Deborah L. Delanoy, PhD Sources:

Deborah L. Delanoy

Deborah L. Delanoy is an American-born parapsychologist who spent two decades at the University of Edinburgh, first as a doctoral student under John Beloff and later as Research Fellow for the Koestler Chair of Parapsychology.[1] She then became Professor of Psychology at the University of Northampton, where she was founding director of the Centre for the Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes (CSAPP), retiring in 2010.[1] Her experimental work covered ganzfeld ESP studies, ESP training, secure methods for testing ESP outside the laboratory, and DMILS studies of remote mental influence on physiology.[2][3][4][5] She served as President of the Parapsychological Association and of the Society for Psychical Research.[1]

Career affiliations: University of Edinburgh (Koestler Parapsychology Unit); Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene (IGPP); University of Northampton[1]

Deeper dives — Delanoy:

ESP Training and Target Design DMILS Research Ganzfeld Automation and Controls

Overview

Delanoy’s research career centered on a practical question: can ESP and remote-influence experiments be made secure and repeatable enough to support process-oriented study? Her published work approached this from several directions, training participants in mental skills, building a tamper-evident method for testing ESP in participants’ own homes, running an automated ganzfeld with multiple experimenters, shielding DMILS sessions against sensory leakage, and documenting the working practices of experienced psi experimenters.[3][4][2][5][8]

Her record is notable for reporting failures as plainly as successes. The mental-training study’s primary measures were null.[3] The Freiburg DMILS training study’s primary hypothesis was not supported.[5] Her own ganzfeld sessions scored at chance even when the study as a whole reached significance.[2] She also published a detailed account of being deceived by a fraudulent subject, including an analysis of her own biases.[7] Throughout her papers, the experimental data, above-chance or chance-level scoring under stated controls, are reported separately from interpretation, and specific non-psi explanations such as sensory leakage, participant cheating and experimenter fraud are named and tested rather than dismissed.[4][2][5]

Her Major Studies at a Glance

Take-home free-response ESP method: nine non-staff participants, 366 trials, 205 hits (56%; chance 50%), p = 0.01 one-tailed, effect size .121 (Cohen’s h); the three experimenters, serving as their own participants, scored 66 hits in 144 trials (46%).[4] Automated ganzfeld: 97 trials, 32 direct hits, p < .05 one-tailed, ES(h) = .18; condition hit rates 34% (known sender), 28% (blind sender), 34% (no sender).[2] Freiburg DMILS training study: 36 sessions, overall Stouffer Z = 0.94 (not significant), effect size (r) = .16; non-trainee sessions Stouffer Z = 1.417, p = 0.07 one-tailed, effect size .33.[5] Remote emotional-state study (with Sah): significant EDA difference favoring positive-emotion over neutral sending periods; no significant scoring on the conscious-response measure.[6] Mental-training study (with Morris and Watt): no significant overall free-response ESP scoring on the primary measure and no improvement across sessions.[3]

Life and career

A native of the San Francisco Bay Area, Delanoy worked in publishing and retail before moving to Scotland in 1979 to study parapsychology.[1] At the University of Edinburgh she completed doctoral research under John Beloff and stayed on as Research Fellow for the Koestler Chair of Parapsychology after Robert L. Morris took up the chair.[1] Her Edinburgh years were defined less by a single project than by laboratory-building: she toured six U.S. parapsychology laboratories in 1989 to gather design and practice information for the Koestler Chair’s new research facility, and she later shared with Morris a Guest Professorship at the IGPP in Freiburg, where the two established a new DMILS laboratory and trained its first experimenters.[8][1][9][5]

In 1999 she joined the University of Northampton as Professor of Psychology, became founding director of CSAPP, and was later promoted to Associate Dean of the School of Social Sciences before retiring in 2010.[1] She held the presidency of the Parapsychological Association in 1994 and of the Society for Psychical Research from 2007 to 2011, and received the Parapsychological Association’s Outstanding Career Award in 2014.[1]

The 1989 Tour of Six Laboratories

The six sites Delanoy visited were the Psychophysical Research Laboratories (Princeton), the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory, the Foundation for Research into the Nature of Man (now the Rhine Research Center), the Mind Science Foundation, the Science Unlimited Research Foundation, and SRI International.[8] Visits lasted from one day to three-to-five days; she observed or served as a participant in ongoing sessions at three of the labs, and noted that two of the six had lost funding and were closing at the time.[8] The information gathered, by observation and informal, semi-structured interviews, informed the design of the Koestler Chair’s new laboratory facility.[8]

