A quantitative digest of the ESP-Nexus structured study database for Precognition: 44 studies spanning 1974–2025, 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 four meta-analyses and dozens of primary studies spanning 1988 to 2025, the quantitative record on precognition is genuinely mixed. Honorton (1989) pooled 309 forced-choice experiments and reported a z of 11.41, while Bem (2016) synthesized 90 experiments and found a Hedges g of 0.09. By contrast, Steinkamp (1998) analyzed 22 forced-choice studies and obtained a z-over-root-n of only 0.01, essentially indistinguishable from chance. Among individual studies, results range widely: Bancel (2022, 2025) reported z-scores of 3.7 and 4.0, Mossbridge (2023) found p less than 1×10-6, and Cameron (2024, 2025) reported a Cohen's d of 0.36 in both years, whereas Walleczek (2025) returned p = 0.979, Alibalaei (2025) found d = -0.027, Muhmenthaler (2022) found d = 0.001, and Maier (2020) returned p = .76. Fourteen results in the dataset are null or below chance, and effect-size heterogeneity across studies is substantial, meaning no single summary figure characterizes the literature cleanly.
Pooled meta-analytic effects
- Sheldrake (2025), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition: ES 0.18 (z_over_sqrt_n) (k = 3)
- Bem (2016), F1000Research: ES 0.09 (hedges_g) (k = 90)
- Steinkamp (1998), The Journal of Parapsychology: ES 0.01 (z_over_sqrt_n) (k = 22)
- Honorton (1989), Journal of Parapsychology: ES 0.033 (z_over_sqrt_n) (k = 62)
The evidence
| Paper | Reported finding | Effect / significance | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bancel et al. (2025), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition [source] [audit] | Tryout data – All cohorts pooled. | z = 4.0, p = 3.1 × 10−5, hit rate 0.5059 | N = 1789 |
| Mossbridge et al. (2024), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition [source] [audit] | Exp 2 free-response overall target precognition. | ES 0.22, p < 2 × 10−4, hit rate 0.35 | N = 307 |
| Muhmenthaler et al. (2022), Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice [source] [audit] | Experiment 1 – Retroactive Affective Priming. | ES 0.001, p = .512 | N = 36 |
| Walleczek et al. (2025), PLoS One [source] | Study 1 – pure-session erotic trials, preregistered confirmatory one-sided. | p = .979, hit rate 0.4948 | N = 37836 |
| Walleczek et al. (2025), Preprint V1 (under peer review, dated 06/27/2025; journal not specified) | Study 1 – confirmatory, erotic trials, pure session. | p = .979, hit rate 0.4948 | N = 37836 |
| Alibalaei et al. (2025), Journal of the Society for Psychical Research | Study 1 – 40-day yoga course, pre vs post precognition. | ES -0.027, p = .783, hit rate 0.251 | N = 4160 |
| Boyle (2025), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source] | ChatGPT-4.1-mini 100-trial precognition task. | ES 0.28, p = .005, hit rate 0.32 | N = 100 |
| Sheldrake et al. (2025), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition [source] | Overall precognition condition – standardized effect size. | ES 0.18, p = .17 | k = 3 |
| Radin et al. (2023) | Exp 1 – hidden-task slope. | z = 2.267, p = .02 | N = 85792278 |
| Mossbridge (2023), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition [source] | EEG presentiment – pre-stimulus prediction of future button-press response. | p < 1 × 10−6 | N = 4000 |
| Bancel (2022), Unpublished proposal/report (IMI institute) | Psi@Home preliminary variance test. | z = 3.7, p = 1 × 10−4, hit rate 0.5 | N = 1160 |
| Schlitz et al. (2021), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source] | Exp 1 confirmatory: retroactive priming, full sample. | ES 0.03, p = .22 | N = 493 |
| Maier et al. (2020), PLOS ONE [source] | Cross-lab random-effects meta-analysis. | p = .76 | 5 studies; N = 2004 |
| Schmidt (2019), Journal of Parapsychology [source] | Experiment 1 – combined total. | ES 0.0253, z = 6.36, p < 2 × 10−9 | k = 3 events/tests; N = 63066 |
| Jolij et al. (2019), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source] | Connectivity <|R|> – Amsterdam. | p = .018 | N = 61 |
| Mueller et al. (2019), Zeitschrift fuer Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics [source] | Overall ARV hit rate over 48 valid DAX predictions. | ES 0.56, z = 3.897, p = 2.3 × 10−5, hit rate 0.7916 | N = 48 |
| Katz et al. (2018), Journal of Scientific Exploration | Project Firefly overall – 177 daily aggregate predictions. | hit rate 0.48 | N = 177 |
| Kugel (2018), Zeitschrift fuer Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics [source] | Program prognosis module – overall. | z = 3.27, p = 6 × 10−4 | N = 3713 |
| Alvarez (2018), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source] | Active block – Experimental trials: distance to to-be-lit vs not-to-be-lit LED. | p = .035 | N = 25 |
| Vernon (2018), Journal of Parapsychology [source] | Main study: Precall vs. | ES 0.32, p = .021 | N = 1980 |
What is unsettled
- Reported directions disagree across studies (some positive, some null or below-chance).
- 13 result(s) report a null or below-chance (negative) effect.
Source: ESP-Nexus structured study database, 44 studies. 44 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.