Precognition
Edwin May, Tamás Paulinyi & Zoltán Vassy
In 2005, Edwin May, Tamás Paulinyi, and Zoltán Vassy published an article titled “Anomalous Anticipatory Skin Conductance Response to Acoustic Stimuli: Experimental Results and Speculation About a Mechanism” in the Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine.
In these experiments, fifty subjects randomly recruited from a Hungarian University sat in an acoustically isolated lab while sporting noise-cancelling headphones. Each subject was connected to a skin-conductance monitor meant to measure non-specific skin conductance response (ns-SCR).
Let’s briefly unpack these terms: Skin conductance is a measure of how well skin can conduct electricity; as sweat production increases, so does
the value of skin conductance. A skin conductance monitor is a relatively small tool that interacts with the skin (typically on the hands) in order to measure skin conductance. Non-specific skin conductance responses occur when skin conductance increases for no apparent reason (i.e., there was no stimulus for sweat production).
During each experimental trial, the subject received various acoustic stimuli including but not limited to an air raid signal, an ambulance siren, and a machine gun–essentially, the subject was exposed to a variety of potentially stress-inducing sounds. Interspersed with these sounds was a control stimulus: silence. Each subject was exposed to a randomly-generated permutation of thirty total stimuli (including both startle and control stimuli) with anywhere from thirty to fifty seconds between stimuli. May, Paulinyi, and Vassy hoped to elucidate when skin conductance occurred in response to these stimuli.
*This diagram is representative of a single experimental trial
**The random number generator was used to determine the permutation of stimuli for each experimental trial
They noticed a curious correlation in the experimental data: subjects exhibited skin conductance responses prior to acoustic startle stimuli. An autonomic (or involuntary) nervous system response–which is typically caused by emotional arousal–can cause sweating, which in turn increases skin conductance. So, these subjects’ autonomic nervous systems and, thus, emotions, seemed to be activating in advance of the startle stimuli. In contrast, skin conductance responses were not measured prior to control stimuli (silence). Together, these data suggest that subjects seemed to be reacting precognitively to startling auditory cues.
Precognition is defined by the American Heritage dictionary as the knowledge of something in advance of its occurrence, especially by extrasensory perception. The Parapsychological Association defines precognition with a scientific flair: “A form of extrasensory perception in which the target is some future event that cannot be deduced from normally known data in the present.” Precognition is, essentially, knowledge of the future produced in the absence of deductive clues.
The point is, if there were no precognitive events occurring, then the proportion of skin conductance responses prior to acoustic startle stimuli should have been the same as the proportion of responses prior to control stimuli. This was not the case, with a p-value of 0.0018–this means that the results were statistically significant (or not due to chance).
Although the data most clearly points to a capacity to perceive stimuli in advance of their occurring, the authors highlight a secondary, more subtle hypothesis: “participants are a source of random non-specific skin conductance responses that are not due to any overt stimuli” and “the observed effects arise because of the experimenters’ psi.” This theory was termed “Decision Augmentation Theory” by May.
More succinctly, the theory posits that the experimenters used their own psi ability to bias decisions toward more favorable outcomes. In this experiment, the decision would be when to initiate an experimental run. So, this alternative hypothesis argues that the experimenters started each run according to a subconscious cue. This subconscious cue would have involved anomalously obtained knowledge of when to start the experimental trial so that significant data were produced by experimental subjects; the subjects were not experiencing precognition–the researchers were.
This study is more recent than Rhine's or Puthoff's and has (most likely) not gone through as many rounds of troubleshooting–there is certainly room for protocol improvement. For instance, May, Paulinyi, and Vassy might formulate an experimental setting that eliminates the potential for decision augmentation. This way, we can know that the data represent the existence or lack of precognition only on the part of the experimental subject.
Overall, although this research may not be unequivocal like Puthoff and Targ’s remote viewing work, the data should be seriously considered and the phenomena explored further. Why might skin conductance be increasing in advance of acoustic stimuli, but not in advance of control stimuli? Are there variables at play that have skewed the data? Is there an explanation beyond the precognitive-abilities of the subjects or the researchers? Must we consider the potential for a reality that is inclusive of this anomalous mental faculty?