Evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially/sensory isolated humans

**DeathCell** · 06-11-2009 02:25 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

Bastyr University/University of Washington Consciousness Science Laboratory, Bastyr University, Kenmore, WA 98028, USA. [email protected]

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether correlated event-related potentials (ERPs) can be detected between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects. DESIGN AND SETTING: Simultaneous digitized electroencephalograms (EEGs) were recorded from the occipital area in pairs of human subjects placed in sound attenuated rooms separated by 10 meters. One person relaxed in one of the rooms while the other received visual stimulation while in the other room. Prior to each experiment, members of the pair were randomly designated as sender and receiver. Sessions were subsequently repeated with subjects reversing their roles. Previous to each session, the sender was instructed "to attempt sending an image/thought." The receiver was instructed "to remain open to receive any image/thought from his/her partner." Alternating stimulus-on/stimulus-off conditions were presented throughout the session to the sender, while a stimulus-off condition was presented to the receiver. SUBJECTS: Thirty-seven (37) female, and 23 male subjects (n = 60; 30 pairs) participated in the study. Subjects knew each other well and claimed to have previous experience of being emotionally/psychologically connected to one another. OUTCOME MEASURES: A Runs test was applied to compare EEG "hits" in the receiver's EEG during the sender' stimulus-on condition versus sender's stimulus-off conditions. Test results at p < 0.01 were considered evidence of correlated brain signals. Pairs in whom at least one member had significant results were invited back for replication. RESULTS: Of the 60 subjects tested, 5 (4 women/1 man) showed significantly higher brain activation (p < 0.01) during their sending partner's stimulus-on condition as compared to stimulus-off condition. Using the Stouffer z meta-analytic method all receiver EEG results across all 60 subjects were combined by transforming the individual session p values into z scores. Data analyses showed overall significant results for EEG data recorded during the flickering condition (z =-3.28, p = 0.0005) as well as nonsignificant results for data recorded during the static condition (z = 0.35, p = 0.64). Four pairs participated in a replication experiment during which one pair replicated the effect. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that in some pairs of human subjects a signal may be detected in the brain of a distant member of the pair when the brain of the other member is visually stimulated. These data support the findings of similar studies performed in seven laboratories reported in the peer-reviewed literature since 1963. Research in this area should now proceed with investigation of its physical and biologic mechanism, its generalizability to varying populations and relationships, and its clinical application.

Further reading

http://www.start.gr/user/symposia/zylber4.htm

**Posquant** · 06-12-2009 01:00 AM

Yeah. Surprise surprise.

www.dhushara.com/pdf/hard.pdf

**Thief** · 06-12-2009 03:05 AM

I call BS on this, pychically imposible IMHO

**ExoByte** · 06-12-2009 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by Thief

I call BS on this, pychically imposible IMHO

Physically impossible in your opinion? Physical laws are not a matter of opinion.

Now, they did a test and got positive results. They don't know why yet, but they plan on looking into the why and how and if it is physically possible, which is stated right at the end of the quote.

It's still under research, and nothing has been proven or claimed to be proven yet.

**Thief** · 06-12-2009 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by ExoByte

Physically impossible in your opinion? Physical laws are not a matter of opinion.

Now, they did a test and got positive results. They don't know why yet, but they plan on looking into the why and how and if it is physically possible, which is stated right at the end of the quote.

It's still under research, and nothing has been proven or claimed to be proven yet.

See? Still under research. I'm sure it's just a fluke.

**Posquant** · 06-12-2009 03:55 AM

Wow. Impossible? You know what's NOT possible, in terms of information, brains, physics? Very impressive. And I bet you did it without even cracking a book.

But I like your confidence.

Are you a flat-earther, also? That would be consistent. You can't see the earth as a big blue ball; you don't fall off, whizzing round the sun. It can't be round, moving.

Such peevish thinking. The world probably won't believe that you're real, either.

**Michael** · 06-12-2009 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by Posquant

Wow. Impossible? You know what's NOT possible, in terms of information, brains, physics? Very impressive. And I bet you did it without even cracking a book.

But I like your confidence.

Are you a flat-earther, also? That would be consistent. You can't see the earth as a big blue ball; you don't fall off, whizzing round the sun. It can't be round, moving.

Such peevish thinking. The world probably won't believe that you're real, either.

You won't be sayin that when you walk right off the edge and into hell.

**RedfishBluefish** · 06-14-2009 07:09 AM

Wall. Of. Text.

EDIT: now that I have formatted it on my computer to be readable, I really think they should have done a control test as well. That is, tell the "recievers" the experiment is starting, while they don't actually do anything at the other end. I can imagine easily that one of the "senders", when acting as a "reciever" would remember the routine and visualize what the other would be doing, causing a significant effect.

Originally Posted by Michael

You won't be sayin that when you walk right off the edge and into hell.

LOL, by the way.