Institute of Noetic Science, Petaluma, CA, USA; Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience, Institute of Neural Computation, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Institute of Noetic Science, Petaluma, CA, USA.
Brain Cogn. 2020 Dec;146:105638. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2020.105638. Epub 2020 Nov 6.
In this study, a classification task asked participants to look at 180 facial photographs of deceased individuals (photographs were taken years prior to their deaths) and guess the cause of death from three equiprobable categories: heart attack; death by firearm; or car accident. Electroencephalogram (EEG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) data were simultaneously collected during the task. The participants included individuals who claimed "mediumistic" (psychic) abilities and controls who claimed no mediumistic ability. Pooled data showed accurate guesses for the cause of death (partial η = 0.12; p = 0.004), and control subjects were primarily responsible for this effect (partial η = 0.11; p = 0.005). EEG and ECG differences were found between the mediums and controls. Control participants had larger amplitude event-related potentials (ERP) following the presentation of the images than the mediums, between 80 and 110 ms, and between 200 and 350 ms. This could be interpreted as reflecting greater attention and less response inhibition by controls as compared to the mediums. Participants in the control group also had lower average heart rates than the mediums, possibly indicating less stress during the task. Speculations and limits regarding why controls performed better than mediums are discussed.
在这项研究中，一个分类任务要求参与者观察 180 张已故个体的面部照片（这些照片是在他们去世前几年拍摄的），并从三个等概率的类别中猜测死因：心脏病发作；枪支致死；或车祸。在任务进行的同时，还同时收集了脑电图（EEG）和心电图（ECG）数据。参与者包括自称具有“灵媒”（超自然）能力的人和声称没有灵媒能力的对照组。汇总数据显示，参与者对死因的猜测是准确的（部分 η=0.12；p=0.004），而对照组主要对此结果负责（部分 η=0.11；p=0.005）。研究还发现了灵媒和对照组之间的 EEG 和 ECG 差异。与灵媒相比，对照组在呈现图像后的 80 到 110 毫秒和 200 到 350 毫秒之间，事件相关电位（ERP）的振幅更大。这可以解释为对照组比灵媒更注意和较少的反应抑制。与灵媒相比，对照组的平均心率也较低，这可能表明他们在任务中压力较小。文中还讨论了为什么对照组的表现优于灵媒的原因和限制。
