Overview

Lance Storm has established himself as a leading quantitative researcher in parapsychology through systematic meta-analytic examination of ESP experiments. Storm’s career has centered on assembling, analyzing, and re-analyzing large bodies of experimental data to assess the consistency, replicability, and methodological robustness of psi research. Rather than conducting primary experiments, Storm has focused on the forensic and statistical examination of existing datasets, a methodological approach that has positioned Storm as a critical voice in debates about the state of evidence for anomalous cognition.

Storm’s work is characterized by several consistent themes: the application of rigorous meta-analytic methods to parapsychology, engagement with skeptical critiques of psi research, and collaboration with Patrizio Tressoldi, a computational scientist at the University of Padua. Together, Storm and Tressoldi have produced a series of meta-analyses examining forced-choice ESP studies, ganzfeld protocols, free-response experiments, and dream-ESP research. This body of work has become central to contemporary debates about whether psi phenomena show replicable patterns when examined across large samples of studies.

Life and career

Storm’s entry into parapsychology came through engagement with quantitative methodology and critical examination of existing research. Early work included theoretical contributions on synchronicity and paranormal experience, establishing Storm’s interest in how psychological and parapsychological phenomena might be understood through systematic analysis.⁸

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Storm began publishing meta-analytic work examining ganzfeld research. This work was prompted in part by Milton and Wiseman’s 1999 meta-analysis of ganzfeld studies, which concluded that ganzfeld effects were not replicable. Storm and Ertel published a critical response examining the same databases and reaching different conclusions about the evidence.⁹ Storm subsequently published a reanalysis of Milton’s ganzfeld database, arguing that replicable evidence for psi could be identified when appropriate statistical methods were applied.¹⁰ This early work established Storm’s approach: taking existing datasets and re-examining them with alternative analytical frameworks.

From 2010 onward, Storm’s collaboration with Tressoldi intensified, producing a series of comprehensive meta-analyses. These included analyses of free-response studies from 1992–2008, examining the noise-reduction model in parapsychology.³ Storm and Tressoldi extended this work with meta-analyses of forced-choice designs spanning 1987–2010, and later updated analyses covering studies through 2022.¹¹¹

In the 2020s, Storm and Tressoldi adopted a registered-report framework for their meta-analytic work, pre-registering analysis plans before accessing data. This methodological shift reflected engagement with contemporary concerns about researcher degrees of freedom and analytical flexibility in meta-analysis.⁴ The registered-report versions of their ganzfeld meta-analysis were published in F1000Research, a platform emphasizing transparent and reproducible research practices.²

Storm has also contributed to theoretical discussions in parapsychology. Work with Thalbourne examined the concept of transliminality, the notion that some individuals have more permeable boundaries between conscious and unconscious processes, and its relationship to paranormal experience.¹² Storm and Thalbourne developed the concept of psychopraxia as an alternative theoretical framework for understanding paranormal effects.¹³

Research

Meta-analysis of forced-choice ESP studies

Storm’s most sustained research effort has been the meta-analytic examination of forced-choice ESP experiments. In 2010, Storm, Tressoldi, and Risio published a meta-analysis of forced-choice studies from 1987–2010, examining whether psi effects showed consistent patterns across this 23-year period.¹¹ The analysis included examination of how methodological variations related to reported outcomes. When skeptics raised methodological concerns about this work, Storm and colleagues published a detailed response addressing specific critiques.¹⁴

Storm and Tressoldi subsequently extended this work, producing updated meta-analyses covering forced-choice studies through 2022.¹ This longitudinal approach (repeatedly analyzing the same research domain as new studies accumulated) allowed Storm to assess whether patterns observed in earlier decades persisted as the research base expanded.