Research

Free-response ESP testing and training

With Morris and Watt, Delanoy ran a long-term training study asking whether mental skills traditionally recommended for psychic development, relaxation, mental imagery, focusing of awareness, improve free-response ESP performance.[3] The headline result was null: the planned overall ESP measure showed no significant scoring, and performance did not improve across the twelve training sessions.[3] A post hoc comparison found that sessions associated with imagery exercises scored better than sessions associated with focusing exercises; as an exploratory finding after a null primary outcome, this is hypothesis-generating only and does not count as positive evidence.[3]

The training program nevertheless produced a durable methodological idea. In an earlier study, the formal ESP measures were null, but an informal at-home practice exercise, never counted in formal results because it lacked security controls, yielded a hit rate well above chance.[4] Delanoy, Watt, Morris and Richard Wiseman then engineered a method that kept the at-home freedom while closing the security holes: each target was sealed in a commercially produced tamper-evident security bag selected and tested by Wiseman, a skilled practicing magician, with independent randomization, multiply locked storage, and blind judging by the participant before feedback.[4] In the first formal test, experienced participants scored significantly above chance while the three experimenters, acting as their own participants, did not.[4] The paper names the obvious non-psi explanation, covert entry into the bags, and reports the specific countermeasure: used bags were retained and inspected, the materials of the study’s most successful participant were singled out for special examination, and no evidence of entry was found; a residual fibre-optic vulnerability was identified and a cross-labelling fix specified for future studies.[4]

Security Design of the Take-Home ESP Method

Targets were housed in opaque polyethylene “Loksure” security bags (Trigon Packaging Systems), each uniquely numbered and additionally fingerprinted in indelible ink; the bags were tested by members of the conjuring community, examined by forensic experts from the Edinburgh police and by chemists from Heriot-Watt University, and checked against X-rays, high- and low-frequency electrical fields, magnetic fields and infrared scans with assistance that included the physicist Walter von Lucadou.[4] Randomisation was performed by a person otherwise unconnected with the study, using published random number tables entered via newspaper weather data; all stored materials sat in a triple-locked welded metal cabinet.[4] Sample: twelve participants (nine non-staff, all with prior experience in the unit’s earlier studies, ages mid-twenties to mid-seventies, plus the three experimenters). Results: non-staff participants 205 hits in 366 trials (56% vs 50% chance), p = 0.01 one-tailed, effect size .121; experimenters 66 hits in 144 trials (46%). The earlier informal practice exercises had run at a 60% hit rate over more than 700 trials against a 50% chance level. The target pool exceeded 650 pictures.[4]

Ganzfeld research

At the Koestler unit, Delanoy was one of three experimenters on an automated ganzfeld study with a mainly artistic participant population, designed both to eliminate artifact sources suggested for the earlier PRL autoganzfeld and to test whether having a sender adds anything.[2] Overall direct-hit scoring was just significant; the three sender conditions did not differ; and the planned positive correlation between extroversion and scoring was not supported.[2] The strongest internal pattern was unexpected: one experimenter’s sessions carried the overall result, while Delanoy’s own sessions scored at chance and Morris’s below it.[2] The paper works through four explanations for this, psychological interaction style, experimenter psi, recruitment differences, and experimenter fraud, and reports a concrete fraud check: independent students blind-judged transcripts of the receivers’ raw mentation alone, before any experimenter review interaction, and these still produced significant hitting, evidence against the hypothesis that the experimenter biased judging toward known targets.[2] Delanoy had earlier published an examination of receiver and sender mentation in the ganzfeld in which her overall results as experimenter were at chance with significant internal effects, a pattern consistent with her later sessions.[2]

Mainstream cognitive neuroscience supplies the baseline for interpreting what ganzfeld receivers report: the perceptual ganzfeld is characterized as an activated state with its own electrophysiological signatures[10], and stimulus-independent imagery is the brain’s default output under monotonous stimulation, so abundant mentation is expected before any psi question is asked.[11]

