Cerebral hemisphere dominance and ESP performance in the autoganzfeld - Statistical Data Included

Cheryl H. Alexander

ABSTRACT: The right cerebral hemisphere is often associated with psi abilities, yet there is no substantial evidence to support this claim. Therefore, this study (CLI-Ganzfeld) was designed to examine if a relationship between cerebral hemisphere dominance and ESP performance exists. 50 selected participants were tested for cerebral hemisphere dominance and ESP performance as measured by the Cognitive Laterality Battery (CLB) and the autoganzfeld, respectively. The relationship between ESP scores and personality factors (Myers--Briggs Type Indicator preference scores), geomagnetism, local sidereal time, sender-receiver pairings, and target type was also examined. The selected participants produced a hit rate of 36% (z = 1.60, p = .055) in the autoganzfeld. Although this scoring rate falls just short of statistical significance, the effect size ([pi] = .63) is in the upper part of previously predicted ranges. Participants categorized as right-cerebral hemisphere dominant scored fewer direct hits in the autogan zfeld than those categorized as left-cerebral hemisphere dominant, but the difference between the 2 scoring rates is not significant. It is concluded that hemisphere dominance, specifically right-hemisphere dominance as measured by the CLB, is not an important factor associated with psi hitting by selected participants in the autoganzfeld.

Most process-oriented parapsychological research has focused on examining the relationship between personality variables and ESP, with little research examining the relationship between the human brain and psi, specifically brain hemisphere differences and ESP. However, because human experiences are mediated by the brain, and psychic phenomena belong to a class of human experiences, then a vital process-oriented question is: Does a relationship exist between psi phenomena and certain areas or a particular hemisphere of the human brain?

In the small body of parapsychological literature that has examined this question, most of the studies have explored how functional differences of the cerebral hemispheres might interact with psi abilities. Because most experimental ESP and a large proportion of spontaneous cases tend to be visual in nature (Broughton, 1977b), these studies have focused on the role of the right hemisphere, because the right hemisphere is associated with visuospatial abilities and processing of holistic, nonverbal information (Koib & Whishaw, 1996).

In the 1970s, studies examining brain hemisphere differences and psi were conducted by a few researchers who used a similar experimental methodology: unselected participants took part in a forced-choice ESP task designed to activate one hemisphere while they simultaneously participated in a distracting task that would engage the other hemisphere (Broughton, 1976, 1977a; Maher, Peratsakis, & Schmeidler, 1979; Maher & Schmeidler, 1977). Within the last decade, several studies examining brain function and psi have been conducted by Don, McDonough, and Warren (see especially McDonough, Don, & Warren, 1994).

The results of these studies and others have not provided unequivocal evidence of right-hemisphere superiority (see Broughton, 1977b, for a review of the earlier studies). Yet, the idea that the right hemisphere is the area of the brain associated with psi abilities is still a commonly held notion. Therefore, more research is needed to help clarify the role the right hemisphere may play in the production of psi phenomena. This study, CL1-Ganzfeld, was designed with this aim in mind--to examine if a relationship between cerebral hemisphere dominance and ESP performance exists.

To expand on the current body of knowledge in this area, this study incorporates a new approach and methodology to explore the question of interest. Instead of trying to induce hemisphere activation during a psi task as was done in prior experiments, the Cognitive Laterality Battery (CLB), a battery of neuropsychological tests developed over many years by Harold W. Gordon, is used to measure brain hemisphere differences in participants prior to the psi task. The CLB consists of eight subtests that measure performance on specialized cognitive functions that have been selectively attributed to the left or right hemisphere. These subtests were chosen on the basis of converging evidence from studies on patients with unilateral cerebral lesions, on patients with complete forebrain commissurotomy, and on normal participants suggesting that verbal and sequential skills are primarily related to the left hemisphere whereas visuospatial skills are primarily related to the right hemisphere (Gordon, 1986). Participants are classified as left- or right-hemisphere dominant depending on whether they score better on the verbosequential subtests or the visuospatial subtests.

To increase the likelihood of ESP scoring in the laboratory so that a meaningful correlation between ESP scores and cerebral hemisphere dominance can be demonstrated, we tested only selected participants in the present study. To also help facilitate the production of psi in the laboratory, we used the ganzfeld, a free-response procedure which has produced significant psi results at a number of different laboratories (e.g., Dalton, 1997; Honorton et al., 1990), to measure ESP performance instead of the forced-choice type of protocols that were used in the earlier brain research. After data collection, the results of the CLB are correlated with the results of the autoganzfeld to see if a relationship between ESP and cerebral hemisphere dominance, as measured by the CLB, exists. It should be kept in mind that the results of this study may not be generalized beyond this particular testing and measurement procedure.

Personality variables, which may be related to ESP-ganzfeld performance, are also examined in this study. Previous ganzfeld studies (Honorton, 1997; Palmer, 1997, 1998) have found associations between participants classified as Feeling--Perceiving (FP) or Intuitive--Feeling--Perceiving (NFP) on the Myers--Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality inventory (Myers & McCaulley, 1985) and scoring in the ganzfeld. There is also some published literature on the use of the MBTI as a brain dominance instrument (Davis, 1991). Davis proposed that people who are classified as Intuitive--Feeling (NE), according to the MBTI, are right-hemisphere dominant. Based on the findings reported by Honorton (1997) and Palmer (1997, 1998), and prompted by Davis's (1991) proposed idea, the present study examines the relationship between the MBTI NE category and ESP-ganzfeld scores, as well as the relationship between NE classification and right-hemisphere dominance, as measured by the CLB.

