Discovery Lab Answers

Who Designed and Built the Autoganzfeld System

The autoganzfeld system was designed and built by Rick E. Berger, documented in Berger & Honorton (1986). Charles Honorton led the broader PRL research program and initiated the systematic redesign of ganzfeld methodology in response to criticism — but the engineering and construction of the automated system itself is Berger’s work. These are distinct contributions, and the sources are clear on the distinction.

You can read more about Berger’s role on his ESP-Nexus profile at Rick E. Berger and on the dedicated spoke page Automated Ganzfeld Methodology and System Design.

The Institutional Context

Berger began the autoganzfeld project at the Psychophysical Research Laboratories (PRL) in Princeton, New Jersey, in January 1982, with data collection under way the same year. The immediate motivation was Ray Hyman’s 1985 critique of the manual ganzfeld literature — rather than abandon the paradigm, Honorton initiated a redesign, and Berger built the system that implemented it.

What Was Automated

The system centered on an Apple II+ computer interfaced with several custom hardware components. The specific elements placed under computer control included:

• Target selection — randomization was handled by the computer, removing direct experimenter handling and the possibility of experimenter bias in which target was chosen
• Stimulus delivery — a computer-controlled VCR (a Cavri-modified videocassette recorder) presented video targets; this also enabled dynamic film-clip targets alongside the static art prints used in earlier manual studies
• Monitor routing — a custom vertical-interval video switcher fed three separate color monitors (one each for receiver, sender, and experimenter), ensuring the experimenter’s display showed session status without ever revealing the selected target during the session — a structural blind
• Blind judging — the judging procedure was brought under software control, preserving the target-blind condition throughout
• Feedback — post-session feedback was delivered through the system rather than by experimenter discretion
• Data recording — all session data was logged to disk files in real time, creating a time-stamped audit trail and forestalling any file-drawer objection, since every session since the 1983 inauguration was included

The net effect was that a single target-blind experimenter could run a complete session — target selection, sensory attenuation induction, stimulus presentation, judging, and data logging — without any step depending on human handling that could introduce sensory leakage or procedural irregularity ^[4].

Why It Mattered Methodologically

The automation was explicitly designed to close the procedural gaps Hyman and Honorton had catalogued in their public exchanges about the manual ganzfeld literature. By removing direct experimenter involvement from every critical juncture, the system addressed the most persistent criticisms: randomization adequacy, sensory leakage, selective reporting, and multiple-comparison inflation. In 1986, Hyman and Honorton issued a joint communiqué acknowledging these improvements. The autoganzfeld design was subsequently distributed to 17 laboratories worldwide as a methodological standard for anomalous cognition research ^[2].

For the full technical account, see Autoganzfeld on the ESP-Nexus Methodology section.