Ganzfeld Numbers and Fraud Checks

Design: three conditions of 32 pre-specified trials each (sender absent with receiver and experimenter blind; sender present with both blind; sender present and known), 97 trials total from 97 participants (52 female, 45 male, median age 23), recruited principally from art and music colleges.[2] Results: 32 direct hits (33%), p < .05 one-tailed, ES(h) = .18; condition hit rates 34%/28%/34%, ANOVA across conditions p = .775; extroversion correlation r = −.111. Experimenter breakdown: Dalton 20 hits in 42 sessions (48%), Delanoy 10 in 41 (24%), Morris 2 in 14 (14%).[2] Artists achieved a 39% hit rate (p = .02); musicians 26%.[2] Fraud checks: blind judging of mentation-only transcripts by nine students yielded 39% hits (z = 1.73, p < .05, one-tailed) versus 25%, chance, when the mentation-review material was added; a check of whether biased target pools were preferentially selected found the eight candidate pools were chosen almost twice as often for Delanoy as for the high-scoring experimenter.[2] Second-experimenter sign-off and multiple hard copies printed before session end prevented single-experimenter editing of results.[2]

DMILS: remote influence on physiology

DMILS, direct mental interaction with living systems, was developed by William Braud; Delanoy was a collaborator in the international program that grew from his work, not its originator.[1][9] Schmidt’s systematic review of the field records that Braud visited Edinburgh in the early 1990s and trained Delanoy, Morris and Dean Radin in the procedure, and that Delanoy and Morris then started the Freiburg DMILS laboratory at the IGPP.[9] The same review notes a structural weakness Delanoy’s own papers do not hide: only four laboratories had conducted DMILS research, all with personnel and methods traceable to Braud’s original group, so strictly independent replication was lacking even though the laboratories reported broadly similar effect sizes.[9]

The first Freiburg study doubled as an experimenter training exercise, and its primary hypothesis was not supported: across all sessions, receivers’ electrodermal activity did not differ significantly between activate and calm sending periods.[5] Sessions involving participants from outside the trainee group approached significance with an effect size above the published DMILS mean, and showed a significant release-of-effort effect, apparent carry-over of the sending intention into the following rest periods.[5] The study was the first to look for local sidereal time effects in DMILS data, on far too few sessions for anything beyond description.[5] It was also the first DMILS study to house agent and receiver in separate acoustically and electromagnetically shielded cabins, with the specific attenuation between rooms measured and reported; the counterbalanced pseudo-random ordering of sending periods was kept from receiver and experimenter throughout data acquisition and checked after the study, with no deviations found.[5]

Earlier, with co-author Sah at Edinburgh, Delanoy compared receivers’ electrodermal activity and conscious guesses during remote positive-emotion versus neutral sending periods. Receivers showed significantly higher arousal during the positive-emotion periods; their conscious guesses were at chance; and an exploratory analysis found the physiological effect concentrated in session halves during which conscious responses were also being made, a pattern the authors flagged as needing cautious interpretation given multiple analyses.[6][6]

Mainstream psychophysiology bears directly on these designs. Emotional engagement produces autonomic arousal that outlasts its eliciting period, so any genuine or artifactual condition difference during sending periods would be expected to persist into following rest periods, one non-psi reading of carry-over patterns.[12] Reference standards for electrodermal measurement warn that drift, baseline definition and analytic choices can manufacture small between-condition differences[13], researcher degrees of freedom in analysis can produce spurious small effects[14], and clinical-trial blinding standards set the bar against which remote-influence protocols are judged.[15]

DMILS Session Data and Shielding Specifications

Freiburg study: 36 counted sessions; six IGPP staff members served as trainee experimenters, each conducting six sessions, swapping agent/receiver roles in the first half and working with friends and colleagues in the second.[5] Overall: Stouffer Z = 0.94, p = 0.174 one-tailed, effect size (r) = .16; trainee-only sessions (N = 18): Z = −0.082, es = −.02; non-trainee sessions (N = 18): Z = 1.417, p = 0.07 one-tailed, es = .33 versus the published mean DMILS EDA effect size of .25; release-of-effort effect in the non-trainee population: Z = 1.826, p = 0.03 one-tailed, es = .43.[5] Local sidereal time: mean session z = 0.629 within ±2 hours of LST 13.5 (N = 3) against an overall mean session z = 0.157 (N = 36).[5] Acoustic attenuation between cabins ranged from roughly 65 dB at 60 Hz to 90–100 dB across 100–6000 Hz, with partial electromagnetic shielding; skin conductance was sampled 18 times per second in 26.6-second periods.[5] Honest accounting of attrition: ten sessions were abandoned for equipment failure (a programming error later identified and fixed), and three completed sessions were excluded for stated technical and protocol reasons.[5] In the earlier Edinburgh study with Sah, agent and receiver occupied separate rooms with no sensory means of communication; the agent’s room monitor conveyed condition instructions, the order of conditions was pseudo-randomized by computer at session start, and sessions with incomplete data were excluded under pre-determined rules.[6]

