What do the data from the last 50 years of remote viewing look like?

Remote viewing: what the ESP-Nexus library holds

Coverage first: this reflects the studies currently in the ESP-Nexus library, not the complete published literature on remote viewing. We have not yet measured how much of that literature the library holds, so read what follows as a summary of what we hold — 21 studies spanning 1975 to 2026 — rather than a settled account of the field.

The shape of the data

The one point that lets you compare across the whole set is a standardized effect size, and here the anchor is the largest synthesis in the library: Tressoldi and Katz (2023), a 1974–2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of 40 effect sizes from 36 studies, reported a small-to-moderate positive pooled effect (an effect size of about 0.36, with a confidence interval that stays above zero). Roe (2020) and Targ (2019) report standardized effects in a broadly comparable direction, though Targ’s is from a very small 9-trial series.

Beyond that, the rows report several different, non-comparable metrics — raw hit rates, prevalence proportions, p-values only, correlations, z-scores — so they cannot be averaged into a single “overall” number. A few examples of the spread:

  • Hit-rate studies run high in this set — Katz (2026) at 0.89, Schwartz (2025) at 0.83, Mueller (2021) at 0.75 — but several of these are self-report or prevalence measures rather than blinded target-matching against chance, which is a different kind of claim.
  • Older SRI-lineage series (Targ 1975, Targ 2019 with the Pat Price series) are small-N and positive.
  • The PEAR program (Dunne 1979, 2003, 2005) contributes large-N pooled results in the positive direction, including a 13-experiment meta-analysis.
What is not settled

The directions genuinely disagree across the library’s holdings, and honesty about that is the point:

  • Null results: Wahbeh (2021), N=534, returned a null overall; Wiseman (2010) returned a null across blind-judging trials.
  • Below-chance (psi-missing): Wahbeh (2022), N=481, reported a negative effect on the Quick Remote Viewing task — participants scored below chance.
  • Heterogeneity: one pooled result carries high between-study heterogeneity (I² ≥ 50%), meaning the studies inside it are not all measuring the same-sized effect.

So the pattern in the library is: a modest positive pooled effect size in the largest meta-analysis, a cluster of high hit-rate reports (often self-report or prevalence, not blinded matching), a handful of large-N positive pooled series from PEAR, and a real minority of null and below-chance findings. ESP-Nexus takes no position on whether that reflects a genuine effect.

The 50-year framing itself

The library’s own synthesis leans on the same time span your question uses: Tressoldi’s meta-analytic work argues that remote-viewing-specific protocols yielded stronger results than other extrasensory-perception methods when examined across roughly 50 years of experimental data, and Katz and Tressoldi frame their review as the first comprehensive quantitative synthesis of the 1974–2022 corpus. A separate 50-year history of the field is catalogued in Aperture, and a more recent expert-guidelines paper attempts to relate practitioner consensus to that experimental record.

For the deeper dives, see Remote Viewing and the Katz–Tressoldi meta-analysis page.

