Infrasound de-bunked?

[Dr B]

Well, not de-bunked - but at least challenged.....

Forgive me for some shamless self-publicity.....but I have been asked to refer some details of the following.

A recent study published in the JSPR {Braithwaite & Townsend, 2006} has questioned the role of infrasound in strange anomalous experiences like apparitions / ghosts etc.

The critique is based on the original studies of Tandy (2000) and Tandy & Lawrence (1999).

The new critique basically points out that in the first investigation of infrasound (that received world-wide coverage and even a mention in New Scientist so I am told) no actual measurements of infrasound were taken. It was all speculative and very indirect. Also the infrasound was supposed to have been coming from a large faulty electric extractor fan. This would also have been a source of magnetic fields (for which there is some evidence for effects on perception).

In addition, the second study of Tandy - some measurments were taken - but the levels of infrasound were really really low (around 30db if my memory serves me rightly). This is far too low to have any physical effect on the human eye and likely to be too low to have any effect at all. More worrying is that no baseline measurements were ever taken in either Tandy study!

A list of cognitive and neuroscientific factors making the suggested role for infrasound at low db unlikely are also given.

Despite these shortcomings the idea of infrasound is an ever popular amongst some parapsychologists and amatuer woo's. I cannot see why.

What interests me is that the ideas have taken on such momentum - in the absence - as I see it - of any real direct evidence.

As I see it, the case for infrasound as a source for inducing anomalous perceptions, has yet to be empirically demonstrated. What do others here think?

{note - the critique is not one supporting woo - quite the opposite in fact}

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mmm, infrasound has some effects on humans, but not, I think anything that could easily be connected to paranormal phenomenon. Main effects are nausea, dizzyness, and headache. More direct perceptions are the feeling that a large truck (or similar engine) is idling in the vicinity. Most people are not very sensitive to this, however, which is a good thing because modern industry buildings, ships, and aircraft are full of infrasound.

Hans

 

[Dr B]

Hi Hans

Thanks for the comments. I totally agree with you . I would add that I am not so sure about infrasound having any perceptual effects.

The way I see it - to be true infrasound - observers should not be able to hear it (below hearing threashold) - otherwise, well, its just sound. If they can hear it - then it becomes low-frequency sound and not technically infrasound (unless I misunderstand its definition - which I have checked with the chambers dictionary of science and technology and is in line with my points).

I have read many papers claiming infrasound effects - only to realise that they may be using low frequency fields, but they are using high db values (80 - 150db in many cases). This, to me is not true infrasound - but experiments using low frequency high-strength sound (does that make sense?).

Do you know of any published cases using frequencies of 20Hz and below, and of 50db - 60db and below (to qualify as infrasound) - which have reported effects on perception? I have tried desparately to find these......but I am not sure they exist.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Per definition, infrasound is soundwaves below 20Hz (I don't know if there is a lower limit). You will be able to hear sound outside your hearing range, if it's intense enough, and not too far out. This is because the limits of the hearing range is defined by sounds of a certain intensity, but of course, it doesn't roll sharply off, so with higher intensity, it will be somewhat extended.

Intensities in the low range don't have the same meaning as in the normal range. You can have a sound that is technically definable to, say, 60dB, but it won't couple very effectively to the human ear, because the wavelength is considerably longer than the size of the outer ear (a 20Hz sound wave has a wavelenght of appr. 16 meters), so we feel such waves more than we hear them.

There was a mythbuster episode where they explored a certain aleged effect of low frequency soundwaves (including, but not limited to the infrasound range). This was the alleged effect on bowel function, but since those experiments involved lengthy exposure to high-intensity waves of varying frequencies, other effects would probably have been noticed. None were.

I think many reports of effects of infrasound are really secondary effects: It is not the actual, airborne, wave, but vibrations in walls, floors, or furniture that make people react. They are not detected by the ears, but felt in the body. We are originally tree-living creatures, and the ability to sense slight vibrations under us might at one time in evolution have been important in detecting predators and other enemies trying to sneak up on us.

Hans

 

[cj.23]

Well, not de-bunked - but at least challenged.....

Forgive me for some shamless self-publicity.....but I have been asked to refer some details of the following.

