, possibly inflates) the scientific evidence for parapsychological phenomena, specifically extrasensory perception (ESP). We analyzed 165 published studies (243 experiments) from recent ESP meta-analyses and 40 preregistered confirmatory experiments from the Koestler Parapsychology Unit Registry. We compared these two datasets to datasets from the field of mainstream psychology. Our primary measure was the percentage of peer-reviewed experiments reporting null statistically significant outcomes (i.e., p &gt; 0.05). Results indicate that the rate of published experiments with null outcomes in ESP research is considerably higher than that observed in psychology, for both non-preregistered and preregistered experiments. While the publication bias is substantially smaller, suggesting more balanced reporting of parapsychological outcomes compared to mainstream psychological research, we cannot conclusively show that the statistical evidence for ESP is not an artifact of that relatively minimal bias, but a number of earlier tests on the file-drawer problem do undermine that assumption.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W7167580122</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Scientific Exploration</source>
      <category>meta_analysis</category>
      <category>file_drawer_problem</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Response to Bierman and Spottiswoode (2026)</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31275/20264041</link>
      <description>This is a reply to Bierman and Spottiswoode’s (B&amp;S) assertion that the between-studies “decline effect” (DE) in psi research is present in all experimental protocols related to anomalous cognition (AC; a.k.a. extra-sensory perception; ESP) and psychokinesis (PK). While B&amp;S utilized non-parametric Spearman rho correlations to identify declines across AC and PK databases, we defend the robustness of our original meta-regression approach. Furthermore, we reanalyzed our original results, and the B&amp;S results, taking into account the moderator effect of the number of trials or participants for the presentiment data on the effect sizes. The results were not very different from our original findings, showing that only two of six AC protocols indicated statistically significant declines, while all four PK protocols exhibited statistically significant declines. However, these databases are largely obsolete, lacking data from the last 20 years, and two of them involve very limited time spans. Our conclusion is that B&amp;S’s interpretation overstates the observed findings, thus reaffirming our original stance: “there is no evidence of a general DE across different experimental protocols in psi research”.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W7167581110</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Scientific Exploration</source>
      <category>review_commentary</category>
      <category>effect_size_estimation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Decline of Effect Size in Psi Research: An Evidence-Based Commentary on Tressoldi and Storm (2024)</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31275/20264003</link>
      <description>We analyzed all available meta-analytic databases covering 10 protocols that are being used in psi research for a decline in effect size over years. From the total of 10 protocols seven showed a significant decline. An analysis using the first 20 publications (or the maximum number of publications) for each protocol gave a clear overall decline in effect size with publication sequence number with a specific protocol (rho = -0.176 N = 185 P = 0.008). The apparent contradiction of strong declines of Effect Size vs. Year when analyzed per protocol and no decline over-all is explained by the repeating pattern of rise and fall of results obtained by the different protocols with the more sensitive protocols with a larger mean effect size appearing later in years. We also independently found a very robust decline in effect size with increasing number of trials, N, or power of the psi studies (rho = -0.397, N = 873, P &lt; 10 -30). Since the power of studies also turned out to increase over the years we analyzed the temporal decline of ES over years controlling for N and found that the temporal declines were not a consequent of the independent decline effect of ES with increasing N.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W7167597977</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Scientific Exploration</source>
      <category>meta_analysis</category>
      <category>effect_size_estimation</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Psychic Hacking: Using Remote Viewing to Steal Computer Data</title>
      <link>https://doi.org/10.31275/20263651</link>
      <description>This article presents exploratory experimental results suggesting that some individuals with remote viewing abilities may be able to describe details of data present in computers located miles away. Building on past U.S. Government psi research, an Internet-hosted experiment allowed participants to try using their psychic powers to describe picture, video, ATM PIN, and passphrase targets stored on laptop computers in Los Angeles. The laptops were standalone with networking capabilities disabled, configured to deploy new targets nightly without human intervention, and covered with sleeves to prevent peeking. A total of 146 remote participants generated 584 free-response rounds. Each round was scored by three independent judges chosen randomly from a pool of six. Judging employed rank-order scoring, and counting the number of target details matched. Many participants successfully described targets to a degree sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. Statistically significant results (α = 0.05) were observed for both picture (p = 0.000597, h = 1.075) and video targets (p = 0.000911, h = 1.131). ATM PIN results were significant for 3 digits in any order (p = 4.118 × 10−6, h = 0.788) and 2 digits in any order (p = 7.84 × 10−6, h = 0.763). Security and privacy implications of “psychic hacking” may be far-reaching, since physical distance, attenuating structures, visual shielding, network air gaps, data obfuscation, strict file permissions, and file monitoring failed to detect or prevent data theft.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://openalex.org/W7167706073</guid>
      <source url="https://trial-ganzfeld-meta-analysis.livingmeta.ai">Journal of Scientific Exploration</source>
      <category>primary_experiment</category>
      <category>randomisation_controls</category>
      <category>journal_article</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
