塞尔菲尔德:优化预知研究

Q2 Psychology
M. Varvoglis, P. Bancel, Jean-Paul Bailly, Jocelyn Boban, Djohar si Ahmed
{"title":"塞尔菲尔德:优化预知研究","authors":"M. Varvoglis, P. Bancel, Jean-Paul Bailly, Jocelyn Boban, Djohar si Ahmed","doi":"10.30891/JOPAR.2019.01.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This precognition study builds on previous research suggesting that free-response protocols with subject-optimization procedures produce higher psi-scores than protocols with no such procedures. Our study aimed to assess the value of optimisation procedures when coupled with a forced-choice protocol, involving multiple trials per session. A second objective was to assess whether trial-by-trial feedback improves scoring over no-feedback conditions. A pre-set total of 3000 binary choice trials were collected over a 7-week period, from 82 participants, including 26 experienced meditation practitioners. Each participant contributed 20 or 40 trials, based on pre-set scoring criteria. The task was set in an immersive environment coupled with a display of spheres emerging out of an animated starfield. For each trial, subjects had to guess which spheres contained an image; the program would then randomly determine whether or not it indeed contained the image, and whether or not feedback would be shown. For hits, a face would emerge and grow, staring directly at the participant, while for misses it withdrew into the starfield; for no-feedback trials it faded out with no hit/miss information. Overall results were nonsignificant. Secondary analyses revealed some encouraging trends. 1. When examined across all 150 20-trial series, results show a significant within-series incline in scoring (p=.04, two-tailed), suggesting participants may have progressively found strategies to improve scoring. 2. While not attaining significance (p=0.1 two-tailed), scoring in feedback trials was superior to no-feedback trials; this may suggest that feedback can be useful for learning 3. The 26 meditators' scores were suggestively high (p=.09, one-tailed), while the 14 most experienced meditators showed a significant effect (p=.012, one-tailed). While overall results were not significant, the finding of a within session incline effect suggests that multiple-trial immersive protocols may help improve psi scoring over time. At the same time, results also suggest that future optimization research should focus on promising subpopulations, like meditators, rather than unselected volunteers.","PeriodicalId":39641,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Parapsychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Selfield: Optimizing Precognition Research\",\"authors\":\"M. Varvoglis, P. Bancel, Jean-Paul Bailly, Jocelyn Boban, Djohar si Ahmed\",\"doi\":\"10.30891/JOPAR.2019.01.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This precognition study builds on previous research suggesting that free-response protocols with subject-optimization procedures produce higher psi-scores than protocols with no such procedures. Our study aimed to assess the value of optimisation procedures when coupled with a forced-choice protocol, involving multiple trials per session. A second objective was to assess whether trial-by-trial feedback improves scoring over no-feedback conditions. A pre-set total of 3000 binary choice trials were collected over a 7-week period, from 82 participants, including 26 experienced meditation practitioners. Each participant contributed 20 or 40 trials, based on pre-set scoring criteria. The task was set in an immersive environment coupled with a display of spheres emerging out of an animated starfield. For each trial, subjects had to guess which spheres contained an image; the program would then randomly determine whether or not it indeed contained the image, and whether or not feedback would be shown. For hits, a face would emerge and grow, staring directly at the participant, while for misses it withdrew into the starfield; for no-feedback trials it faded out with no hit/miss information. Overall results were nonsignificant. Secondary analyses revealed some encouraging trends. 1. When examined across all 150 20-trial series, results show a significant within-series incline in scoring (p=.04, two-tailed), suggesting participants may have progressively found strategies to improve scoring. 