Working with deception

Delanoy’s 1987 report in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research describes seven and a half months of work in 1983/84 with a seventeen-year-old who claimed to bend metal at will.[7] Over twenty sessions, roughly sixty hours, he produced bent objects only when unobserved, and never under controlled conditions; controls recommended by an outside professional magician were implemented, and a sealed puzzle cube the subject claimed had bent paranormally was examined by that consultant, who reported in detail how it had been dismantled and reassembled.[7] A hidden camera during a ganzfeld session finally recorded the subject manipulating metal objects under his sweater and forcing a bar with both hands; months later he confessed that all the work had been fraudulent and that he had been seriously practicing magic since 1977.[7] The paper’s lasting contribution is its self-examination: Delanoy analyzed how rapport, indebtedness to a cooperative volunteer and the wish for a productive subject had biased her toward liking and believing him, and argued that the only reliable protection is the criterion she had applied throughout, accepting as evidence only what is produced under thoroughly controlled conditions.[7]

Inside the Metal-Bending Investigation

The subject also claimed to develop fire-raising abilities; a fire that occurred in the laboratory was later explained by his confession that he had added a chemical to a bag of cotton balls, and the video record of that session showed he and the bag had been off camera together, voiding any claim.[7] Sessions with a visiting researcher’s piezo-electric crystal PK apparatus produced apparent effects; the subject later said he believed he had influenced the machine with static electricity from a bulky sweater, and because the relevant artifact control, though activated, had not been verified as functioning, the investigators treated those results as possibly artifactual, a flawed measurement yielding no conclusion in either direction.[7] The first four sessions were run informally by Julie Milton and John Beloff; the subject was a member of the International Brotherhood of Magicians and said his motive was to see whether a magician could successfully pose as a psychic in a laboratory.[7]

Psi-conducive practices and the experimenter

Delanoy’s 1997 paper in the European Journal of Parapsychology distilled her 1989 six-laboratory tour into four areas of largely tacit, anecdotal practice: laboratory design, orientation toward participants, participant–experimenter interaction, and experimenter preparation.[8] She presented the material explicitly as shared perspective rather than established fact, stating that the validity of such anecdotal information had not been established and inviting experimental tests.[8] She also introduced the journal’s invited-paper section on psi-conducive practices, which grew out of a panel at the 1996 Parapsychological Association convention.[8]

What the Six Laboratories Recommended

Recurring themes: tailor the laboratory environment to the typical participant population; never leave participants unattended; build rapport through pre-session conversation and refreshments; use participant information forms for screening and conversation; give one clear experimental aim; choose experimenters with good conversational and social skills who have themselves been participants; ready all equipment well before arrival; treat each session as the highlight of the day.[8] The paper observed that usually successful experimenters appeared to expect success and to accept psi emotionally and intellectually as part of daily life.[8] Context the paper itself supplies: the twenty years of Edinburgh parapsychology research before the Koestler Chair was established (Morris took up the chair in November 1985) had been notable for frequent failure to obtain extra-chance scoring, whereas many later Koestler-era studies obtained significant outcomes, while noting it is impossible to establish which of the many intervening changes was responsible.[8]

Skeptic perspectives and rebuttals

The ganzfeld effect failed to replicate across independent laboratories after the original PRL series.

Skeptic source: Milton and Wiseman’s 1999 Psychological Bulletin meta-analysis reported a lack of replication of the ganzfeld information-transfer effect in post-PRL studies.[16]

Response: The Edinburgh study Delanoy co-authored reported significant overall direct-hit scoring under controls explicitly tightened beyond the PRL procedure.[2] Storm, Tressoldi and Di Risio’s 2010 Psychological Bulletin meta-analysis reported that a homogeneous set of 29 ganzfeld studies from 1997–2008 yielded a significant mean effect, and it includes the Edinburgh sender/no-sender study in its reference base.[17]

Response by the skeptical side: Hyman’s 2010 commentary in the same journal argued that the Storm meta-analysis conceals more than it reveals, contesting its inclusiveness and interpretation.[18]

Analysis. Milton and Wiseman’s critique addresses cross-laboratory replication rather than the conduct of any single study. Storm and colleagues and Hyman published opposing assessments of the same 1997–2008 dataset in Psychological Bulletin. The 1995 Edinburgh study contributes one significant overall result to that record while itself documenting a marked between-experimenter difference, with the study’s own fraud and bias checks reported alongside the effect.[2] The Open Science Collaboration’s replication audit of psychology at large reported that roughly 36% of sampled significant effects replicated, a benchmark against which replication disputes in this literature can be compared.[19]

Speakers at a 2006 science-festival session on telepathy and DMILS, including Delanoy, lacked scientific reliability.