A recent study published in the JSPR {Braithwaite & Townsend, 2006} has questioned the role of infrasound in strange anomalous experiences like apparitions / ghosts etc.

Yes, I read your paper with interest --excellent. It was Tony Cornell who first made me question the ghosts and infrasound link, and then I began to ask obvious questions, but I agree that the idea is currently unproven yet becoming sceptical "common sense", and attaining popular acceptance.

The new critique basically points out that in the first investigation of infrasound (that received world-wide coverage and even a mention in New Scientist so I am told) no actual measurements of infrasound were taken. It was all speculative and very indirect. Also the infrasound was supposed to have been coming from a large faulty electric extractor fan. This would also have been a source of magnetic fields (for which there is some evidence for effects on perception).

From what I can make out Tandy actually felt that the perceptual effects were caused by a standing wave effect?

In addition, the second study of Tandy - some measurments were taken - but the levels of infrasound were really really low (around 30db if my memory serves me rightly). This is far too low to have any physical effect on the human eye and likely to be too low to have any effect at all. More worrying is that no baseline measurements were ever taken in either Tandy study!

I can't see the relevance of a baseline study? How does that work?

A list of cognitive and neuroscientific factors making the suggested role for infrasound at low db unlikely are also given.

No idea, not my field, but what I have seen supports that yes. It's important they to note Tandy and Lawrence specify they are dealing with an "allergy" type response, limited to one in many thousands, not a common response though?

Despite these shortcomings the idea of infrasound is an ever popular amongst some parapsychologists...

On the contrary, there is general scepticism about the claims in the parapsychological community, on common sense grounds. I know because I surveyed the UK parapsychological communities informal mailing list only a week of so ago on this very issue. There is some new research about to come out I think, which may change opinions, but it has never really been embraced wholeheartedly by the parapsi community. Wiseman et al did consider it in the Edinburgh Vaults paper (2003?) but to quote one of the authors "it was not the main focus of the experiments." Your paper did much to support that conclusion, though I suspect it was your article in the Fortean Times noting lack of experimental replication was the real clarion call. Anyway I agree with you this is unsubstantiated, and spreading fast.

the idea of infrasound is an ever popular amongst some parapsychologists and amatuer woo's...

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Comments removed by request.

I think that is a very important point to make.

What interests me is that the ideas have taken on such momentum - in the absence - as I see it - of any real direct evidence.

Plenty of evidence - no proof. Being a parapsychologist does not make you immune to this - evidence and proof are very different things. Actually I have been looking in to the cultural basis for how these ideas have spread and why for a proposed forthcoming book, which also examines such wonderful silliness as EMF meter ghosthunting, The Myth of the Mithras-Christ connection, and the 70s/80s version of this popular truth about ghosts "Stone Tape". Cultural history is my thing. It's main mode of spreading appears to have been through sceptical sites.

As I see it, the case for infrasound as a source for inducing anomalous perceptions, has yet to be empirically demonstrated. What do others here think?

Agree absolutely, and think your paper was an excellent wake up call before the idea becomes too established to fight, as with Kneale's stone tape. The sceptical community is ironically the primary method for its replication, so sure, thsi is a great way of drawing it to their attention.

Its really been promoted uncritically by the Skeptical community who generally did not bother to critique it - and a common sense critique will suffice to show its flaws, without even a consideration of the mainstream scientific evidence on sound and perception -- because it was a convenient theory in line with there baises

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Comments removed by request.

[/B]cj x

 

[Garrette]

I have to admit that I have on several occasions posited infrasound as possible explanation for seemingly unexplained events. I have to rethink that now.

 

[Dr B]

Per definition, infrasound is soundwaves below 20Hz (I don't know if there is a lower limit). You will be able to hear sound outside your hearing range, if it's intense enough, and not too far out. This is because the limits of the hearing range is defined by sounds of a certain intensity, but of course, it doesn't roll sharply off, so with higher intensity, it will be somewhat extended.

Intensities in the low range don't have the same meaning as in the normal range. You can have a sound that is technically definable to, say, 60dB, but it won't couple very effectively to the human ear, because the wavelength is considerably longer than the size of the outer ear (a 20Hz sound wave has a wavelenght of appr. 16 meters), so we feel such waves more than we hear them.

