Discovery Lab Answers

Christine A. Simmonds-Moore, PhD — Experiments and Data

Christine A. Simmonds-Moore, PhD is a psychologist and parapsychology researcher at the University of West Georgia whose empirical work spans ganzfeld ESP testing, latent inhibition as a psi-conducive mechanism, First Sight Theory, and the psychological correlates of anomalous experiences including psychometry. The sources retrieved for this question cover several distinct lines of research; each is treated in turn below.

Experiments

Ganzfeld and waking control (2007). Simmonds-Moore and Holt ran a study comparing psi performance in a ganzfeld condition against a methodologically matched waking ESP control condition. The experiment also explored whether schizotypy clusters predicted differential psi performance across the two conditions ^[6].

Latent inhibition and anomalous cognition (2020). Holt, Simmonds-Moore, and Stephen L. Moore conducted two experiments testing whether reduced latent inhibition (LI) — the brain’s tendency to suppress previously irrelevant stimuli — underlies both creativity and anomalous cognition. The study used a 2×2 design crossing pre-exposure (PE vs. no-PE) with a psi sending condition (psi-PE vs. no-psi-PE), and examined psychometric correlates including positive schizotypy and creativity measures ^[5].

First Sight Theory — preference formation (2021). Carpenter, Simmonds-Moore, Steve Moore, and Ferrell Carpenter ran two studies testing whether extrasensory pre-exposure to stimuli influences subsequent preference judgments, as predicted by First Sight Theory. Study One used subliminal and extrasensory priming with undergraduate participants; Study Two replicated the design with a new sample at Liverpool Hope University ^[4].

Psychometry correlates survey (2024). Simmonds-Moore conducted a mixed-methods survey examining the psychological, perceptual, and personality correlates of psychometry experiences — subjective anomalous interactions with objects. The study compared self-identified psychometry experiencers with non-experiencers on measures including synesthesia, ASMR responsiveness, anomalous experience proneness, and perspective-taking/empathy ^[1].

Postmortem survival commentary (2023). Simmonds-Moore contributed a commentary to a paper recomputing a Drake-style equation for postmortem survival of consciousness, engaging with how psi data from meta-analyses should be weighed in survival debates ^[3].

Book review — ghost and haunting research (2023). Simmonds-Moore reviewed a volume on paranormal encounters from the perspective of the Haunted People Syndrome model, engaging with adversarial and collaborative approaches to studying haunting experiences ^[2].

Methodology

Ganzfeld / waking control design ^[6]. The 2007 study used a free-response protocol with video clips as targets and three decoys, scored by sum of ranks — the standard forced-ranking measure in ganzfeld research. A key design feature was methodological matching between the ganzfeld condition and the waking control, allowing direct comparison of whether sensory attenuation itself drives any psi effect. Schizotypy was measured using the O-LIFE subscales; temporal lobe lability was assessed with the Persinger and Makarec scale. Hit rates were recorded for compatibility with meta-analyses alongside the primary sum-of-ranks analysis.

Latent inhibition protocol ^[5]. The LI experiments used a masking-task paradigm in which participants were pre-exposed (or not) to a triangle stimulus during a masking task; the dependent variable was learning speed on an association task involving that stimulus. Two task-load conditions (ordinary and complex masking) were crossed with the psi sending manipulation. Creativity and schizotypy were measured as individual-difference moderators. Experiment 2 was the more diagnostic: it produced a significant LI effect and a psi-LI-like effect, but only with the ordinary (not complex) masking task load.

First Sight preference paradigm ^[4]. Both studies used subliminal and extrasensory priming of pictures, with mood induction as a moderating variable. Mood was manipulated via implicit primes (positive vs. negative). Individual-difference predictors — including Need for Cognition, Tolerance for Merger, and others — were tested against preference scores. Stepwise multiple regression was used post hoc to address concerns about over-analysis with non-orthogonal variables.

Psychometry survey ^[1]. The 2024 study used a mixed-methods design: quantitative measures (t-tests, correlations) compared experiencer and non-experiencer groups on standardized scales, while qualitative analysis examined the phenomenological content of reported psychometry experiences. Synesthesia status was cross-tabulated with psychometry experience status.

Data

The retrieved sources do not include a single shared metric across all studies, so the results below are reported study by study. No pooled figure is reported here.

Ganzfeld / waking control ^[6]:

Neither condition reached significance on the primary sum-of-ranks analysis. The ganzfeld hit rate fell slightly below the mean chance expectation of 25%; the waking control hit rate fell slightly above it. The two conditions did not differ significantly from each other. No significant correlations between schizotypy or temporal lobe lability and psi performance were found.

Latent inhibition — Experiment 2 ^[5]:

The standard LI effect was significant; the psi-LI-like effect was not. Non-linear creative cognition moderated performance across sending conditions (z = −2.30, p = .02), meaning participants who used playful thinking and anomalous experience in their creative process showed a psi-LI-like pattern. Schizotypy and creativity did not moderate the magnitude of the psi-LI effect overall.

First Sight — Study One ^[4]: Neither subliminal nor extrasensory primes produced a statistically significant overall mere-exposure preference effect (both means near mean chance expectation). The study did report a “dynamic activation effect” in the extrasensory condition (t = 2.29, p = .012 one-tailed, Cohen’s d = .52), though this emerged from interactions with mood and individual-difference variables rather than as a main effect. Of nine variables predicted to correlate with response to extrasensory pre-exposure, seven were significant. The correlation between preference scores for extrasensory and subliminal pre-exposure was virtually nil (r = −.004), not supporting the hypothesis of a positive relationship.

Psychometry survey ^[1]:

Synesthetes were significantly over-represented among psychometry experiencers (cross-tabulation: 32 of 58 psychometry experiencers were synesthetes vs. 42 of 103 non-experiencers). The qualitative data described phenomenological features including emotional charge, perspective-taking, and situational context (e.g., place-based triggering).

Skeptical critiques

What critics argue. The retrieved sources do not include a named critic making a published objection specifically directed at Simmonds-Moore’s studies. However, Simmonds-Moore herself acknowledges in the First Sight paper ^[4] that concerns about over-analysis of non-orthogonal variables are legitimate, noting that a stepwise multiple regression was carried out post hoc precisely to address them. The ganzfeld/waking control paper ^[6] similarly records that the study’s primary analysis (sum of ranks) produced null results in both conditions, which is the most direct empirical challenge to the hypothesis that either the ganzfeld or schizotypy reliably elevates psi performance in this protocol.

What the experimental data show. The 2007 ganzfeld study found no significant psi effect in either condition and no significant relationship between schizotypy and psi performance ^[6]. The 2020 latent inhibition study found a significant LI effect but a non-significant psi-LI-like effect (d = .30, p = .18), with the schizotypy and creativity moderators not reaching significance for the psi outcome ^[5]. The First Sight studies produced a null overall preference effect while reporting significant individual-difference interactions ^[4].

Analysis. The pattern across these studies is one of null primary psi outcomes alongside significant secondary or correlational findings. The ganzfeld study’s null result on sum of ranks stands as its headline finding ^[6]; the LI study’s significant creativity-moderation result emerged alongside a non-significant psi-LI effect ^[5]; and the First Sight studies’ dynamic activation finding was conditional on mood and individual-difference interactions rather than appearing as a replicable main effect ^[4]. Independent replication of the psi-LI effect outside the Holt/Simmonds-Moore/Moore group has not been reported in the sources retrieved for this question.

For a fuller view of Simmonds-Moore’s research record, including her work on personality and anomalous experience, see her profile at Christine A. Simmonds-Moore, PhD.