Skeptic source: Oxford chemist Peter Atkins, responding to a session on telepathy and DMILS at the 2006 British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting at which Delanoy was one of three speakers, asserted that telepathy was no more than fraudulent fantasy and questioned the speakers’ reliability, as documented in McLuhan’s account.[20]

Response: According to the same account, when asked in a BBC radio discussion that followed whether he had actually studied the evidence for telepathy, Atkins answered that he had not.[20] Delanoy’s published record consists of controlled studies with externally vetted security designs and plainly reported null primary outcomes.[4][2][5][3]

Analysis. Atkins’s remarks concerned the speakers’ credibility rather than any identified methodological flaw in a named study. McLuhan’s account records Atkins acknowledging that he had not reviewed the evidence. Delanoy’s papers themselves name and test specific non-psi explanations, covert bag entry, experimenter biasing of judging, equipment artifact, and report the outcome of each check.[4][2][7]

The Psychological Bulletin Ganzfeld Exchange

Milton and Wiseman (1999) reported no significant overall effect in their meta-analysis of post-PRL ganzfeld replications.[16] Storm, Tressoldi and Di Risio (2010) reported, for 1997–2008, a homogeneous dataset of 29 ganzfeld studies with a mean effect size of 0.142 (Stouffer Z = 5.48).[17] Hyman (2010) replied in the same issue.[18] Within the Edinburgh study itself, the relevant internal numbers are the experimenter split (48% vs 24% vs 14% direct hits) and the mentation-only blind-judging check (39% hits, z = 1.73, p < .05 one-tailed, falling to chance when review material was added).[2]

Influence and reception

Delanoy’s standing in the field is reflected in her elected offices, President of the Parapsychological Association in 1994 and of the Society for Psychical Research from 2007 to 2011, and in the Parapsychological Association’s Outstanding Career Award in 2014.[1] She co-edited Research in Parapsychology 1991 with E. W. Cook and contributed the chapter on meta-analyses to Jane Henry’s textbook Parapsychology: Research on Exceptional Experiences.[26][22] Her co-authored sender/no-sender ganzfeld study is cited in Jessica Utts‘s assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning, prepared as part of the American Institutes for Research review of government-sponsored research, and in later meta-analytic literature.[23][17] Schmidt’s systematic review of DMILS research credits Delanoy and Morris with starting the Freiburg laboratory and notes that IGPP staff trained in the first study went on to further DMILS work there.[9][5]

External Citations and Research Lineage

Morris, Dalton, Delanoy and Watt (1995) appears in the references of Utts‘s evidence assessment and of Storm et al.’s 2010 meta-analysis.[23][17] Bem and Honorton‘s 1994 Psychological Bulletin article cites Delanoy’s earlier work on approaches to the target.[24] The Cook and Delanoy edited volume Research in Parapsychology 1991 is cited across introductory texts and meta-analytic papers in the field.[21][25] Schmidt’s review traces the entire DMILS research lineage to Braud’s original group, identifying Delanoy and Morris’s Freiburg laboratory as one of only four laboratories worldwide to have run the paradigm, a fact that both documents her role in spreading the methodology and limits the independence of its replication base.[9]

