Skip to main content

Skin Conductance Prestimulus Response Analyses, Artifacts and a Pilot Study

๐Ÿ“„ Original study โ†—
Spottiswoode, S.J.P, May, E.C โ€ข 2003 Modern Era โ€ข precognition

๐Ÿ“Œ Appears in:

Plain English Summary

Can your body sense what's coming before it happens? This unusually rigorous study tested "presentiment" -- the idea that our nervous system reacts to events a few seconds before they occur. Instead of using emotionally charged pictures (where personal reactions muddy the waters), they blasted participants with a startling 97-decibel sound on random trials. A true random number generator decided audio-or-silence only after the body's pre-response window was already recorded, eliminating any subtle cueing. Among 125 first-time participants, skin conductance responses (tiny sweat-gland changes reflecting arousal) were significantly higher before the loud sound than before silence. The really clever part: they ran 125 sessions with a light-sensing gadget standing in for a human, and it showed zero effect -- confirming the result isn't some equipment glitch. People who were naturally more physiologically reactive showed stronger presentiment, echoing earlier research on emotional responsiveness and psychic performance.

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that the human autonomic nervous system responds to stimuli 2โ€“3 seconds before presentation. In these studies randomly chosen photographs with high and low affectivity were presented to participants. Ensemble averaging of skin conductance in the prestimulus epochs showed a differential response between high and low affectivity photographs. In our protocol the problem of idiosyncratic responses to pictorial stimuli was avoided by using audio startle stimuli. Stimulus type was determined just before presentation by a true random generator. Participants heard 20 stimuli per session with a 50% chance of an audio startle as against a silent control. Our dependent variable was the proportions of 3-second epochs prior to audio and control stimuli in which a skin conductance response, that is a minimum in skin conductance followed by a maximum, occurred. We found a significant effect (N ห† 125, Z score ห† 3.27, effect size [ES] ห† 0.0901 6 0.0275, p ห† 5.4 3 10ยก4). Explanations for this result as an artifact were examined and rejected. We show that a significant result from an average-based epoch analysis in this type of experiment is not a necessary requirement to demonstrate significant evidence for a prestimulus response. We also observed post hoc that the prestimulus response effect was correlated with participant lability (r ห† 0.472, df ห† 21, p ห† 0.011).

Related Papers

More in Precognition

๐Ÿ“‹ Cite this paper
APA
Spottiswoode, S.J.P, May, E.C (2003). Skin Conductance Prestimulus Response Analyses, Artifacts and a Pilot Study. Journal of Scientific Exploration.
BibTeX
@article{spottiswoode_2003_skin,
  title = {Skin Conductance Prestimulus Response Analyses, Artifacts and a Pilot Study},
  author = {Spottiswoode, S.J.P and May, E.C},
  year = {2003},
  journal = {Journal of Scientific Exploration},
}