About VFF
  Induced 1
  Induced 2
  First study
  Second study
  Results 1
  Results 2
  Results 3

Study on Induced Information Page 2

Second simple study with induced information - icecubes

May 19 2009 at 10:30 pm. Another simple study with induced information having an assistant put hands into a bowl of icecubes. The study procedure is still at a very simple stage and will be improved on for future studies. Assistant uses a die as a randomizer that determines which of his hands are placed into a bowl of ice during a trial. 1 - left hand, 2 - right hand, 3 - both hands, 4 - no hands, 5 or 6 - roll again. I sit in a chair about 2 or 3 feet behind the assistant at all times and throughout the study and am facing his back. The assistant is sitting in a large massive armchair that is very thick and dense and conceals all and any vision and shadow of the body other than the back of the head with no vision of shoulders or neck. At first it was decided to have no feedback between trials, but after the first trial I blurted out the answer by accident so I decided to have feedback throughout this study (I might want to have data from studies with and without feedback to see whether this factor seems to affect the accuracy or not, although feedback won't be part of study procedures up ahead). I keep my eyes closed while the assistant gets ready for a trial: he rolls the dice, writes down the number and also what hand or hands it corresponds to, puts hands or no hands into ice but if no hands then he makes the sound as if hands are inserted into the bowl. After being steady like that for a few seconds he lets me know he is ready and I open my eyes and try to feel which hand(s) are in the ice by looking at the back of his head. I make the effort to complete ten runs.
Although the study procedures are still not good enough, I will be using the Table I. Range of Number of Successes Attributable to Random Chance, for Preliminary Testing, from these statistical tables to analyze the results and keep improving the procedures successively.

RunMy answerRight answerAccuracy
1Right handRight handCorrect
2Right handBoth handsIncorrect
3Left handNo handsIncorrect
4Left handNo handsIncorrect
5Both handsLeft handIncorrect
6No handsNo handsCorrect
7Left handLeft handCorrect
8No handsRight handIncorrect
9Both handsBoth handsCorrect
10No handsRight handIncorrect

Notes: Run 2: Was both hands, after feedback I confessed that I thought so. Run 6: I couldn't feel either hand so I concluded "no hands", was correct. Run 8: I thought right hand and was close to being correct. Run 10: I answered no hands but almost said right hand which would have been correct. There were several trials where I had a harder time distinguishing between the options than in the earlier study with icecubes.
1/4 chance, 4 correct out of 10 runs: would have to get 7 or more correct to be significant, the results are not better than chance

Conclusions: Was the armchair too dense? Does it block out some of the information I am reading? Or am I only reading what I detect from the back of the person's head? I did experience having harder to conclude on the answers during this test, and I think I would have felt that way whether I receive feedback after each trial or not. These studies are about determining what test conditions I will use during a real test, so obviously I would not want the volunteer to be in a dense armchair and that is what I've learned. If I do as poorly during test conditions that are agreeable from the test perspective and that I have agreed to then those results will be considered more than these.

Simple study with induced information - contracted fists with weight #1

May 23 2009 sometime between 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM. I did not note the time or duration of the study but it felt like 15 minutes. The assistant sits in a chair and for each run he will roll a dice to determine which of the hands, left or right, or neither hand, will be holding a weight that feels about 4 lbs. 1 or 2 - left hand, 3 or 4 - right hand, 5 or 6 - no hands. "Both hands" option could not be used since we only have one weight. The assistant will hold the weight, holding the arm somewhat to the side and not center to the body, also somewhat raised, and contracting that hand and arm muscles. The assistant will roll the die, write down both the number and the option, takes the weight or no weight, gets settled and then looks straight forward and keeps the head still. I am standing behind the assistant in the same room and facing the other way and for most runs I also closed my eyes (although I could not see the assistant with my eyes open). The assistant tells me when he is ready and then I sit down in a chair about 4 feet behind him. I checked the distance before the study and pulled my chair closer from where it first was and was comfortable with this distance of about four feet. The plastic screen was allowing a faint outline of the person in the light during this study so I wrapped a thin blanket around both sides of the plastic screen and there was absolutely no shadow or outline of the person that way. I was very comfortable with having the blanket around the screen. There was no feedback in between trials, all ten answers were checked after completion of the study.
RunMy answerRight answerAccuracy
1Left handLeft handCorrect
2Left handLeft handCorrect
3Right handsNo handsIncorrect
4No handsNo handsCorrect
5Left handLeft handCorrect
6Right handRight handCorrect
7Left handNo handsIncorrect
8No handsNo handsCorrect
9Left handRight handIncorrect
10Left handNo handsIncorrect
Notes: Run 2: I heard the assistant roll the die several times and found out he was confused about what 5 or 6 meant. He thought it meant "roll again" like in earlier studies so I cleared out the error by explaining the procedure again. The problem was not repeated again, also I had not heard it occurring for run 1. After run 2 I remind him not to keep any weight in the middle but slightly to the side. Run 3: I notice that I do not want to see any part of his neck so I move down in my chair to see less of him. I like keeping vision to a minimum while forming perceptions. I remind him while my eyes are closed to hold the weight up a bit if he has one and then open my eyes only after a while in case he needed to adjust. Here are my actual notes from my sheet:
Run 1: left
Run 2: left
Run 3: not left. right. sensed some feeling of weight. Not as much as previously with the left, maybe the right hand is stronger so it feels less?
Run 4: no hands. tricky
Run 5: I feel he is holding it. left.
Run 6: right. quick answer.
Run 7: left.
Run 8: not left. not right. neither.
Run 9: there is a weight. left. (he's doing a good job squeezing that thing)
Run 10: there is a weight. left.
1/3 chance, 6 correct out of 10 runs: would have to get 8 or more correct to be significant, the results are not better than chance