A specialized subset of this work examined the sheep-goat paradigm, in which participants are classified as believers or skeptics in psi and their performance compared. Storm and Tressoldi’s 2017 meta-analysis of forced-choice sheep-goat studies from 1994–2015 examined whether this classification scheme predicted ESP performance.⁶

Ganzfeld meta-analysis

Storm’s engagement with ganzfeld research began with critical responses to Milton and Wiseman’s influential 1999 meta-analysis. Storm and Ertel’s 2001 response argued that Milton and Wiseman’s conclusions about non-replicability did not account for important methodological variations in the ganzfeld database.⁹ Storm published a reanalysis of Milton’s ganzfeld database, proposing that replicable evidence emerged when appropriate analytical methods were applied.¹⁰ When Milton and Wiseman published a further response, Storm and Ertel again engaged with the debate, continuing to argue for the presence of replicable patterns in ganzfeld data.¹⁵

In 2017, Storm, Sherwood, Roe, Tressoldi, and colleagues published a comprehensive meta-analysis of dream-ESP laboratory studies, examining the correspondence between dream content and target material under controlled conditions.⁵ This work extended Storm’s meta-analytic approach to a specialized research domain within parapsychology.

Storm and Tressoldi’s most recent ganzfeld work adopted a registered-report framework. The Stage 1 registered report, published in 2021, pre-registered the analysis plan for a meta-analysis of more than 40 years of ganzfeld investigation.⁴ The Stage 2 report, published in 2024, presented the results of the pre-registered analysis.² This methodological approach was designed to address concerns about analytical flexibility in meta-analysis by committing to the analysis plan before data access.

Free-response meta-analysis and the noise-reduction model

Storm and Tressoldi have examined free-response ESP experiments, studies in which participants attempt to identify target material presented in open-ended format rather than through forced-choice selection. A 2010 meta-analysis of free-response studies from 1992–2008 assessed the noise-reduction model, which proposes that psi effects are more readily detected in experimental designs that minimize extraneous sensory and cognitive noise.³ A correction to this analysis was subsequently published.¹⁶

Storm and Tressoldi updated this work in 2020, examining free-response studies from 2009–2018 to assess whether the noise-reduction model continued to account for patterns in the more recent literature.¹⁷

Publication bias and decline effects

Storm and Tressoldi have directly addressed two major skeptical claims about psi research: that publication bias inflates effect estimates, and that psi effects show a decline effect (diminishing over time). In 2023, they published an analysis examining whether the myth of the decline effect in psi research was supported by empirical evidence.⁷ In 2025, they published a comparison of publication bias in parapsychology and mainstream psychology, examining whether psi research shows greater bias than conventional research.¹⁸

Theoretical and conceptual work

Beyond meta-analysis, Storm has contributed to theoretical discussions in parapsychology. Work with Thalbourne examined the relationship between transliminality and paranormal experience, including studies using the I Ching and quasi-ganzfeld tasks.¹⁹²⁰ Storm and Thalbourne developed the concept of psychopraxia as an alternative to the traditional ESP-PK dichotomy, proposing a unified framework for understanding paranormal effects.¹³

Storm has also published work on synchronicity and meaningful coincidence, examining how psychological and parapsychological perspectives on coincidence might be integrated.²¹²²

Skeptical critiques

Storm’s meta-analytic work has attracted sustained skeptical scrutiny, particularly from researchers who question whether psi effects are genuinely replicable or whether apparent patterns reflect methodological artifacts and analytical flexibility.

Rouder and colleagues published a Bayesian reanalysis of Storm and colleagues’ 2010 forced-choice meta-analysis, arguing that Bayesian methods yielded different conclusions about the strength of evidence for psi effects.²³ This critique raised questions about the sensitivity of meta-analytic conclusions to the choice of statistical framework.

Hyman published a critical examination of Storm and colleagues’ 2010 meta-analysis of free-response studies, raising methodological concerns about the analysis.¹⁴ Storm and colleagues responded directly to Hyman’s critique, defending their analytical approach and conclusions.

More broadly, skeptical researchers have questioned whether meta-analyses of psi research can overcome fundamental problems in the underlying primary studies, such as selective reporting, inadequate randomization, or experimenter bias. The concern is that even rigorous meta-analytic methods cannot compensate for systematic flaws in the data being analyzed.

