Carlos S. Alvarado, PhD, Research Fellow, Parapsychology Foundation

Here is a metanalysis of dream ESP experiments: On the correspondence between dream content and target material under laboratory conditions: A meta-analysis of dream-ESP studies, 1966-2016, by Lance Storm, Simon J. Sherwood, Chris A. Roe, Patrizio E. Tressoldi, Adam J. Rock, and Lorenzo Di Risio (International Journal of Dream Research, 2017, 10, 120-140; for reprints write to the first author: lance.storm@adelaide.edu.au).

Lance Storm 2

Lance Storm

Simon Sherwood

Simon Sherwood

Chris Roe 2

Chris Roe

Patrizio Tressoldi 5

Patrizio Tressoldi

Adam Rock

Adam Rock

Lorenzo Di Risio

Lorenzo Di Risio

 

Here is the abstract:

In order to further our understanding about the limits of human consciousness and the dream state, we report meta-analytic results on experimental dream-ESP studies for the period 1966 to 2016. Dream-ESP can be defined as a form of extra-sensory perception (ESP) in which a dreaming perceiver ostensibly gains information about a randomly selected target without using the normal sensory modalities or logical inference. Studies fell into two categories: the Maimonides Dream Lab (MDL) studies (n = 14), and independent (non-MDL) studies (n = 36). The MDL dataset yielded mean ES = .33 (SD = 0.37); the non-MDL studies yielded mean ES = .14 (SD = 0.27). The difference between the two mean values was not significant. A homogeneous dataset (N = 50) yielded a mean z of 0.75 (ES = .20, SD = 0.31), with corresponding significant Stouffer Z = 5.32, p = 5.19 × 10-8, suggesting that dream content can be used to identify target materials correctly and more often than would be expected by chance. No significant differences were found between: (a) three modes of ESP (telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition), (b) senders, (c) perceivers, or (d) REM/non-REM monitoring. The ES difference between dynamic targets (e.g., movie-film) and static (e.g., photographs) targets was not significant. We also found that significant improvements in the quality of the studies was not related to ES, but ES did decline over the 51-year period. Bayesian analysis of the same homogeneous dataset yielded results supporting the ‘frequentist’ find­ing that the null hypothesis should be rejected. We conclude that the dream-ESP paradigm in parapsychology is worthy of continued investigation, but we recommend design improvements.”

It is concluded:

“Our review has shown that dream ESP remains a promis­ing, if somewhat neglected, area for parapsychological research. Combined effect sizes for both Maimonides and post-Maimonides studies suggest that judges may be able to use dream mentations to identify target materials cor­rectly more often than would be expected by chance.”

“Sherwood and Roe (2013) concluded that the Maimonides studies were more successful than the post-Maimonides studies, and attributed that difference to “procedural differ­ences rather than improvements in security” (p. 72). This may not be entirely true. Our results do not support claims of MDL success over non-MDL studies, though we do con­cede that other test findings suggest the MDL series may have been superior.”

“Our meta-analysis has identified key issues and key con­cerns to do mainly with methodological quality and process-oriented factors that covary with study outcomes. However, the database may prove to be too heterogeneous, some­times with too few studies in subsets, for such analyses to provide reliable insights.”

Finally, in the author’s view “dream ESP is (i) a demonstrable effect; (ii) not governed by experimenter, or laboratory, or historical context; (iii) inde­pendent of (a) psi modality; (b) REM monitoring; (c) target type; and (d) agent and perceiver arrangements; and (iv) perhaps independent of the number of choices in a target set. Some of these findings conflict with what we find to be evident of the free-response paradigm (including Ganzfeld) and the forced-choice paradigm, and it remains to be seen if our conclusions are premature, or dream ESP is, in a num­ber of ways, an ESP sub-type different in degree or kind.”

Advertisements