Discovery Lab Answers

Thomas Rabeyron, PhD is a clinical psychologist and parapsychology researcher at the University of Lorraine (and previously Nantes) whose work spans three distinct domains: large-scale meta-analytic synthesis of precognition experiments, collaborative multi-lab replication studies, and clinical research on anomalous experiences and their psychological correlates. What follows covers his experimental record, methodology, data, and the critical responses his work has drawn.

Experiments

Meta-analysis of precognition experiments. Rabeyron is a co-author on Bem, Tressoldi, Rabeyron, and Duggan (2016), a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories across 14 countries testing anomalous anticipation of random future events ^[5]. This is the primary quantitative synthesis associated with his name in the sources retrieved for this question. The paper directly grew out of the replication controversy following Daryl J. Bem‘s 2011 “Feeling the Future” publication.

Multi-lab preregistered replication of retroactive avoidance. Rabeyron served as an investigator on Maier et al. (2020), a preregistered multi-laboratory replication study testing whether participants could retroactively avoid future presentations of negative images — a micro-psychokinesis (micro-PK) paradigm ^[3]. The original finding being replicated came from Maier et al. (2014). Collaborators included Markus A. Maier, Moritz C. Dechamps, Patrizio Tressoldi, Etzel Cardeña, David Marcusson-Clavertz, and others across multiple institutions.

Quantum measurement and micro-PK theory. Rabeyron co-authored Maier, Dechamps, and Rabeyron (2022), which conceptualized quantum measurement as pragmatic information transfer and explored observer-dependent effects in micro-PK experiments ^[1]. His institutional affiliation listed in that paper is the University of Lorraine.

Time-reversed priming replications. Rabeyron appears as a named investigator on Schlitz et al. (2021), a large collaborative study running two replication attempts of Bem’s time-reversed priming task, which tested whether reaction times to emotional images are influenced by a prime presented after the response ^[2]. The collaboration included Bem, Marilyn J. Schlitz, and more than a dozen other researchers from institutions across Europe and North America.

Retro-priming and test-retest design. The sources reference a 2014 study by Rabeyron alone — “Retro-priming, priming, and double testing: psi and replication in a test-retest design” — cited in the meta-analysis literature ^[5] and discussed in the critical commentary on the Bem et al. (2016) paper ^[5]. This study is noted as having produced a negative effect size.

Clinical and theoretical work. Rabeyron co-authored with Tianna Loose a 2015 paper in Frontiers in Psychology examining anomalous experiences through a psychoanalytic and cognitive neuroscience framework, using clinical case material to explore the relationship between trauma, symbolization, and anomalous experience ^[6]. A 2020 theoretical paper, “Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False,” published in Frontiers in Psychology, engages critically with the replicability crisis as it applies to psi research ^[4].

Methodology

Meta-analytic protocol (Bem et al., 2016). The 90-experiment meta-analysis ^[5] included only peer-reviewed experiments, applied pre-specified inclusion criteria — including that the experiment had been peer-reviewed — and categorized each study by replication type: exact replication of a Bem experiment (31 studies), modified replication (38 studies), or independently designed experiment (11 studies). The analysis used Hedges’ g as the primary effect size metric and incorporated both frequentist and Bayesian analyses. A p-curve analysis was also conducted to assess whether the distribution of significant results was consistent with a genuine underlying effect rather than selective reporting.

Preregistered multi-lab replication (Maier et al., 2020). The retroactive avoidance replication ^[3] was preregistered, specifying the stopping rule, the prior for Bayesian analysis, and the effect size expectation (d = 0.1, drawn from the original study) before data collection. Testing was distributed across multiple independent laboratories using different computers and screens. Recruitment was conducted through department announcement boards, online platforms, and in-class handouts, with participants uninformed of the specific study aims. The Bayesian stopping rule used a Cauchy prior centered on the original effect size.

Quantum measurement study (Maier et al., 2022). The micro-PK task ^[1] was run online via a dedicated web server using jsPsych. Participants performed judgments about positive and negative images. The design tested a theoretical prediction derived from pragmatic information theory: that a micro-PK effect should emerge specifically in conditions of intermediate confirmation (neither maximum nor minimum), not in a maximum-confirmation control condition. Bayesian analyses used a Cauchy distribution prior centered around 0.05 with r = .05. Preregistrations were filed on OSF (osf.io/cr42j and osf.io/tsz5p).

Clinical methodology. The 2015 anomalous experiences paper ^[6] used clinical case material from psychodynamic therapy, situating individual cases within a framework drawing on both psychoanalytic theory and cognitive neuroscience. This qualitative methodology is distinct from the quantitative experimental work above.