Two physical variables that have been linked to free-response ESP scores, geomagnetism and local sidereal time (LST), are additionally examined. A weak negative correlation between ESP results and the earth's geomagnetic field has been found in numerous studies (see Persinger & Krippner, 1989; Spottiswoode, 1990; Tart, 1988). Several researchers who have explored the relationship between geomagnetism and ESP-ganzfeld scores have found similar results (Adams, 1986; Broughton & Alexander, 1997; Dalton & Stevens, 1995). The present study seeks to replicate these findings, as well as the finding by Spottiswoode (1997a) that there is a nearly fourfold increase in ESP effect size for free-response sessions conducted in a 2-hr window of LST surrounding 13.5 hr. Spottiswoode (1997b) also reported that the negative correlation between geomagnetism and scoring is stronger in the LST window than at other times.

METHOD

Automated Testing System

The equipment used in this study was donated by Charles Honorton to the Institute for Parapsychology/Rhine Research Center (RRC) in Durham, North Carolina, following the closure of Honorton's Psychophysical Research Laboratories (PRL) in 1989. This equipment, which is now referred to as Autoganzfeld II, was reassembled and installed by research fellow Kathy Dalton at RRC in 1993. This installation essentially reproduces the testing system used at PRL; however, the physical arrangement of the laboratory is very different, and the soundproof room used at PRL was not moved to RRC.

Honorton et al. (1990, pp. 100-110) provided a detailed description of the automated ganzfeld testing system as it was used at PRL. Here, a summary of the Autoganzfeld II system is presented, with a focus on the principal differences between this system and Honorton's PRL system.

Autoganzfeld II uses the same, or equivalent, hardware and software to control the ganzfeld experiment as that used at PRL, with a few exceptions. The random number generator, which was originally connected to an expansion chassis, was relocated to the Apple II computer. The expansion chassis, along with a silent printer, was removed from the system. R.S.B reviewed the computer programs and made appropriate changes to accommodate differences between the PRL system and Autoganzfeld II.

The cassette decks, amplifiers, and other audio equipment used for presenting the relaxation instructions and pink noise, as well as for recording the receiver's mentation, are either the same pieces of equipment or functional equivalents as those from Honorton's laboratory.

To help facilitate the production of psi in the laboratory, we used a restricted target pool. The raw data files from PRL (Honorton et al., 1990) and RRC (Broughton & Alexander, 1997) ganzfeld studies were analyzed to determine the ratio of misses to direct hits for each target pack within Honorton's target pool. This pool, which was used by both laboratories, consists of 80 static target alternatives (photographs and art prints on video) and 80 dynamic target alternatives (film clips). One of the dynamic target packs (4 dynamic targets) has always been excluded because it was damaged (see Honorton et al., 1990, p. 119n). The target packs that had low ratio values at both laboratories (i.e., more direct hits than misses) were chosen as the restricted pool. The target pool used in the present study consisted of 12 target packs: 6 static target alternatives and 6 dynamic target alternatives.

Layout of Testing Rooms

The layout of the experimental rooms is very different from PRL's. The RRC does not have an acoustically isolated chamber for the receiver. Instead, the sender is isolated from both the receiver and the experimenter during the ganzfeld session by being sequestered in a room that is approximately 12 m from the experimenter's room and 15 m from the receiver's room. The sender is separated from the experimenter by a minimum of four doors and several passages with right-angle turns, and is further separated from the receiver by one additional door and room. During the session, all doors are kept shut.

The rooms for the experimenter and receiver are in a wing that had been added to the original structure, and even though they are on the same level of the building, they do not share a common floor structure.

None of the rooms are acoustically shielded, nor have sound transmission measurements been taken. However, the distance between rooms and the locations of the rooms within the building provide an adequate degree of isolation between the sender and both the experimenter and receiver. During the experiment, there is active monitoring of both sender and receiver locations. Unauthorized egress by the sender or any sounds emanating from the sender's room during the ganzfeld session would cause the trial to be discarded.

Similarly, a ganzfeld trial would be aborted if anyone not authorized was seen entering or leaving the receiver's room. A closed-circuit television enables the experimenter to monitor the room adjacent to the receiver's room, which provides the only access to this room.

The experimenter's room contains all of the equipment that was located on the experimenter's console in the PRL setup, with the exception of the VCR that projects the target pictures. At the RRC, the VCR is located in a closet in a separate office so that none of the noises associated with the tape movement can be heard in the experimenter's room.

The receiver's room is 2.5 m x 2 m, located on the second floor, in the quietest corner of the building. The receiver relaxes in a comfortable recliner, and the red light for the ganzfeld is provided by two 100-W red flood lamps mounted high on the walls about 2 m from the receiver's face. The television that presents the judging pictures is located in the corner faced by the seated receiver. During the actual ganzfeld period, the room is illuminated by the red flood lamps alone.