There was a mythbuster episode where they explored a certain aleged effect of low frequency soundwaves (including, but not limited to the infrasound range). This was the alleged effect on bowel function, but since those experiments involved lengthy exposure to high-intensity waves of varying frequencies, other effects would probably have been noticed. None were.

I think many reports of effects of infrasound are really secondary effects: It is not the actual, airborne, wave, but vibrations in walls, floors, or furniture that make people react. They are not detected by the ears, but felt in the body. We are originally tree-living creatures, and the ability to sense slight vibrations under us might at one time in evolution have been important in detecting predators and other enemies trying to sneak up on us.

Hans

Thanks hans - much appreciated.

As I suspected intensitities are much higher in most tests - i think that makes them redundent as a test of infrasound which should be low frequency and low intensity

 

[Ersby]

Re: Wiseman. (Dr B, I know you're opening post didn't mention him, I just want to clarify something)

In addition, the second study of Tandy - some measurments were taken - but the levels of infrasound were really really low (around 30db if my memory serves me rightly). This is far too low to have any physical effect on the human eye and likely to be too low to have any effect at all. More worrying is that no baseline measurements were ever taken in either Tandy study!

Are you saying that infrasound caused an effect on the eye, e.g. hallucinations? It's been a while since I read Wiseman's papers, but I think he was measuring how much people felt unease.

And I'm not even sure that it was infrasound. Meanwhile, I'm prety sure two experiments were done, and the first experiments results weren't replicated in the second. I'll have to check later.

 

[Dr B]

Yes, I read your paper with interest --excellent. It was Tony Cornell who first made me question the ghosts and infrasound link, and then I began to ask obvious questions, but I agree that the idea is currently unproven yet becoming sceptical "common sense", and attaining popular acceptance.

Why thank you - and yes i agree we should be skeptical based on the current evidence. Note - I have never said it is not possible for it to be true - just that no evidence (as far as I can see) has been provided to convincingly support its case.

From what I can make out Tandy actually felt that the perceptual effects were caused by a standing wave effect?

Indeed - but he took no quantifiable measurements at all.

I can't see the relevance of a baseline study? How does that work?

I am sorry for not being clearer. I was not mentioning a baseline study - but baseline measurements for the given study. In the 2000 paper Tandy just took sound measurements in the 'haunted' room...thats it. Well, with no baseline areas surveyed - its meaningless. What if infrasound was present everywhere and in neutral areas to a higher degree? What then for the theory of infrasound? The problem is a study with no baseline is impossible to interpret - at least for me.

On the contrary, there is general scepticism about the claims in the parapsychological community, on common sense grounds.

There was and is general acceptance as well - Wiseman has reckoned it to be important and French looked into it with his 'Project haunt'. Other SPR articles passively cite the work as plausible evidence for an energetic component to haunt-type perceptions.

I am not saying some are not skeptical - but many are not skeptical.

There is some new research about to come out I think, which may change opinions, but it has never really been embraced wholeheartedly by the parapsi community.

I look forward to it - please keep me in the loop and let me know the details when you can (much appreciated in advance ).

Wiseman et al did consider it in the Edinburgh Vaults paper (2003?) but to quote one of the authors "it was not the main focus of the experiments."

Indeed, but it was mentioned as an important factor - I dont think so.

Your paper did much to support that conclusion, though I suspect it was your article in the Fortean Times noting lack of experimental replication was the real clarion call. Anyway I agree with you this is unsubstantiated, and spreading fast.

Thank you for the kind comments I suspect you are right that opinion is changing. btw the article was in the JSPR not FT....

Like associate members of CSI, and members of ASKE? The only two occasions I have ever discovered people experimenting with this idea they were from these organisations, and on both occasions, a couple of years apart, ....snip

I have no idea - uncritical acceptence is bad no matter who makes it. However, I would not make the assumption that only those directly testing it are the ones making the claims or uncritically accepting it. As I have said above, at least two leading parapsychologists in the UK have mentioned it and have tried to experiment with it to some minor degree....

I drew attention to the fact they were apparently unaware of the original hypothesis and were in fact just testing misunderstood ideas not the actual theory! (Before we get in the experimental and methodological flaws of their research...)

Sounds interesting - can you tell us more or is it private? Your illustration sounds an important one.