Responses and evaluation

Storm and colleagues have engaged directly with skeptical critiques through published responses and methodological refinements. When Rouder and colleagues raised concerns about the statistical framework used in the 2010 forced-choice meta-analysis, Storm, Tressoldi, and Utts published a detailed response examining both Bayesian and frequentist approaches to the same data.²³ This response demonstrated that the choice of statistical framework influenced the interpretation of results, a finding that acknowledged legitimate concerns about analytical sensitivity while defending the presence of patterns in the data.

When Hyman critiqued the 2010 free-response meta-analysis, Storm and colleagues published a comprehensive response addressing specific methodological concerns.¹⁴ The response engaged with questions about study selection, effect-size estimation, and the interpretation of heterogeneity in the data.

Storm and Tressoldi’s adoption of registered-report methodology represents a direct response to concerns about analytical flexibility in meta-analysis. By pre-registering analysis plans before accessing data, the registered-report approach constrains the degrees of freedom available to analysts, reducing the opportunity for post-hoc analytical choices to influence conclusions.⁴ The publication of both Stage 1 (pre-registered plan) and Stage 2 (results) reports in peer-reviewed venues provides transparency about the analytical process.

Storm and Tressoldi’s work on publication bias and decline effects directly addresses two major skeptical arguments. Their analysis of publication bias in parapsychology compared the magnitude of bias in psi research to that in mainstream psychology, examining whether parapsychology shows greater bias than conventional research.¹⁸ Their examination of decline effects assessed whether psi effects genuinely diminish over time or whether apparent decline reflects other factors such as changes in methodology or publication practices.⁷

However, some concerns raised by skeptics remain unresolved. The question of whether meta-analytic patterns reflect genuine psi effects or methodological artifacts in the underlying primary studies continues to be debated. Storm’s work demonstrates that patterns exist in the data when analyzed at scale, but skeptics argue that these patterns may reflect selective reporting, inadequate randomization, or other flaws in primary studies rather than genuine anomalous cognition. Storm’s meta-analyses document the patterns; they do not definitively resolve the question of their origin.

Influence and reception

Storm’s meta-analytic work has become central to contemporary parapsychology, shaping how the field assesses the state of evidence for psi phenomena. Storm’s analyses are regularly cited in debates about whether psi effects are replicable, and Storm’s methodological approach (systematic quantitative synthesis of large bodies of experimental data) has become a standard tool in parapsychological research assessment.

Within parapsychology, Storm’s work is widely recognized as rigorous and influential. The collaboration with Tressoldi has produced a series of comprehensive meta-analyses that are cited across the field. Storm’s engagement with skeptical critiques (publishing responses to Rouder, Hyman, and others) has established Storm as a researcher willing to engage substantively with methodological challenges rather than dismissing them.

Storm’s adoption of registered-report methodology has influenced how meta-analyses in parapsychology are conducted, with the framework now being applied to other domains of psi research. The transparency and pre-commitment inherent in registered reports have made this approach attractive to researchers concerned about analytical flexibility.

Outside parapsychology, Storm’s work receives less attention, though it is occasionally cited in discussions of meta-analysis methodology and research synthesis. Skeptical scientists and philosophers of science have engaged with Storm’s work as an example of how rigorous quantitative methods can be applied to controversial research domains, though they often interpret the results differently than Storm does.

Storm’s theoretical contributions, particularly work on synchronicity and psychopraxia, have influenced how parapsychologists conceptualize paranormal phenomena. The psychopraxia framework, developed with Thalbourne, offers an alternative to traditional ESP-PK distinctions and has been adopted by some researchers as a more parsimonious way of understanding anomalous effects.¹³

The breadth of Storm’s publication record, spanning meta-analysis, theoretical work, and engagement with skeptical critiques, has established Storm as a central figure in contemporary parapsychology. Storm’s work exemplifies the quantitative, evidence-focused approach that characterizes modern parapsychological research, even as debates continue about how to interpret the patterns Storm’s analyses reveal.