Discovery Lab Answers

Debra Lynne Katz, PhD — Experiments and Data

Before reading the figures below, note that the ESP-Nexus library’s share of the published literature on Katz’s work has not been measured. What follows reflects the studies currently held in the library, not a settled account of her full research record. The two studies in the structured evidence table also report different, non-comparable metrics — one a p-value from an ANOVA, the other a raw hit-rate difference — so they cannot be pooled into a single overall effect size.

Experiments

Katz’s experimental work spans several lines of inquiry, with the two audited quantitative studies in the library focusing on remote viewing performance.

Katz et al. (2021) — background context in photographic targets. This study, published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, tested whether the background context of objects in photographic targets affects remote viewing performance. It was a triple-blind, exploratory design using 12 viewers across 360 trials. The study also appears on the ESP-Nexus study audit pages.

Project Firefly — Katz, Fendley, and Grgic (2018). This was an ethnographically framed associative remote viewing (ARV) project designed to examine daily aggregate predictions over a roughly 14-month period (October 20, 2014 – December 18, 2015), producing 177 trials across 62 participants. The project was described as an assessment of an ARV protocol designed for applied forecasting.

Beyond these two quantitative studies, Katz co-authored a systematic review and meta-analysis of remote viewing research spanning 1974–2022 with Patrizio Tressoldi, and contributed to a 2026 survey study examining experienced remote viewers’ awareness of their own accuracy, co-authored with Jimmy Akin and Jenifer Prather. She also co-authored a 2026 expert guidelines paper on remote viewing methodology with Akin and Tressoldi, and a 2025 paper on teaching critical thinking about replication with Jeffrey S. Reber, Jacob H. Tengelsen, and Peder Schillemat.

Methodology

Katz et al. (2021) used a triple-blind protocol with 12 viewers and 360 trials. The primary analysis was a repeated-measures ANOVA (RM-ANOVA) examining a background-condition main effect on sum-of-ranks scores. The study-audit page on ESP-Nexus classifies this as a mixed exploratory/confirmatory design; the structured evidence identifies the H1 Phase II sum-of-ranks test as the confirmatory element.

Project Firefly (2018) used an ARV protocol in which viewers made daily aggregate predictions linked to feedback images, with judging conducted independently of outcome knowledge. The design required double-blind conditions: viewers did not know what event was targeted, and judges did not know which images corresponded to which outcomes until after judging. The 177-trial dataset was drawn from daily sessions over approximately 14 months.

The 2023 meta-analysis applied Bayesian and frequentist methods to studies from 1974–2022, using z-scores derived from the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, and examined moderators including participant type, task type, publication type, and the presence of an interviewer or outbound agent.

The 2026 sensing-accuracy survey used a structured questionnaire administered to experienced remote viewers, gathering self-report data on perceived correctness during sessions — a phenomenological approach rather than a controlled trial.

The 2026 expert guidelines paper used thematic analysis of input from experienced practitioners, including Katz herself, to synthesize methodological recommendations for future remote viewing research.

Data

The two audited quantitative studies in the library report different metrics and their results point in different directions — this is an unsettled signal that should be read straightforwardly.

Katz et al. (2021) found a statistically significant background-condition main effect on remote viewing performance. Project Firefly returned a null result: the overall hit rate across 177 daily aggregate predictions was 0.48, with a raw hit-rate difference of −0.02 — essentially at chance.

Because the two studies use different metrics (a p-value from an ANOVA vs. a raw hit-rate difference), and because the library’s coverage of Katz’s quantitative output has not been measured, no pooled or overall effect size can be derived from these rows alone.

The 2023 meta-analysis is a broader synthesis rather than a single primary experiment, and its specific aggregate statistics are not carried in the structured evidence rows; the retrieved excerpts describe its methods and moderator structure but the headline figures are not reproduced here — readers should consult the paper directly at https://doi.org/10.31275/20232931.

Skeptical critiques

The sources retrieved for this question do not include published criticism specifically directed at Katz’s experimental work. The study-audit page for Katz et al. (2021) notes the mixed exploratory/confirmatory character of the design, which the ESP-Nexus page flags as a limitation in interpreting the Phase II result — but this is a design caveat the authors themselves register rather than an external critique attributed to a named critic.

For the broader context of skeptical engagement with remote viewing research as a field — including methodological objections to judging procedures, target independence, and file-drawer concerns — the Associative Remote Viewing for Applied Forecasting spoke page and the Debra Lynne Katz hub carry fuller discussion of critiques and responses as they apply to her work specifically.