overall result of the reanalysis was nonsignificant. The subject whose resultshad been independently significant with the original analyses (
< .05)showed increased signficance
.005) in the reanalysis. For the second run,there was no evidence of an ESP component of anticipation and no evidencefor PK.
In the second experiment 10 subjects each completed about 20 practicetrials followed by a 30-ininute experimental run (approximately 240 trials).The overall results were nonsignificant for the experimental trials but asuggestive (
<.05) effect was found for the
practice trials. (Technicalproblems prevented the recording of data for the practice trials of onesubject.) Movement artifacts, a general problem in CNV research, weremore of a problem in these data so more strict selection criteria wereapplied to discard contaminated data. When the stricter criteria wereapplied to the practice trials, the significance of the results increasedto
< .02, with eight of the nine subjects performing in the expecteddirection.
After the second experiment was completed, new evidence appeared
indicating that some of the reliability problems with CNV research wereeliminated if the S1-S2 interval was made longer
than the standard 1 to1½ seconds. For the third experiment, 10 subjects were tested with athree-second S1-S2 interval. Besides the 20 practice trials and anexperimental run of 60 trials, a condition with no warning light andno red light was added. EMG activity of the responding arm was alsorecorded. All results for the CNV were non
significant. (Again, datafor the practice trials of one subject were not available because of technical problems.) The EMG data for the experimental run showed asignificant reversal from the psi-
anticipation hypothesis, i.e., thesubjects’ arms tended to he tenser on no-response than on response trials.The EMG data for the practice and "green only" trials were at chance.
To test the validity of the CNV as a measure of' anticipation, one subjectperformed in a sensory condition in which the red and green alternated (and thusthe subject knew what to expect). It was discovered that
with the standard measure of CNV amplitude, the two types of
trials could not he distinguished inthe sensory condition.
However, if the
CNV was measured relative to a differentbaseline, the amplitude did significantly distinguish the green versus red trials.A fourth experiment was carried out with four subjects primarily to investigatethe reliability of the CNV as a predictor in the sensory (alternating) condition. Theresults verified that the standard measure
of CNV amplitude (which had beendeveloped with shorter S1-S2 intervals) did not distinguish trials forthe present condition, while the other measure did. (ESP conditionswere also used in this experiment but the results showed no suggestivetrends.) When the experimental
data for the third experiment werereanalyzed with the new measure of CNV amplitude, the overall resultsfor the practice trials were not significant but eight of the nine subjectswere in the expected direc
tion. Reanalysis of the other conditions forExperiment 3 showed no suggestive trends.
While these results are somewhat encouraging, they are basically
inconclusive. The planned analyses were generally not significant and