A quantitative digest of the ESP-Nexus structured study database for Remote Viewing: 21 studies spanning 1975–2026, 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 25 studies spanning 1979 to 2026, effect estimates for remote viewing vary considerably in both magnitude and direction. Tressoldi's 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of 40 trials reported a pooled effect size of 0.36 (z over sqrt n), accompanied by high between-study heterogeneity (I² at or above 50%). Individual studies show a wide spread: a 2023 Escola-Gascon study reported Cohen's d of 0.853, a 2019 Targ study reached an effect size of 1.0 (z over sqrt n), and a 2021 Mueller study reported p = 1.9 x 10−7, while at the other end, a 2021 Kruth study recorded Cohen's d of -1.498, a 2022 Wahbeh study found Hedges' g of -0.16, and a 2023 Piao study reported a hit rate of just 0.06.
These results do not converge on a consistent picture. Several studies produce small to large positive effects with low p-values, yet null and below-chance outcomes appear in the same literature, and the substantial heterogeneity flagged in the meta-analysis suggests that study-level factors, whether methodological, contextual, or related to participant selection, are influencing outcomes in ways the field has not yet resolved.
Pooled meta-analytic effects
- Tressoldi (2023), Journal of Scientific Exploration: ES 0.36 (z_over_sqrt_n) (k = 40)
The evidence
| Paper | Reported finding | Effect / significance | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mossbridge (2024), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition (JAEX) [source] [audit] | Batch 1 – target-matching hit/miss ratio across high- vs low-instigation moon phases. | p < .017 | N = 792 |
| Tressoldi et al. (2023), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source] [audit] | Frequentist random-effects, with outliers. | ES 0.36, p = 8.7 × 10−10 | k = 40 |
| Mueller et al. (2021), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source] [audit] | Overall hit rate, all 100 trials. | p = 1.9 × 10−7, hit rate 0.75 | N = 100 |
| Roe et al. (2020), Journal of Parapsychology [source] [audit] | Combined ganzfeld condition – sum of ranks. | ES 0.4, z = 4.22, p = 1.2 × 10−5, hit rate 0.39 | k = 3; N = 110 |
| Katz et al. (2026), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition [source] | Prevalence of sense of correctness. | prevalence 0.89 | N = 122 |
| Schwartz (2025), EXPLORE [source] | Self-reported overall accuracy of consensus precognitive RV concepts. | prevalence 0.83 | — |
| Escola-Gascon et al. (2023), EXPLORE [source] | Believers group with photo/image-based targets – hit-threshold breakdown. | ES 0.853 | N = 347 |
| Escola-Gascon et al. (2023), Brain and Behavior [source] | Group 2 RV hits vs chance. | ES 0.853, p < .001 | N = 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 0.06 | N = 100 |
| Wahbeh et al. (2022), International Journal of Transpersonal Studies [source] | Extended perception pre-post change – parent study result. | ES -0.16, hit rate 0.19 | N = 481 |
| 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 | — |
| Schwartz et al. (2019), Zeitschrift fur Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics [source] | Location prediction – a priori chance probability of the discovered Consensus Area. | p = .0046 | N = 8 |
| Targ (2019), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source] | Pat Price formal series. | ES 1.0, hit rate 0.778 | N = 9 |
| Mueller et al. (2017), Zeitschrift fuer Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics | Direct hits: target given highest correspondence rating. | hit rate 0.388 | N = 36 |
| Brown (2012), Journal of Scientific Exploration | All sessions – clarity-score distribution across 11 targets. | — | k = 11 events/tests; N = 86 |
| Wiseman et al. (2010), European Journal of Parapsychology | 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 × 10−11 | 13 studies; N = 5900000 |
| Dunne et al. (2003), Journal of Scientific Exploration | Formal trials. | z = 6.355, p = 1 × 10−10 | N = 336 |
| Dunne et al. (1979), Journal of Parapsychology | Eight-trial sum of ranks. | p < .008 | k = 8; N = 8 |
What is unsettled
- Reported directions disagree across studies (some positive, some null or below-chance).
- High between-study heterogeneity (I² ≥ 50%) in 1 pooled result(s).
- 3 result(s) report a null or below-chance (negative) effect.
Source: ESP-Nexus structured study database, 21 studies. 21 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.