So amateur anti-woos, indeed the Skeptical community, appear to be the medium in which this is spreading -- nopt to mention misleading entries in things like Skepdic which are horrifically uncritical and misrepresensative of the claims, and very naievely so.

I dont see it as a "them vs us" or an either / or situation. I see it from the parapsychological community - the very community that gave us the idea in the first place (lets not forget that)! I am not saying that some skeptics should not know better....clearly they should. Misunderstanding is misunderstanding no matter who makes it - but the parapsychological community (in general) has had its part to play here.

Plenty of evidence - no proof.

Errr not sure what you mean by this - but i would say there is no evidence. Would you care to point me in the direction of such evidence? I would be delighted to consider it and revise my view if, there is convincing evidence for a role of true-infrasound indcuing anomalous perceptions.

evidence and proof are very different things.

One does tend to rely on the other though. And I am not so sure I go along with this but thats irrelevant really.

Actually I have been looking in to the cultural basis for how these ideas have spread and why for a proposed forthcoming book, which also examines such wonderful silliness as EMF meter ghosthunting, The Myth of the Mithras-Christ connection, and the 70s/80s version of this popular truth about ghosts "Stone Tape". Cultural history is my thing. It's main mode of spreading appears to have been through sceptical sites.

That sounds really interesting good luck with it - i think you are looking into a very interesting area. Some stuff has been done on this already - but I am sure you are aware of that.

Its really been promoted uncritically by the Skeptical community who generally did not bother to critique it - and a common sense critique will suffice to show its flaws, without even a consideration of the mainstream scientific evidence on sound and perception -- because it was a convenient theory in line with there baises

I agree some skeptics should have done a better job - but dont draw attention away from parapsychology which has its hands dirty with this one as well.

Interesting chat and thanks for the input

 

[Dr B]

Re: Wiseman. (Dr B, I know you're opening post didn't mention him, I just want to clarify something)
Are you saying that infrasound caused an effect on the eye, e.g. hallucinations? It's been a while since I read Wiseman's papers, but I think he was measuring how much people felt unease.

I never said any such thing and i never mentioned RW until later posts in tangential conversations. No - Tandy suggested that infrasound could vibrate the eye-ball and induce odd perceptions (smearing of his glasses frame) which he suggested as a possible mechanism for his sighting of an apparition. So its Tandy who claimed this - certainly not me. Indeed, I argue quite strongly against it as a plausible mechanism for high-level hallucination of the sort he reported. Tandy also reported unease etc as well......

And I'm not even sure that it was infrasound. Meanwhile, I'm prety sure two experiments were done, and the first experiments results weren't replicated in the second. I'll have to check later.

Who did two experiments and on what? Sorry I'm a bit confused and await your return.

Regards
Dr B

 

[Ersby]

Sorry for the confusion. It was Wiseman who did two experiments that sort of overlap with this field of research. Actually, three.

Found it on Wiseman's site: http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/research/ghosts.html

He did investigate infra-sound, alongside other possible causes for feelings of unease.

 

[cj.23]

Re: Wiseman. (Dr B, I know you're opening post didn't mention him, I just want to clarify something)

Are you saying that infrasound caused an effect on the eye, e.g. hallucinations? It's been a while since I read Wiseman's papers, but I think he was measuring how much people felt unease.

I'm not Dr B, but that association was considered by Tandy briefly as a mechanism for the proposed allergy. The interesting question it how it would relate at astigmatism? Mind you i have no real knowledge of the area, just curious...

Wiseman et al. (2003) was what you said yes.

However, the location of participants’ experiences correlated signiŽ cantly with various environmental factors, including, for example, the variance of local magnetic Ž elds and lighting levels. These Ž findings strongly suggest that alleged hauntings may not necessarily represent evidence for ‘ghostly’ activity, but could be, at least in part, the result of people responding to ‘normal’ factors in their surroundings.

from the paper available at http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/papers/BJP-hauntings.pdf

Infrasound did not seem very important from my (dubious) memory recall, but was a minor aspect studied.


cj x

 

[Dr B]

Sorry for the confusion. It was Wiseman who did two experiments that sort of overlap with this field of research. Actually, three.