2. While not attaining significance (p=0.1 two-tailed), scoring in feedback trials was superior to no-feedback trials; this may suggest that feedback can be useful for learning 3. The 26 meditators' scores were suggestively high (p=.09, one-tailed), while the 14 most experienced meditators showed a significant effect (p=.012, one-tailed). While overall results were not significant, the finding of a within session incline effect suggests that multiple-trial immersive protocols may help improve psi scoring over time. At the same time, results also suggest that future optimization research should focus on promising subpopulations, like meditators, rather than unselected volunteers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39641,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Parapsychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Parapsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30891/JOPAR.2019.01.02\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Parapsychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30891/JOPAR.2019.01.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项预知研究建立在先前的研究基础上,表明带有主体优化程序的自由反应协议比没有此类程序的协议产生更高的psi分数。我们的研究旨在评估优化程序在与强制选择协议相结合时的价值,该协议涉及每个会话的多个试验。第二个目标是评估每次试验反馈是否比没有反馈的情况下提高得分。在7周的时间里,从82名参与者中收集了预先设定的3000个二元选择试验,其中包括26名经验丰富的冥想练习者。根据预先设定的评分标准,每个参与者贡献了20或40次试验。这个任务设置在一个沉浸式的环境中,伴随着从动画星空中出现的球体的显示。在每次试验中,受试者必须猜测哪些球体包含图像;然后,程序将随机确定它是否确实包含图像,以及是否会显示反馈。如果击中,一张脸会出现并成长,直接盯着参与者,而如果没有击中,它会退缩到星空中;对于没有反馈的试验,它会逐渐消失,没有命中/未命中信息。总体结果无统计学意义。二次分析揭示了一些令人鼓舞的趋势。1. 当对所有150个20个试验系列进行检查时,结果显示评分在系列内显著倾斜(p=。04,双尾),表明参与者可能逐渐找到了提高得分的策略。2. 虽然没有达到显著性(p=0.1双尾),但反馈试验的评分优于无反馈试验;这可能表明反馈对学习是有用的。这26名冥想者的得分非常高(p=。而14名最有经验的冥想者显示出显著的效果(p=。012年,单侧)。虽然总体结果并不显著,但会话内倾向效应的发现表明,多次试验沉浸式方案可能有助于随着时间的推移提高psi评分。同时,研究结果还表明,未来的优化研究应该把重点放在有希望的亚群体上,比如冥想者,而不是未被选中的志愿者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Selfield: Optimizing Precognition Research
This precognition study builds on previous research suggesting that free-response protocols with subject-optimization procedures produce higher psi-scores than protocols with no such procedures. Our study aimed to assess the value of optimisation procedures when coupled with a forced-choice protocol, involving multiple trials per session. A second objective was to assess whether trial-by-trial feedback improves scoring over no-feedback conditions. A pre-set total of 3000 binary choice trials were collected over a 7-week period, from 82 participants, including 26 experienced meditation practitioners. Each participant contributed 20 or 40 trials, based on pre-set scoring criteria. The task was set in an immersive environment coupled with a display of spheres emerging out of an animated starfield. For each trial, subjects had to guess which spheres contained an image; the program would then randomly determine whether or not it indeed contained the image, and whether or not feedback would be shown. For hits, a face would emerge and grow, staring directly at the participant, while for misses it withdrew into the starfield; for no-feedback trials it faded out with no hit/miss information. Overall results were nonsignificant. Secondary analyses revealed some encouraging trends. 1. When examined across all 150 20-trial series, results show a significant within-series incline in scoring (p=.04, two-tailed), suggesting participants may have progressively found strategies to improve scoring. 2. While not attaining significance (p=0.1 two-tailed), scoring in feedback trials was superior to no-feedback trials; this may suggest that feedback can be useful for learning 3. The 26 meditators' scores were suggestively high (p=.09, one-tailed), while the 14 most experienced meditators showed a significant effect (p=.012, one-tailed). While overall results were not significant, the finding of a within session incline effect suggests that multiple-trial immersive protocols may help improve psi scoring over time. At the same time, results also suggest that future optimization research should focus on promising subpopulations, like meditators, rather than unselected volunteers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Parapsychology
Journal of Parapsychology Psychology-Psychology (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: The Journal of Parapsychology is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December by the Parapsychology Press, a subsidiary of the Foundation for Research on the Nature of Man. The Journal is devoted mainly to original reports of experimental research in parapsychology. It also publishes research reviews, theoretical and methodological articles that are closely linked to the empirical findings in the field, book reviews, news, comments, letters and abstracts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信