A quantitative digest of the ESP-Nexus structured study database for Anomalous Cognition: 12 studies spanning 2002–2022, with every figure traceable to its source. ESP-Nexus reports what the studies found and takes no position on whether the effects are genuine.
Across 12 studies spanning 2002 to 2022, the evidence for anomalous cognition is mixed. Several studies report statistically significant findings: Schofield (2022) and Drinkwater (2021) each reached p < .001, Wahbeh (2021) found p = 0.002, Wahbeh (2018) reported p < 0.0005, Sheldrake (2016) reached p < 1 × 10−6, and Lee (2002) exceeded the conventional threshold at p < .05. Effect sizes varied considerably, from Tressoldi (2011) reporting values of d = 0.81 and d = 0.33 within the same study, to May (2007) at h = 0.647, to Vieten (2018) recording a hit rate of 0.56. The Mossbridge (2012) meta-analysis of 26 studies on predictive physiological anticipation yielded a pooled effect of d = 0.21.
Against these positive findings, Puvia (2022) returned a null result at p = .74, and the broader dataset shows meaningful heterogeneity, with reported directions disagreeing across studies. This variability complicates any straightforward interpretation, and the range of effect sizes, methodologies, and outcomes leaves the overall picture genuinely unsettled.
Pooled meta-analytic effects
- Mossbridge (2012), Frontiers in Psychology: ES 0.21 (cohens_d) (k = 26)
The evidence
| Paper | Reported finding | Effect / significance | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schofield et al. (2022), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source] | Model 2 — Final regression model predicting reflective thinking. | p < .001 | N = 172 |
| Puvia et al. (2022), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition (JAEX) [source] | Main effect of masked solution on CRA accuracy. | p = .74 | N = 2166 |
| Drinkwater et al. (2021), Frontiers in Psychology [source] | MANOVA overall effect across ability groups. | p < .001 | N = 499 |
| Wahbeh et al. (2021), Research Square (preprint) [source] | Quick Remote Viewing task: overall performance. | — | N = 534 |
| Wahbeh et al. (2018), Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing [source] | General Linear Model predicting total EHE score. | p < 5 × 10−4 | N = 670 |
| Vieten et al. (2018), PLOS ONE [source] | Clairvoyance/telepathy prevalence among meditators. | prevalence 0.56 | N = 1120 |
| Sheldrake et al. (2016), Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing [source] | Experiment 1 – Overall. | ES 0.06, p < 1 × 10−6, hit rate 0.528 | N = 11160 |
| Mossbridge et al. (2012), Frontiers in Psychology [source] | All 26 studies. | ES 0.21, z = 6.9 | 26 studies |
| Tressoldi et al. (2011), Psychology [source] | Experiment 1: Suggestion at distance condition. | ES 0.81, z = 5.16, p < .001 | N = 20 |
| Tressoldi et al. (2011), SAGE Open [source] | Alerting sounds prediction. | ES 0.33, z = 5.76, hit rate 0.6025 | N = 800 |
| May (2007), Parapsychological Association Convention | Primary: Direct hits across 50 trials. | ES 0.647, z = 4.57, p = 2.4 × 10−6, hit rate 0.64 | N = 50 |
| Lee et al. (2002), The International Journal of Healing and Caring – On Line | Training Phase: Finger-reading Development. | p < .05, hit rate 0.214 | N = 98 |
What is unsettled
- Reported directions disagree across studies (some positive, some null or below-chance).
- 2 result(s) report a null or below-chance (negative) effect.
Source: ESP-Nexus structured study database, 12 studies. 12 born-digital figures; OCR-derived figures awaiting source-verification are excluded from this digest. Effect sizes are shown only where a standardized metric is recorded.