The sender's room is about 4 m x 2 m and is located in the opposite corner of the building, as described earlier. It contains a reclining chair and the television used for showing the target picture. Video and audio lines are routed from the experimenter's room via the attic, which is immediately above.

Participants

Participants who met certain qualifications based on inclusion and exclusion criteria in the Participant Information Form (PIF) were selected to participate as receivers for this study (see PIF section under Individual Differences Measures for inclusion and exclusion criteria).

Participants were encouraged to bring along someone with whom they were emotionally close, preferably a family member, to fill the role of the sender, as emotionally close sender-receiver pairs have been found to produce exceptionally high hit rates in the ganzfeld (Broughton & Alexander, 1997; Dalton, 1997). However, if it was not possible for a participant to participate with a family member with whom they felt emotionally close, he or she was allowed to participate with a friend, an RRC lab sender, or without a sender present. In other words, the sender's role was filled in the manner in which the participant felt most comfortable. As this experiment was designed to collect and assess information specifically about the receiver and not the sender, the importance of the role of the sender was seen as a means of helping to facilitate psi by allowing the receiver to feel relaxed and at ease during the testing session.

Participants were recruited primarily from the local community through publicity for the RRC, word-of-mouth, and from those who have had prior success in the ganzfeld. The participant pool therefore consisted of first-time ganzfeld participants as well as "experienced" participants (those who have participated as a receiver in a prior ganzfeld study).

The sample size for the study was preset at N = 50, as this has been the designated number of participants per autoganzfeld series conducted at the Institute for Parapsychology. Since C.H.A. conducted this study for her doctoral research, only one series was run because of the enormous amount of time involved in administering, conducting, and scoring the various instruments and procedures (PIF, MBTI, CLB, and autoganzfeld) used. As it is necessary to run more than one series to ensure a large enough sample size for adequate power, the ability to run only one series was viewed in advance as a limitation of the study. Additionally, in some of the analyses, only small subsets of the 50 participants could be classified on each of the variables examined. The results based on these small samples, therefore, must be interpreted with the caution appropriate to such circumstances.

Data were collected on 63 participants, as 13 participants were not able to complete both testing sessions (10 participants who completed the CLB were not able to return to participate in the autoganzfeld, and three autoganzfeld sessions had to be aborted because of equipment malfunction). The data collected on these 13 participants were excluded from the analysis and are not reported herein.

The ages of the participants ranged from 16 to 66 years (M = 39.6 years, SD = 13.3). Thirteen of the participants were male; 37 were female.

Participant Orientation

After initial contact, typically by telephone or laboratory visit, potential participants were sent a packet containing an introduction letter, a PIF, and a self-addressed stamped envelope. Returned PIFs were analyzed, and participants who met the prescreening qualifications were telephoned and an appointment was scheduled for them to take the CLB.

At the scheduled visit, the participant was greeted by the experimenter and made to feel welcome. The participant was then given a concise explanation of the CLB and instructions for the testing session. After questions and concerns were addressed, the participant signed a consent form. At the end of the CLB testing session, the participant was given the MBTI to complete at home and was scheduled for a return visit to participate in the autoganzfeld.

Because the PIF was used as a prescreening device, it was completed prior to the CLB and autoganzfeld sessions. Only 1 participant did not complete the PIF prior to the CLB. However, she was a past research participant thought to be appropriate for the study. To verify this, after this participant had completed the PIF, it was examined and she was confirmed as being appropriate for the study.

All of the participants completed the CLB in one testing session, except for 1 who had to finish the CLB in a second testing session because of an equipment problem. This participant, in accordance with the research design, completed the CLB prior to participating in the autoganzfeld session.

Participants were informed that they would not receive the results of their scores on the CLB or MBTI until after the autoganzfeld testing session had been completed. Also, the experimenter (C.H.A.) was kept blind to the results of both the CLB and the MBTI (which were scored by assistants C.H.A. had trained) until after the entire series was completed. These steps were taken to ensure that the cerebral hemisphere dominance and personality scores would not influence scoring in the autoganzfeld by introducing experimenter or participant expectancy biases.

Most participants completed the MBTI at home and either mailed the completed form to the RRC prior to their autoganzfeld session or brought it along with them to the autoganzfeld session. Occasionally, a participant would complete the MBTI in the lab after the CLB or before the autoganzfeld session. Only 1 participant did not complete the MBTI before the autoganzfeld session because of time constraints.

Autoganzfeld Procedure

Prior to a ganzfeld session, the experimenter turned on the autoganzfeld equipment. When participants arrived at the RRC for their ganzfeld session, they were greeted by the experimenter and were given an introduction to the ganzfeld approach to ESP testing. Participants were shown the testing rooms and given an explanation of the roles of the receiver and sender (if a sender was participating). After any questions and concerns about the ganzfeld procedure were addressed, participants signed a consent form. During this time, the target for the experiment was randomly selected. The role of the target selector was usually taken by R.S.B. or another member of the RRC staff.

After the consent forms were witnessed by the experimenter, the experimenter escorted the sender to the sender's room. The sender was given instructions, and once it was clear the instructions were understood, the experimenter left the room and closed the door on the way out.

The experimenter then walked across the building to the receiver's room where the receiver was waiting. The receiver was asked to relax in a recliner chair, and eye covers (halves of ping-pong balls) were placed over her or his eyes and were held in place by a pair of clear goggles. Headphones were then placed on the receiver's head and were adjusted to fit properly. When the receiver was comfortable, the experimenter left the room and closed the door on the way out.