Sources
  1. Deborah L. Delanoy — Biographical Facts — verifiable sources: www.spr.ac.uk · www.parapsych.org. R001 ↩︎
  2. Morris, R. L., Dalton, K. S., Delanoy, D. L., & Watt, C. (1995). Comparison of the sender/no sender condition in the ganzfeld. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, 244-259. https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/morris-dalton-delanoy-watt-1995.pdf R002 [Morris 1995] ↩︎
  3. Delanoy, D. L., Morris, R. L., & Watt, C. (2004). A study of free-response ESP performance and mental training techniques. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 98, 28-67. https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/delanoy-morris-watt-2004.pdf R003 [Delanoy 2004] ↩︎
  4. Delanoy, D. L., Watt, C., Morris, R. L., & Wiseman, R. (1993). A new methodology for free-response ESP testing outwith the laboratory: Findings from experienced participants. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association. https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/delanoy-watt-morris-wiseman-1993.pdf R004 [Delanoy 1993] ↩︎
  5. Delanoy, D. L., & Morris, R. L. (1998). A DMILS training study utilising two shielded environments. European Journal of Parapsychology, 14, 52-67. https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/delanoy-morris-1998-99.pdf R005 ↩︎
  6. Delanoy, D. L., & Sah, S. (1994). Cognitive and physiological psi responses to remote positive and neutral emotional states. Parapsychological Association 37th Annual Convention. https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/delanoy-sah-1994.pdf R006 [Delanoy 1994] ↩︎
  7. Delanoy, D. L. (1987). Work with a fraudulent PK metal-bending subject. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/delanoy-1987.pdf R007 [Delanoy 1987] ↩︎
  8. Delanoy, D. L. (1997). Important psi-conducive practices and issues: Impressions from six parapsychological laboratories. European Journal of Parapsychology. https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/delanoy-1997.pdf R008 [Delanoy 1997] ↩︎
  9. Schmidt, S. (2003). Direct mental interactions with living systems (DMILS). In W. B. Jonas & C. C. Crawford (Eds.), Healing, intention and energy medicine: Science, research methods and clinical implications (pp. 23-38). Churchill Livingstone. R009 ↩︎
  10. Wackermann, J., Pütz, P., & Allefeld, C. (2008). Ganzfeld-induced hallucinatory experience, its phenomenology and cerebral electrophysiology. Cortex, 44(10), 1364-1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2007.05.003 R010 [Wackermann 2008] ↩︎
  11. Mason, M. F., Norton, M. I., Van Horn, J. D., Wegner, D. M., Grafton, S. T., & Macrae, C. N. (2007). Wandering Minds: The Default Network and Stimulus-Independent Thought. Science, 315(5810), 393-395. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131295 R011 [Mason 2007] ↩︎
  12. Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation I: Defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion, 1(3), 276-298. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.276 R012 [Bradley 2001] ↩︎
  13. Boucsein, W. (2012). Electrodermal Activity. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1126-0 R013 [Boucsein 2012] ↩︎
  14. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-Positive Psychology. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632 R014 [Simmons 2011] ↩︎
  15. Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2002). Blinding in randomized trials: hiding who got what. The Lancet, 359(9307), 696-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07816-9 R015 [Schulz 2002] ↩︎
  16. Milton, J., & Wiseman, R. (1999). Does psi exist? Lack of replication of an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 125(4), 387-391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.4.387 R016 [Milton 1999] ↩︎
  17. Storm, L., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2010). Meta-analysis of free-response studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the noise reduction model in parapsychology. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 471-485. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019457 R017 [Storm 2010] ↩︎
  18. Hyman, R. (2010). Meta-analysis that conceals more than it reveals: Comment on Storm et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 486-490. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019676 R018 [Hyman 2010] ↩︎
  19. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 R019 [Open Science Collaboration 2015] ↩︎
  20. Carol, C. (Ed.). (2018). Skeptical About Skeptics: A selection of essays from the website. Transpersonal Paradigm Publishing. R020 ↩︎
  21. Harvey J. Irwin & Caroline A. Watt (2007). An Introduction to Parapsychology (5th ed.). McFarland & Company. R021 ↩︎
  22. Henry, J. (Ed.). (2004). Parapsychology: Research on exceptional experiences. Routledge. R022 ↩︎
  23. Utts, J. (1996). An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1), 3-30. R023 ↩︎
  24. Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 4-18. R024 ↩︎
  25. Bösch, Holger, Steinkamp, Fiona, & Boller, Emil (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators—A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 497-523. R025 ↩︎
  26. Cook, E. W., & Delanoy, D. L. (Eds.). (1994). Research in Parapsychology 1991. Scarecrow Press. R026 ↩︎

Deeper dives — Delanoy:

ESP Training and Target Design DMILS Research Ganzfeld Automation and Controls

Last updated: 2026-07-03 18:29:29

AI-audited 2026-06-11 · Claude A+ · GPT-5 A+ · Perplexity A+ · Gemini A+ · prompt study-audit-v2.0

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.