Conclusions: I was happy with the study procedures that were used although additional conditions must be added to turn it into a test quality procedure. More trials and more data are needed, to try a screen that conceals the head. What part of the body could be seen without providing possible subtle visual clues about hands and arms? How about concealing the entire person? If I am blindfolded but facing the person and without a screen? If the room is dark during the time I view the person? All these and more variables will be investigated, and luckily now with induced information that can be done. I need to know what factors affect the way I experience my performance. (Note: this is not the same thing as trying to find the procedure that leads to most accuracy. Once I find a procedure that I agree with and that is adequate from a test perspective it can be used. I am not searching for the test procedure that "gives the best results". I am searching for the test procedure that I feel most comfortable with, and that at the same time is acceptable for test purposes.)

Simple study with induced information - contracted fists with weight in darkness #1

May 23 2009 from 11:13 PM to 11:23 PM, ten minutes. Similar procedure as before, assistant sits in a chair and there is a plastic screen covering all of him except head, no shoulders or neck is visible. The screen is covered with a blanket both sides and has no visibility through it. Except that this study is done in darkness! It is dark outdoors and no light sources from outdoors. For each trial I am sitting about 4 feet behind him and keep my eyes closed while he prepares. He rolls a dice, 1 or 2 - left hand, 3 or 4 - right hand, 5 or 6 - no hands. The hand that is selected will be held up and slightly to the side and holding the about four pound weight while contracting hand and arm. A hand that does not have the weight is kept relaxed on the lap with the palm facing up. The assistant writes down both the dice number and corresponding hand or no hands for each trial, turns the light off and lets me know when he is ready. I open my eyes and attempt to feel which hand or no hands hold the weight and has the contraction. I tell him when I'm ready and he turns the light on, I quickly write my answer then close my eyes and he can prepare for a new trial. The outline of his head was visible against the clouds in the sky through the window. The study went quick and swiftly. There was no feedback in between trials, all ten answers were checked after completion of the study.
RunMy answerRight answerAccuracy
1Left handLeft handCorrect
2Left handLeft handCorrect
3Right handsLeft handIncorrect
4Right handLeft handIncorrect
5Left handRight handIncorrect
6Neither handRight handIncorrect
7Right handLeft handIncorrect
8Right handNeither handIncorrect
9Neither handRight handIncorrect
10Right handNeither handIncorrect
1/3 chance, 2 correct out of 10 runs: would have to get 8 or more correct to be significant, the results are not better than chance

Conclusions: I don't recall having ever experienced medical perceptions in darkness but wanted to try a study procedure that is otherwise identical to a previous study procedure but only changing the condition that this study takes place in darkness. By changing one variable only, any changes to the trend in results can be attributable to that one change in procedure. Only ten trials were done in the first study with a weight, and only ten trials were done in this first study with a weight in darkness and I hesitate to conclude on only ten and ten trials, but it does seem that my acchievements would be significantly reduced due to darkness. So it would seem that light is necessary for better acchievement. Unfortunately I can't say whether I experienced or felt that it would be more difficult in darkness, I do however think that it felt different.

Conclusions: These studies went great, I had none of the discomfort that can appear from doing repeated trials sometimes, as was during the cereal tests in the past. I was very happy with using the screen and pleasantly surprised that the blanket wrapped around the screen did not lower my confidence in my perceptions. It remains to find out whether seeing the outline of a person would improve the results, but at this stage I don't feel like working backwards in test procotol construction just to answer that question. I don't think I should be seeing the back of the head of the person because it might offer subtle clues about what a person is doing with their hands or arms.

So far I have obtained the beginnings of some answers but have gotten more questions too. Would truly the thickness or the density of the screen affect the results? Would a dense armchair lower my performance or lower it more so than does a plastic screen wrapped with a blanket, both of which provide no visibility through them but one is thicker than the other? If the thickness of the screen does affect my performance then if I were proven to have a sensing ability then that would be interesting, otherwise it could be a psychological effect because I know what the screen is like and might have subconscious expectations of it, but the types of screens do make me feel the information differently. In my experience of the perceptions, I need to look briefly at the person in order to locate them, and in my experience an "easier" screen is one that gives me a sense of where the person is and a thinner screen regardless of visibility better gives me that sense of location. It could be a psychological effect also.

Most of the separate studies done on these two pages (one and two) have used different procedures and even if only one test variable is modified between them, their results can not be combined. I will not rely on just ten trials from any one study to conclude on anything. The more trials and more data is obtained for any study procedure, the more reliable are the conclusions they are leaning towards. Hopefully a specific study procedure will yield consistent results which should indicate that all parameters are kept stable, one study after the other when following the same study procedure.

At least two more studies (with ten trials each) must be done with the same procedure that was done in darkness and hopefully with fairly consistent results so that I can conclude that the perceptions (of weight/contraction at the very least) can not form in darkness. Which is very interesting. Light and/or vision is thus part of forming the perceptions.

Future studies should try a full-body screen. If that fails then should try to find another part of the body that is seen rather than the head. I worry that a person's head and slight or subtle movement could provide subtle clues about what they are doing or how they are feeling.