Once sequestered in the control room, the experimenter turned off the white light and turned on the red floodlights in the receiver's room and then adjusted the light intensity so that it was at a comfortable level for the receiver. Next, the experimenter turned on the cassette tape that contained the relaxation exercises and the pink noise (unpatterned, staticlike sounds) and adjusted the volume intensity for the receiver (the sender could adjust his or her own volume level). Once the light and volume intensities were set, the experimenter started the relaxation tape that was heard by both the receiver and the sender. This part of the experiment, called the relaxation period, lasted approximately 15 min.

After the relaxation period ended, the sending period began. During this part of the ganzfeld session, the receiver was asked to verbalize any thoughts, feelings, or visual images that entered his or her mind. The experimenter took detailed notes on the receiver's mentation and simultaneously recorded the receiver's mentation on audiotape. During this same time period, the sender was shown a randomly selected target picture on a television screen (the experimenter, and of course the receiver, were blind to the target picture). The sender's task was to concentrate on the target picture and to try to telepathically transmit the information about the picture to the sender. To help keep focused on the task, the sender sketched the target picture and wrote down a description of what he or she was viewing on blank sheets of paper that were provided in the room.

Following the sending period, which lasted 30 min, the experimenter read back to the receiver her or his mentation. The receiver elaborated on or made any further associations with the material she or he produced during the sending period. When the review of the mentation was completed, the experimenter asked the receiver to sit up in the chair and to remove the eye covers. The red floodlights were turned off, and a white light was switched on.

The judging period followed the sending period. During this phase, four different pictures were shown to the receiver on a television screen located in front of the receiver's chair. The experimenter asked the receiver to rate and rank each of the four pictures according to the experience she or he had during the ganzfeld procedure. A 40-point scale was displayed on the television screen, and with a computer game paddle the receiver was able to mark on the scale what percent he or she felt each picture corresponded to the mentation. In other words, the picture that was given the highest rating received a rank of 1, and so on.

After the receiver's scores from the judging period were stored on the hard drive of the computer, the experimenter and sender joined the receiver in the receiver's room. The target picture that the sender had been viewing was displayed on the receiver's television screen. If the target picture (the picture the sender was viewing) was the picture the receiver gave the highest rating to and thus a rank of 1, a direct hit was scored. Otherwise, a miss was scored. Following this part of the experiment, the experimenter debriefed the participant and addressed any questions or concerns. The participants were thanked for their participation in the experiment and were reminded that they would receive their results from the CLB and the MBTI about 1 week later in the mail (the experimenter was kept blind to these results until after all 50 sessions were completed).

The experimenter showed the participants out and then printed out a hard copy of the results of the session from the data disk. This sheet, the experimenter's notes, and the sender's drawings and notes were stapled together. They were put in a binder in a cabinet for safekeeping. The audiotape from the session was labeled and was also stored in the cabinet. All the equipment was then shut off, and the rooms were prepared for a new session.

The conduct of the experiment followed closely the procedure described in Honorton et al. (1990, pp. 105-110). It differed slightly from the PRL procedure in that the VCR and videotapes were located in a closet in a different room from the controlling computer, and therefore there was no need to place a cover over the VCR.

Another minor difference was in the last stage of the experiment. Because a printer was not attached to the Apple II computer that controls the experiment, after the participants departed, the experimenter took the data disk to another Apple II computer and printed out the paper record of the session.

If a receiver participated alone, the experiment followed the same procedure described above but without a sender present. The target picture was still displayed in the sender's room but without anyone viewing the picture. If a sender was not present, the experiment was considered a clairvoyant experiment instead of a telepathy experiment.

Experimenters

C.H.A. conducted all but seven of the autoganzfeld sessions, which were conducted by Alixe Steinmetz, a Duke University work-study student who was C.H.A.'s assistant.

Individual Differences Measures

CLB. The CLB is a reliable and valid battery of tests that analyzes specialized functions of the cerebral hemispheres. (Internal reliability for each of the subtests as assessed by Cronbach's alpha ranges from .682 to .890. Split-half reliabilities range from .466 to .762. Test-retest correlations range from .7 to .9 [Gordon, 1986].)

This paper-and-pencil test consists of eight subtests designed to assess functions that have been attributed to either the left or right cerebral hemisphere. Four of the subtests (Localization, Orientation-3D, Form Completion, and Touching Blocks) measure visuospatial abilities that are skills associated with the right cerebral hemisphere. The other four subtests (Serial Sounds, Serial Numbers, Word Production-Letters, and Word Production-Categories) measure verbosequential abilities attributed to the left cerebral hemisphere. Factor analyses in samples of normal participants have affirmed the two main functional categories that these subtests fall into (Gordon, 1986).

Each of the CLB subtests has been standardized on children 8-18 years old and on adults. Norms are available for both males and females. The tests are presented on 35-mm slides with prerecorded instructions presented through audiocassettes. Participants record their answers to test questions on preprinted answer sheets. The test is fully automated and takes participants approximately '75 mm to complete.

