It is going to be difficult to analyse Radin’s results using this paper alone. On is left to guess, and then point to potential errors as a likely indicator of the quality of the trials or results. Ok, here is my 2 cent's worth of trying to unravel nonsense and trivia. He may not exploit all of the potential sources.
Referring to fig 2. of Experiment 1
If the author is correct, then he need not collect any data beyond the 0sec line. It could be argued that the subject need never see the photo because it is only the anticipation, or presentiment, of that photo that is of interest. If the photo must be shown, there is no need to record data beyond the end of the photo display period (t=3) and still no reason to process data beyond t=0
I think that Radin needs to record and include the biggest emotional signal he can get, so as to best exploit the artifacts that produce the result. (For this reason, any spurious sounds that may influence the response, even after the lead-in, may be considered as leakage.)
The SCL is obtained in a vague and contrived manner. Radin speaks of clamping, but does not define what that means. In fact very little detail is given regarding this critical issue. How
does the end of that trace get back to the beginning? Surely there is a simpler method?
After recording the SCL to the end of the display period (t=3s)the remaining data could be dumped, and the SCL instrument zeroed so that the reference SCL for each run is that value recorded at the time the button is pressed. The incremental change over time is simply and directly referred to that initial value. Why not?
In the first experiment, the sampling rate is 5/sec. To avoid aliasing, the input to the A/D converter must not exceed 2.5Hz. The
delay and transient response of this filter will depend upon the precise design, which of course, is not given. It may well be that the
profile of Fig 2 has as much to to do with the filter characteristics than skin resistance.
I suspect that Radin fiddles with the lead-in and relaxation periods around the fixed points of image time and filter response, until he gets what he wants. Later, there will be plenty of parametric variables to play with. The linearity of the SCL, A/D linearity, quantization error.....
The J&J 1330 SCL datalogger has been superseded, but what information there is on the newer 1330-C2 model, is scant. (I have e-mailed) It does not look like the equipment is certified.
I think that the way the SCL is measured and processed is critical. It seems that a big finish for emotional photos is of benefit to him.
I wonder if he does not also gain a boost from the way subjects react after the image has passed. The subject is only
2 foot from the monitor, and staring at a small
6x3 photo for 8 seconds (5 seconds lead-in and 3 seconds display). That in itself is odd (why not full screen?) and I expect, rather uncomfortable.
The emotional images are harsher than the calm photos, putting more ‘strain’ on the subject. The subject may recoil back more after the emotional photos, than the calm, resulting perhaps in a change in the SCL after the fact (when it will not be seen as significant). There is no mention of controlling the subject’s movements, nor is it more than superficially considered.
A single trial lasts 18sec, with 40 images per session making a total of 12minutes, yet Radin reports that they may last 30mins. What happens to the downtime? The researcher is behind a screen, but presumably within earshot. Could it be that by obtaining auditory clues from the subject, the process is interrupted - ostensibly to let the subject relax - but has another motive?
Maybe after being halted, the subject behaves according to a pattern that may be of advantage to the researchers.
1. The paper states that no sound (apart from the HD) comes from the PC or the monitor, but does not say how this is qualified. If it is by ear alone, that could well be a problem. The line frequency of a CRT monitor is >16KHz. Even in early adulthood, high frequency loss is quite common, so what was inaudible to the researchers may not be to some subjects.
Monitor noise mat not help the subject guess the target, but if the sound accompanies only some photos, this may influence the subject’s response. In fact, in one of Radin’s lamentable lectures, he alludes to a connection between presentiment and the colour-phi experiments that demonstrate an unexpected phenomenological response to closely-spaced sensory inputs. If that’s the case, then he is at least careless of his own ideas.
2. The HD is an older machine, and will certainly have a slower and noisier disk than we have now.(Because Radin mentions it, I presume that it could be heard in this case). If this does not affect the randomization, then the sound may still have an effect as explained above. If the file is retrieved ‘just before’ the image is shown, then time to display will vary with the seek time, access time, location on disk and file size; as may the subject’s response to it. Also, unless Radin has taken precautions to synchronize the sampling - each 200mS apart - this additional delay could produce a considerable, and certainly variable, timing error. When in doubt, get
rid if the source of the problem, something which Radin does not do.
3. There is no mention at all of protection against mains-borne noise in the first test. (In later experiments a UPS is installed, but it is only an assumption that filtering is fitted or effective.). Motors and fans could be a source of interference. The room is air-conditioned, so there is at least one possible source. (Electrical noise is mentioned, but turning off the lights was deemed to be an adequate solution. Well, close enough for a pseudo's.)
3. There are no precautions taken to ensure that the SCL does not pick up interference from the monitor, either through the wires or subject’s body. The input impedance of the SCL datalogger is very high. Even if the signal is low-pass filtered, input rectification could occur unless suitable filters are fitted at the input itself. Given that the presentiment effect is said to be difficult to measure, I would have thought a Faraday shield helpful, if not essential.
5. Some trouble has been given to selecting the photo for emotional response, but not for say, brightness. Why is this not a factor in the response? Surely the photos should be selected by the same means as the experiment, rather than by external review.
6. Software and hardware have not been certified, nor controls locked, nor is the equipment traceable. Independent verification would be difficult. Ah, well the frontiers of science need not bother with such trifles.
Baron,
I cannot agree that Radin is being hard done by. I think he gets more voice than he deserves. His experimental work is quite obviously sloppy. He is economical with the truth, and data. In one lecture, he blatantly took Dennett out of context regarding the colour phi experiments.
Dennett doesn't do woo, and everybody knows it except maybe Radin's intended audience.
I have looked into Radin's work. He is published, gives lectures, writes books gets on the TV. Some have even repeated variants of his experiments.
He really is beleaguered, isn't he? Such a hard grind. In between (paid?)lectures and conventions, he has to assemble some off-the-shelf equipment now and again, for an experiment or woo, er, two.