Data

Bem et al. (2016) meta-analysis ^[5]. Across 90 experiments, the analysis reported an overall effect greater than 6 sigma: z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10⁻¹⁰, with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09. A Bayesian analysis returned a Bayes Factor of 5.1 × 10⁹, described in the paper as greatly exceeding the criterion of 100 for “decisive evidence” in support of the experimental hypothesis. With Bem’s own original studies excluded, the effect remained statistically significant, though smaller: ES = 0.06, z = 4.16, p = 1.1 × 10⁻⁵, BF = 3.85 ^[2]. The follow-up meta-analysis of 15 precognitive priming experiments specifically reported an effect size of d = 0.11, p = 0.003 ^[2].

Maier et al. (2020) retroactive avoidance replication ^[3]. The original Maier et al. (2014) series of seven experiments had reported a significant but small overall effect: ES = 0.07, z = 3.79, p < .0001, combined BF₁₀ = 293. The preregistered multi-lab replication returned a null result: mean overall ES = 0.008 (SE = 0.02, p = .76). A random-effects meta-analysis across the replication labs found non-significant heterogeneity (tau = .0007; I² = 0.01%; Q(4) = 4.36, p = .36), indicating a homogeneous null across sites.

Rabeyron (2014) retro-priming study. As noted in the critical peer commentary on Bem et al. (2016) ^[5], this study produced a negative effect size and constituted a failed replication of an earlier Rabeyron and Watts (2010) result. The retrieved excerpts do not contain the specific statistics from that paper directly.

Maier et al. (2022) quantum measurement study ^[1]. The paper reports that above-chance positive deviation in the micro-PK task was found under the targeted experimental condition (intermediate confirmation), while no substantial positive deviation was observed in the maximum-confirmation control condition (C_max), on either the subjective or objective data level. The retrieved excerpts do not contain the specific test statistics for this paper in a form that is unambiguous enough to quote directly.

Theoretical/clinical work. The 2015 clinical paper ^[6] and the 2020 methodological paper ^[4] do not report primary experimental statistics; they synthesize existing meta-analytic findings from other researchers (e.g., reporting meta-analytic effect sizes from Sherwood and Roe (2003), Storm et al. (2010), and Mossbridge et al. (2012) in the course of the argument) and develop conceptual frameworks.

Skeptical critiques

What critics argue. A named peer reviewer of Bem, Tressoldi, Rabeyron, and Duggan (2016) — identified in the published peer review text — argued that the meta-analysis does not question the results reported in Bem (2011), which the reviewer characterized as a clear sign of bias ^[5]. The same reviewer noted that a study by Rabeyron (2014) with a negative effect size — constituting a failed replication of Rabeyron and Watts (2010) — was neither included in the meta-analysis nor discussed in the manuscript, despite having been accepted before the meta-analysis was submitted ^[5]. Wagenmakers et al. (2011) argued, cited within these sources, that Bem’s original analyses were partly exploratory rather than confirmatory ^[2]. Schimmack (2012) argued the original studies were underpowered, increasing the risk of false positives ^[2].

What the experimental data show. The Bem et al. (2016) meta-analysis ^[5] addressed the file-drawer concern using p-curve analysis and Bayesian methods. The overall effect size across 90 experiments was Hedges’ g = 0.09, and it remained significant when Bem’s own studies were excluded (ES = 0.06, z = 4.16, p = 1.1 × 10⁻⁵) ^[2]. Against this, the preregistered multi-lab replication of the retroactive avoidance paradigm — on which Rabeyron served as an investigator — returned a null (ES = 0.008, p = .76) with homogeneous null results across labs ^[3]. Rabeyron’s own 2014 retro-priming study produced a negative effect size ^[5].

Analysis. The exclusion of Rabeyron (2014) from the Bem et al. (2016) meta-analysis is a specific, named, and documented concern raised in peer review of that paper ^[5]. The preregistered multi-lab replication (Maier et al., 2020) provides a direct test of the retroactive avoidance effect under conditions designed to eliminate post-hoc flexibility, and it returned null across all participating sites ^[3]. Rabeyron’s own body of work thus includes both a large positive meta-analytic synthesis and a null preregistered replication, as well as a failed replication from his individual experimental work — a pattern the sources themselves document without resolving.

For a fuller picture of Thomas Rabeyron’s research, his profile page is at https://esp-nexus.org/scientists/thomas-rabeyron/, and the study audit for the Maier et al. (2022) quantum measurement paper is at https://esp-nexus.org/study-audits/maier-et-al-2022-quantum-measurement-micro-pk/.