PIF. The PIF, which is based on that used at PRL, has been previously used in ganzfeld studies at the RRC. In the present study, the PIF was modified and used as the prescreening device. It was also used to collect information on variables for correlational analyses. Several questions were deleted or added to provide inclusion and exclusion criteria and to gain information on variables relating to cerebral laterality. The PIF consists of 30 questions.

Participants were either included in or excluded from the study depending on their responses to questions based on the following criteria associated with successful ESP-ganzfeld performance: belief in psi (Honorton, Barker, Varvoglis, Berger, & Schechter, 1985), prior ESP experiences (Broughton & Alexander, 1997; Honorton, 1997; Honorton et al., 1985), practice of mental disciplines (Honorton, 1997; Kanthamani & Broughton, 1994), and creativity (Dalton, 1997; Schlitz & Honorton, 1992). Participants were excluded from the study if they responded that they did not believe they would score at least at chance during formal laboratory testing of psi. Also, participants were excluded from the study if they were currently taking antipsychotic drugs (those medicines prescribed for hallucinations and delusions), as this was considered a potential confounding variable. In addition, it was felt that the autoganzfeld procedure might not be an appropriate situation for people taking drugs that produce changes in consciou sness and perception, as the procedure itself can induce an altered state of consciousness.

MBTI. The MBTI is a personality assessment tool that is based on C. G. Jung's theory of psychological types. The basis of Jung's theory is that people differ in the way they prefer to use their perception and judgment, which results in people having different interests, values, motivations, and skills. There are four separate indices on the MBTI: Extraversion-Introversion (EI), Sensing-Intuition (SN), Thinking-Feeling (TF), and Judgment-Perception (JP).

Participants completed Form G of the MBTI, which consists of 126 multiple-choice questions. Based on their responses to the questions, preference scores for the four indices and MBTI types were calculated for each participant. Preference scores indicate which pole of an index a person prefers, for example, thinking (T) or feeling (F). Because the preference scores for each index are independent, there are 16 possible combinations or "types" that are represented by the four letters derived from the preference scores (e.g., INFP, ESTJ). Each participant was classified as 1 of the 16 MBTI types, and the strength of their preference on each of the four indices was denoted by their preference scores.

Hypotheses

The overall scoring rate in the autoganzfeld, as measured by the direct hit method, will be significantly above chance.

Participants exhibiting right cerebral hemisphere dominance, as measured by the CLB, will score significantly more direct hits in the autoganzfeld than those exhibiting left cerebral hemisphere dominance, as measured by the CLB.

Participants who score direct hits in the autoganzfeld will have an MBTI Intuitive-Feeling (NF) classification significantly more often than those who do not score direct hits.

Participants who are right cerebral hemisphere dominant, as measured by the CLB, will have an MBTI Intuitive--Feeling (NF) classification significantly more often than those who are left cerebral hemisphere dominant, as measured by the CLB.

There will be significantly more direct hits during a 2-hr window surrounding 13.5 hr LST than at other times.

There will be a significant negative correlation between ESP-ganzfeld scores, as measured by z scores, and geomagnetic activity, as measured by the ap index.

Planned Analyses

Overall evidence of ESP was assessed by direct hit analysis. Direct hits were also used for the hypotheses containing variables involving the following categorical comparisons: cerebral hemisphere dominance and scoring in the autoganzfeld; MBTI NF classification and scoring in the autoganzfeld; right cerebral hemisphere dominance and MBTI NF classification; and LST and scoring in the autoganzfeld. Standardized ratings were used for a geomagnetic analysis with a negative correlation predicted.

Other variables from the autoganzfeld session and from the PIF (such as target type, practice of mental disciplines, and handedness), which were identified beforehand as being of interest, were analyzed using direct hits for categorical comparisons and standardized ratings for correlational analyses. Differences in values were tested for significance using Fisher's exact test where appropriate.

RESULTS

Randomness Checks

To verify that the random number generator was properly functioning and the targets generated for this experiment would be randomly selected, we performed a global certification test on the autoganzfeld target-generating system prior to conducting the study. The target-generating instructions were extracted from the controlling program and were embedded in a program that generated a large series of control targets that included all target alternatives in the restricted target pool. In the prestudy test, 10,000 trials (10 runs of 1,000) were generated, and chi-square tests revealed no consistent departures from the expected uniform distribution.

After completion of the study, another randomness check of 10,000 trials was made, and there was no evidence of any consistent departures from chance expectation.

Direct Hit Results

As shown in Table 1, the CL1-Ganzfeld study produced a total of 18 hits in 50 sessions, for a hit rate of 36% (z= 1.60, p= .055, one-tailed). This overall scoring rate in the autoganzfeld falls just short of being statistically significantly above chance as measured by the direct hit method.

The effect size, as calculated using Rosenthal's [pi] (proportional index or PI), for this study was [pi] = .63 (Cohen's h = .24). (1) In comparison with other ganzfeld studies, this effect size ([pi] = .63) falls within the upper range (.53 to .64) of Bem and Honorton's (1994) estimated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the participants included in the primary analysis of the PRL data. The scoring rate (36%) falls within the 95% CI (25.5% to 49.5%) for novices and within the 95% CI (29% to 50%) for experienced participants in the PRL series (Honorton et al., 1990).