Found it on Wiseman's site: http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/research/ghosts.html

He did investigate infra-sound, alongside other possible causes for feelings of unease.

Ok - thanks for that. Wiseman did not publish anything specific on infrasound and I think he did a public thingy with musicians etc. However, with no protocol, methods, figures, data, published....what can anyone say about it?

If this stuff has been published, as a full empirical experiment, please point me to it.

(PS - I am not referring to the vaults stuff - I know about that work)

 

[cj.23]

Thank you for the kind comments I suspect you are right that opinion is changing. btw the article was in the JSPR not FT....

It was indeed - Braithwaite, J.J., & Townsend, M. (2006) Good vibrations: The case for a specific effect of infrasound in instances of anomalous experience has yet to be empirically demonstrated. Journal for the Society of Psychical Research, 70 (885), pp211-224.

I mentioned it here only last week - http://theskepticexpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=850

but there was a Fortean Times article on Project Haunt, which stated there was to date no experimental replication of Tandy's ideas, and i mistakenly assumed you were the author, or at least it was your research mentioned?

My apologies if I was incorrect. Anyone recall the piece?

And I agree its not "us versus them". How can it be? I just worry when ideas are disseminated as truth without adequate checks. O'Keefe and Parsons are currently working on this - soon we will have much more to go on...

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Ok - thanks for that. Wiseman did not publish anything specific on infrasound and I think he did a public thingy with musicians etc. However, with no protocol, methods, figures, data, published....what can anyone say about it?

If this stuff has been published, as a full empirical experiment, please point me to it.

It's being prepared for publication I believe. It was Ciairan O Keefe not Richard Wisemanhttp://www.iainandjane.com/work/silentsound/index.shtml

 

[Dr B]

Sure thing

I was invovled as a consultant on project haunt as it revolved around alot of my prior published work in the area - however, i dont subscribe to the FT so I have no idea what was written (sorry ).

Also, Prof French and I are planning a phase II which is very interesting indeed and I look forward to it. The second phase will concentrate more on complex magnetic fields, suggestion, and experiential context - which I feel might be more important than infrasound.

 

[cj.23]

double post

 

[cj.23]

W
I look forward to it - please keep me in the loop and let me know the details when you can (much appreciated in advance ).

I'm afraid that is based on no more than someone suggesting a forthcoming SPR study day may be on the area, but I don't know any details. This is not really my area at all, and i am not involved in any research therein - I'm no scientist. O Keefe is definitely working in the area, but it's way outside my field of interest.

Sounds interesting - can you tell us more or is it private? Your illustration sounds an important one.

Nope, it was just amateur ghosthunting experiments which tried to take the hypothesis in to account. Not my area, but they failed in both cases to consider that the perceptual effects they were reporting were wiuth full knowledge that the sound they thought caused it was present. I simply stated suggestibility was more likely as a cause under these circumstances.

Errr not sure what you mean by this - but i would say there is no evidence. Would you care to point me in the direction of such evidence? I would be delighted to consider it and revise my view if, there is convincing evidence for a role of true-infrasound indcuing anomalous perceptions.

No I agree absolutely. I'm just querying your usage of the word evidence - I think you mean proof. This is absolutely nothing to do with this argument and entirely down to a rambling discussion elsewhere on a silly semantic point. Ignore that! I am poiunting out the distinction between "proof" and "evidence" playing word games that is all!

 

[Dr B]

I'm afraid that is based on no more than someone suggesting a forthcoming SPR study day may be on the area, but I don't know any details. This is not really my area at all, and i am not involved in any research therein - I'm no scientist. O Keefe is definitely working in the area, but it's way outside my field of interest.

Fair enough. I look forward to reading the results of these studies if they ever do see the light of day (I remain skeptical ).

No I agree absolutely. I'm just querying your usage of the word evidence - I think you mean proof.

No - if I used the word evidence then that is what I meant. As I said above -I am not sure I agree with your usage of the terms - but this is tangental to this debate

 

[cj.23]

Fair enough. I look forward to reading the results of these studies if they ever do see the light of day (I remain skeptical ).

His 2004 paper, referred to earlier was published - see his web page...
http://www.theparapsychologist.com/aboutme.php?id=sec53#anc32

Just noticed it.

cj x