Skin Conductance Prestimulus Response Analyses, Artifacts and a Pilot Study
๐ Original study โ๐ 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 2โ3 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
Same Research Program
Cited By
- Toward Understanding the Placebo Effect: Investigating a Possible Retrocausal Factor โ Radin, Dean (2007)
- Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: A Meta-Analysis โ Mossbridge, Julia (2012)
- We Did See This Coming: Response to 'We Should Have Seen This Coming' by D. Sam Schwarzkopf โ Mossbridge, Julia A (2015)
Companion
More in Precognition
Experimental Investigation of Precognition in Yoga Practitioners
Future dreams of electric sheep: Case study of a possibly precognitive lucid dreamer with AI scoring
Sentiment and Presentiment in Twitter: Do Trends in Collective Mood "Feel the Future"?
Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project
A Preregistered Multi-Lab Replication of Maier et al. (2014, Exp. 4) Testing Retroactive Avoidance
๐ Cite this paper
Spottiswoode, S.J.P, May, E.C (2003). Skin Conductance Prestimulus Response Analyses, Artifacts and a Pilot Study. Journal of Scientific Exploration.
@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},
}