Laterality Results

As can be seen in Table 1, participants exhibiting right cerebral hemisphere dominance, as measured by the CLB, scored fewer direct hits in the autoganzfeld than those exhibiting left cerebral hemisphere dominance. The difference between the two scoring rates is not significant (Fisher's exact p = .56, two-tailed).

MBTI Results

Participants who scored direct hits in the autoganzfeld did not have an MBTI Intuitive-Feeling (NF) classification significantly more often than those who did not score direct hits. Participants classified as NF on the MBTI (n = 30) produced 10 hits for a scoring rate of 33%. Participants who were not classified as NF (n = 20) produced 8 hits for a scoring rate of 40%. The difference is not significant (Fisher's exact p = .77, two-tailed). In addition, of the 30 NF participants, 16 (53%) were classified as right cerebral hemisphere dominant, as measured by the CLB. The 20 non-NF participants were evenly divided for hemisphere dominance, with 10 classified as left dominant and 10 classified as right dominant. Although more NF participants were classified as right-hemisphere dominant than left-hemisphere dominant, the difference between the two groups is not statistically significant (Fisher's exact p = 1.0, two-tailed).

Physical Variables

In the 2-hr window surrounding 13.5-hr LST, (2) there were only 5 sessions with 2 hits (40%), whereas outside of that period there were 45 sessions with 16 hits (35.6%). The difference is not significant (Fisher's exact p = 1.0, two-tailed). Figure 1 illustrates scoring in the autoganzfeld versus LST. The mean z scores for data points within a 4-hr-wide window, moving in 0.25-hr steps, for all 50 autoganzfeld trials are plotted.

An expected, weak negative correlation between ESP-ganzfeld scores and geomagnetic activity was not found. The results of a Spearman correlation between the ESP scores and geomagnetic activity (ap index) indicate a nonsignificant positive correlation ([rho] = .02). Following the indications of a stronger negative correlation within the 13.5-hr LST window (Spottiswoode, 1997b), a secondary analysis was performed on the trials falling within that window. For this subset of the data (n = 5), the correlation between ESP scores and apwas p = -.40 (df = 4).

Other Results

Other variables from the PIF and from the autoganzfeld session that were identified beforehand as being of interest were analyzed. Table 2 presents the direct hit results by sender-receiver relationship. As can be seen from the table, the clairvoyant (no-sender) condition produced the largest effect size ([pi] = .72), with a scoring rate of 46.2%. As expected, emotionally close pairs (parent-child and sibling sender-receiver pairs) produced exceptionally high hit rates, 4-4.4% and 100%, respectively (note that the 100% scoring rate represents the results of only one trial). By contrast, the friend category produced an unusually low hit rate of 16.7%.

The data were examined for several other simple effects that have been reported in prior research. Table 3 presents the direct hit results for breakdowns by type of target (static or dynamic), sex of receiver, mental discipline practice by receiver, and handedness of receiver. The dynamic targets produced only a slightly better hit rate than the static targets, 36.4% compared with 35.7%, respectively. Also, conforming to prior research (Honorton & Schechter, 1987), receivers who practiced mental disciplines (yoga, transcendental meditation, etc.) produced a better hit rate than those who did not. However, the difference in the hit rates is not significant. Interestingly, receivers who currently practiced mental disciplines scored slightly better than those who had practiced a mental discipline in the past, 42.9% compared with 37.2%, respectively. Contrary to the findings by Broughton and Alexander (1987), right-handed receivers yielded a better hit rate than either left-handed or ambidextrous receivers, but the difference is not significant.

DISCUSSION

In this study, the relationship between right cerebral hemisphere dominance and ESP performance was examined. Selected participants were used to increase the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant ESP scores. The fact that a good effect size was achieved, even though the results fell just short of statistical significance, suggests that the criterion measures used to select participants were appropriate. Other researchers are encouraged to use selected participants in the ganzfeld if they are interested in increasing the likelihood of seeing an effect.

The results of this study indicate that selected participants who were classified as right-hemisphere dominant, as measured by the CLB, scored fewer hits than those who were left-hemisphere dominant. The difference between the two groups is not significant. This suggests that hemisphere dominance is not an important factor associated with psi hitting by selected participants in the autoganzfeld.

The idea that an MBTI Intuition--Feeling (NF) preference score may be associated with hitting was examined. The results were not in the predicted direction, as NF participants produced a slightly lower scoring rate for direct hits than non-NF participants. Also examined was Davis's (1991) idea that those people who are classified as NF, according to the MBTI, are right-hemisphere dominant. Results were in the predicted direction, as more NF participants were classified as right-hemisphere dominant than left-hemisphere dominant. However, the difference between the two groups is not significant, so replication with a larger sample size would be needed to confirm Davis's idea.

The results of the LST analysis were in accord with Spottiswoode's (1997a) findings, but only weakly so. The weak positive correlation with geomagnetic activity does not correspond with the weak negative correlation observed by Spottiswoode (1997b) in his large database of free-response trials. However, the strong negative correlation found in the data of the 5 participants whose trials fell within the 13.5-hr LST window corroborates Spottiswoode's similar observation.

A further indication that laterality in and of itself may not be an important variable for indicating success in ESP tests such as the ganzfeld is that right-handed participants scored better than left-handed or ambidextrous participants. These results are in contrast to our earlier finding (Alexander & Broughton, 1997) that left-handed participants scored higher in the autoganzfeld.