The studies behind this answer
PaperReported findingEffect / significanceBasis
Katz et al. (2026), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition [source]Prevalence of sense of correctness.prevalence 0.89N = 122
Schwartz (2025), EXPLORE [source]Self-reported overall accuracy of consensus precognitive RV concepts.prevalence 0.83—
Mossbridge (2024), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition (JAEX) [source]Batch 1 – target-matching hit/miss ratio across high- vs low-instigation moon phases.p < .017N = 792
Tressoldi et al. (2023), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Frequentist random-effects, with outliers.ES 0.36, p = 8.7 × 10−10k = 40
Escola-Gascon et al. (2023), EXPLORE [source]Believers group with photo/image-based targets – hit-threshold breakdown.ES 0.853N = 347
Escola-Gascon et al. (2023), Brain and Behavior [source]Group 2 RV hits vs chance.ES 0.853, p < .001N = 9184
Piao et al. (2023), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Primary outcome: trials with >50% grade in both Type-I and Type-II matching.hit rate 0.06N = 100
Wahbeh et al. (2022), International Journal of Transpersonal Studies [source]Extended perception pre-post change – parent study result.ES -0.16, hit rate 0.19N = 481
Mueller et al. (2021), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Overall hit rate, all 100 trials.p = 1.9 × 10−7, hit rate 0.75N = 100
Wahbeh et al. (2021), Research Square (preprint) [source]Quick Remote Viewing task: overall performance.—N = 534
Schwartz et al. (2020), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Location of wreck site by chance – realistic.p = 9 × 10−5—
Roe et al. (2020), Journal of Parapsychology [source]Combined ganzfeld condition – sum of ranks.ES 0.4, z = 4.22, p = 1.2 × 10−5, hit rate 0.39k = 3; N = 110
Schwartz et al. (2019), Zeitschrift fur Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics [source]Location prediction – a priori chance probability of the discovered Consensus Area.p = .0046N = 8
Targ (2019), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Pat Price formal series.ES 1.0, hit rate 0.778N = 9
Mueller et al. (2017), Zeitschrift fuer Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics [source]Direct hits: target given highest correspondence rating.hit rate 0.388N = 36
Brown (2012), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]All sessions – clarity-score distribution across 11 targets.—k = 11 events/tests; N = 86
Wiseman et al. (2010), European Journal of Parapsychology [source]Blind judging trials: majority-vote remote-viewing hits across 4 trials.—4 studies
Dunne et al. (2005), Cellular and Molecular Biology [source]Meta-analysis of 13 REG/RMC/Pendulum experiments combined.z = 7.0, p = 6.5 × 10−1113 studies; N = 5900000
Dunne et al. (2003), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Formal trials.z = 6.355, p = 1 × 10−10N = 336
Dunne et al. (1979), Journal of Parapsychology [source]Eight-trial sum of ranks.p < .008k = 8; N = 8
Source: ESP-Nexus structured study database (21 studies; the table shows the 20 highest-ranked). ESP-Nexus reports what each study found and takes no position on whether the effects are genuine.
References
  1. Katz, D. L., Akin, J., & Prather, J. (2026). Sensing Accuracy: A Survey of Experienced Remote Viewers’ Awareness of Correctness and Being on Target. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 6(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.27505
  2. Schwartz, S. A. (2025). Science, precognitive remote viewing, and our future. EXPLORE. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2025.103142
  3. Mossbridge, J. (2024). Moon Phases and Online Tests of Precognition: Letter to the Editor. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition (JAEX), 4(1), 142–143. https://journals.lub.lu.se/jaex/article/view/26006
  4. Tressoldi, P., & Katz, D. L. (2023). Remote Viewing: A 1974-2022 Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 37(3), 467–489. https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/2931
  5. Escola-Gascon, A., Vilarasau Serra, M., Houran, J., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., & Denovan, A. (2023). Resources on Escola-Gascon et al.’s (2023) remote viewing research per the original CIA experiments. EXPLORE. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2023.07.008
  6. Escola-Gascon, A., Houran, J., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., & Denovan, A. (2023). Follow-up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) remote viewing experiments. Brain and Behavior, 13. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.3026
  7. Piao, D., & Katz, L. (2023). On the Band-Limited Information Throughput of Free-Selective and Free-Responsive Spatially Non-Local Perception. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 37(3), 490–508. https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/2951
  8. Wahbeh, H., Vieten, C., Yount, G., Cartry-Jacobsen, A., Radin, D., & Delorme, A. (2022). Transformative, Noetic, and Transpersonal Experiences During Personal Development Workshops. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies. https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/advance-archive/47
  9. Mueller, M., & Wittmann, M. (2021). Anomalous Cognition in the Context of Time: Does the Viewer Describe a Deterministic or a Probabilistic Future? Journal of Scientific Exploration, 35(3), 542–569. https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/1923
  10. Wahbeh, H., Vieten, C., Yount, G., Cartry-Jacobsen, A., Radin, D., & Delorme, A. (2021). Reported paranormal experiences associated with improved outcomes of personal development workshops. Research Square (preprint). https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-311640/latest.pdf
  11. Schwartz, S. A., & De Mattei, R. J. (2020). The Discovery of an American Brig: Fieldwork Involving Applied Remote Viewing Including a Comparison with Electronic Remote Sensing. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 34(1), 62–92. https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/1481
  12. Roe, C. A., Cooper, C. E., Hickinbotham, L., Hodrien, A., Kirkwood, L., & Martin, H. (2020). Performance at a Precognitive Remote Viewing Task, with and without Ganzfeld Stimulation: Three Experiments. Journal of Parapsychology, 84(1), 38–65. https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2020.01.06
  13. Schwartz, S. A., De Mattei, R. J., & Smith, R. C. (2019). The Caravel Project: The Location, Description, and Reconstruction of Marine Sites Through Remote Viewing, Including Comparison With Aerial Photography, Geological Coring, and Electronic Remote Sensing. Zeitschrift fur Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics, 19, 113–139. https://doi.org/10.23793/zfa.2019.113
  14. Targ, R. (2019). What Do We Know about Psi? The First Decade of Remote-Viewing Research and Operations at Stanford Research Institute. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 33(4), 569–592. https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/1669
  15. Mueller, M., & Wittmann, M. (2017). Remote Viewing: A Proof-of-Principle Study. Zeitschrift fuer Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics, 17, 83–104. https://www.anomalistik.de/images/pdf/zfa/zfa2017_12_083_mueller_wittmann.pdf
  16. Brown, C. (2012). Remote Viewing the Future with a Tasking Temporal Outbounder. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 26(1), 81–110. https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/257
  17. Wiseman, R., & Watt, C. (2010). ‘Twitter’ as a New Research Tool: Proof of Principle with a Mass Participation Test of Remote Viewing. European Journal of Parapsychology, 25, 2–200. https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/wiseman-watt-2010a.pdf
  18. Dunne, B., & Jahn, R. (2005). Consciousness, Information, and Living Systems. Cellular and Molecular Biology, 703–714. https://doi.org/10.1170/T679
  19. Dunne, B. J., & Jahn, R. G. (2003). Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17(2), 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2007.03.010
  20. Dunne, B. J., & Bisaha, J. P. (1979). Precognitive Remote Viewing in the Chicago Area: A Replication of the Stanford Experiment. Journal of Parapsychology, 43, 17–30. https://www.pear-lab.com/pdfs/1979-precognitive-remote-viewing-stanford.pdf
Deeper dives on ESP-Nexus

Ask another question

More questions answered

All questions and answers →

Last updated: 2026-08-30 22:50:36

Copyright © 2026 Innovative Software Design. All rights reserved.

ESP-Nexus reports published parapsychology research as written by its own authors. Source-fidelity to cited documents is audited on every page; the site takes no position on the epistemic status of parapsychological claims themselves.