An interesting finding was the replication of the results from the different sender--receiver pairs. The CL1-Ganzfeld study results correspond closely with the direct hit results by sender--receiver relationship reported by Broughton and Alexander (1997) in the Autoganzfeld II series. Table 4 presents the results from both studies for comparison.

The similar high scoring rates produced by lab-assigned senders and the low scoring rates produced by friends who were senders were not anticipated. However, the high scoring rates produced by parent--child and sibling pairs were anticipated, as well as the chance scoring by spouses, since previous research has shown that biologically related pairs produce unusually high scoring in ganzfeld experiments (Broughton & Alexander, 1995, 1997; Dalton, 1997). Future ganzfeld studies should focus on replicating this important finding and trying to determine if the high scoring rates between biologically related pairs are due to psychological factors (such as emotional closeness) or genetic factors. One way to test this would be to compare the scoring rates of emotionally close biological pairs (parent-child and sibling pairs) with those of emotionally close nonbiologically related pairs (adopted children, stepsisters, and stepbrothers).

CONCLUSION

The right-cerebral hemisphere has been popularly thought to be associated with psi phenomena, yet studies have not provided unequivocal evidence of right-hemisphere superiority. The results of this study do not provide evidence for a link between individuals classified as right cerebral hemisphere dominant and ESP (as measured by direct hits in the autoganzfeld). This does not imply that the right hemisphere is not involved in the production or processing of psi phenomena, as an area of this lobe may be found to play an important role in either or both of these functions. Further research with sophisticated neurophysiological equipment, such as the electroencephalograph or single photon emission computerized tomography, will be needed to localize areas of the brain associated with psi phenomena. However, the results of this study suggest that the notion that people who are right-brained (those who are efficient at using the skills associated with this hemisphere) are psychic is a simplistic view of a much mor e complex matter. Additionally, this simplistic view may not be accurate.

This research was conducted at the Institute for Parapsycology. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 42nd Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association (Alexander's & Broughton, 1999), and parts of this research are included in Cheryl H. Alexander's doctoral dissertation (1999). This study was supported in part by grants from the Institut fur Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygeine and the Parapsychology Foundation. Cheryl Alexander would also like to gratefully acknowledge Alixe Steinmetz for assisting with this research.

(1.) Because various reports of ganzfeld research have used for effect size either Cohen's h or Rosenthal's [pi] (proportional index), both are reported for ease of comparison.

(2.) Standard astronomical formulae were used for calculating LST, and the program used for this study was cross-checked for accuracy.

REFERENCES

ADAMS, M. H. (1986). Persistent temporal relationship of ganzfeld results to geomagnetic activity, appropriateness of using standard geomagnetic indices. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 29th Annual Convention, 471-485.

ALEXANDER, C. H. (1999). The relationship between brain hemisphere functioning and ESP performance in the ganzfeld: A further look at right cerebral hemisphere dominance and psi abilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Union Institute.

ALEXANDER, C. H., & BROUGHTON, R. S. (1999). CL1-Ganzfeld study: A look at brain hemisphere differences and scoring in the autoganfeld. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 42nd Annual Convention, 3-18.

BEM, D.J., & HONORTON, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18.

BROUGHTON, R. S. (1976). Possible brain laterality effects on ESP performance. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 48, 384-399.

BROUGHTON, R. S. (1977a). Brain hemisphere differences in psi-influenced reaction time [Abstract]. InJ. D. Monis, W G. Roll, & R. L. Morris (Eds.), Research in parapsychology 1976 (pp. 86-88). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

BROUGHTON, R. S. (1977b). Brain hemisphere specialization and ESP: What have we learned? Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 26th Annual Convention, 373-384.

BROUGHTON, R. S., & ALEXANDER, C. H. (1995). Autoganzfeld II: The first 100 sessions. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 38th Annual Convention, 53-61.

BROUGHTON, R. S., & ALEXANDER, C. H. (1997). Autoganzfeld II: An attempted replication of the PRL ganzfeld research. Journal of Parapsychology, 61, 209-226.

DALTON, K. (1997). Exploring the links: Creativity and psi in the ganzfeld. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 40th Annual Convention, 119-131.

DALTON, K., & STEVENS, P. (1995). The Edinburgh autoganzfeld and geomagnetism. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 38th Annual Convention, 88-98.

DAVIS, S. (1991). Why the MBTI is a brain dominance instrument. Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial International Conference of the Association for Psychological Type, 35C-41C.

GORDON, H. W. (1986). The Cognitive Laterality Battery: Tests of specialized cognitive function. International Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 223-244.

HONORTON, C. (1997). The ganzfeld novice: Four predictors of initial ESP performance. Journal of Parapsychology, 61, 143-158.

HONORTON, C., BARKER, P., VARVOGLIS, M. P., BERGER, R. E., & SCHECHTER, E. I. (1985). "First-timers": An exploration of factors affecting initial psi ganzfeld performance. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 28th Annual Convention, 37-58.

HONORTON, C., BERGER, R. E., VARVOGLIS, M. P., QUANT, M., DERR, P., SCHECTER, E. I., & FERRARI, D. C. (1990). Psi communication in the ganzfeld: Experiments with an automated testing system and a comparison with a meta-analysis of earlier studies. Journal of Parapsychology, 54, 99-139.

HONORTON, C., & SCHECHTER, E. (1987). Ganzfeld target retrieval with an automated testing system: A model for initial ganzfeld success (Abstract]. In D. H. Weiner & R. D. Nelson (Eds.), Research in parapsychology 1986 (pp. 36-39). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

KANTHAMANI, H., & BROUGHTON, R. S. (1994). Institute for Parapsychology ESP-ganzfeld experiments: The manual series. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 37th Annual Convention, 182-189.

KOLB, B., & WHISHAW, I. Q. (1996). Fundamentals of human neuropsychologv (4th ed.). New York: Freeman.

MAHER, M., PERATSAKIS, D., & SGHMEIDLER, G. R. (1979). Cerebral lateralization effects in ESP processing: An attempted replication. Journal of the American Society far Psychical Research, 73, 167-177.

MAHER, M., & SCHMEIDLER, G. R. (1977). Cerebral lateralization effects in ESP processing. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 71, 261-271.

MCDONOUGH, B. E., DON, N. S., & WARREN, C. A. (1994). EEG in a ganzfeld psi task. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 37th Annual Convention, 273-283.

MYERS, I. B., & McCAULLEY, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers--Briggs Type inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

PALMER, J. (1997). Correlates of ESP magnitude and direction in the PRL and RRC autoganzfeld databases. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 40th Annual Convention, 283-298.

PALMER, J. (1998). Correlates of ESP magnitude and direction in the FRNM manual ganzfeld database. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 41st Annual Convention, 108-123.

PERSINGER, M. A., & KRIPPNER, S. (1989). Dream ESP experiments and geomagnetic activity. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 83, 101-116.

SCHLITZ, M. J., & HONORTON, C. (1992). Ganzfeld psi performance within an artistically gifted population. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 86, 93-98.

SPOTTISWOODE, S. J. P. (1990). Geomagnetic activity and anomalous cognition: A preliminary report of new evidence. Subtle Energies, 1, 91-102.

SPOTTISWOODE, S. J. P. (1997a). Association between effect size in free response anomalous cognition experiments and local sidereal time. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11, 109-122.

SPOTTISWOODE, S. J. P. (1997b). Geomagnetic fluctuations and free-response anomalous cognition: A new understanding. Journal of Parapsychology, 61, 3-12.

TART, C. T. (1988). Geomagnetic effects on GESP: Two studies. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 82, 193-216.

[Figure 1 omitted]

TABLE 1

DIRECT HIT RESULTS BY CEREBRAL HEMISPHERE DOMINANCE

Hemisphere       N        N trials  N hits  % hits  ES[pi]  ES h   z
            participants

Right            26          26       8      30.8     .57   .13   0.48
Left             24          24       10     41.7     .68   .36   1.60
Total            50          50       18     36.0     .63   .24   1.60
TABLE 2

DIRECT HIT RESULTS BY SENDER-RECEIVER RELATIONSHIP

Variable      N trials  N hits  % hits  ES[pi]  Es h    z

Friend           12       2       16.7     .38  -.21  -1.00
Spouse            4       1       25.0     .50   .00  -0.48
Parent-child      9       4       44.4     .71   .41   0.97
Siblings          1       1      100.0
No sender        13       6       46.2     .72   .45   1.40
Lab assigned     11       4       36.4     .63   .25   0.56
TABLE 3

DIRECT HIT RESULTS FOR OTHER BREAKDOWNS

Variable                 N trials  N hits  % hits  ES[pi]  ES h      z

Target type
  Static                       28      10    35.7     .63   .23   1.09
  Dynamic                      22       8    36.4     .63   .25   0.99
Sex of receiver
  Male                         13       4    30.8     .57   .13   0.21
  Female                       37      14    37.8     .65   .28   1.57
Past mental disciplines
  Yes                          43      16    37.2     .64   .26   1.63
  No                            7       2    28.6     .55   .08  -0.14
Current mental
 disciplines
  Yes                          28      12    42.9     .69   .38   1.89
  No                           22       6    27.3     .53   .05   0.04
Handedness
  Right                        41      15    36.6     .63   .25   1.50
  Left                          3       1    33.3     .60   .18  -0.20
  Ambidextrous                  6       2    33.3     .60   .18   0.09
TABLE 4

DIRECT HIT RESULTS BY SENDER--RECEIVER RELATIONSHIP, GL1-GANZFELD STUDY
(1999) AND AUTOGANZFELD II SERIES (1997)


                           N trials  N hits  % hits  ES h    z

GL1-Ganzfeld study (1999)

Lab assigned                  11        4     36.4    .25   0.56
Friend                        12        2     16.7   -.21  -1.00
Spouse                         4        1     25.0    .00  -0.48
Parent/child                   9        4     44.4    .41   0.97
Siblings                       1        1    100.0

Autoganzfeld II (1997)

Lab assigned                  36       11     30.6    .12   0.60
Friend                        64       10     15.6   -.23  -1.96
Spouse                        21        4     19.0   -.14  -0.87
Parent/child                  23       10     43.5    .39   1.72
Siblings                       7        5     71.4    .97   2.23

COPYRIGHT 2001 Parapsychology Press
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group