Effects of Background Context for Objects in Photographic Targets on Remote Viewing Performance

Abstract

Photographic images of physical objects are common targets in remote viewing projects today. This exploratory experiment investigated whether the background within which the object is positioned may impact the accuracy of remote viewing. Twelve experienced remote viewers each completed 30 open-response, triple-blind remote viewing trials, requiring them to utilize extrasensory perception to describe the photographic image they would receive via email a few days later. Investigators created a photographic target pool of complex objects set within one of three background conditions: 1) White: devoid of information 2) Normal: a setting in which the object would typically be found. 3) Unusual: a setting which the object would typically not be found. Participants completed a total of 360 in-depth transcripts consisting of 8460 written descriptors and 1472 sketches. Two methods were used to analyze the transcripts for accuracy, the traditional sum of ranks matching procedure and an exploratory method involving the scoring of each item and sketch by both the participant and an independent judge. These two methods revealed significant but opposite differences for photographic targets of objects set within white backgrounds compared to the other two backgrounds. Better scores for targets with a white background were found for the traditional matching procedure, but worse scores were found for this background when each item and sketch were rated individually. In addition, the individual items and sketches were found to describe the target object more frequently than the background when normal or unusual backgrounds were present. Results suggest that object background can affect the outcome of remote viewing sessions, although the effect may depend on the scoring method applied.

Keywords: Remote viewing, target material, extrasensory perception, anomalous cognition, photographic target material.

Full text

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Eects of Background Context for Objects in Photographic
Targets on Remote Viewing Performance
D L K
International Remote Viewing Association, USA
J D. L
Rhine Research Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
M F-B
Submitted July 11, 2020; Accepted August 8, 2021; Published December 30, 2021
https://doi.org/10.31275/20212273
Creative Commons License CC-BY-NC
Abstract—Photographic images of physical objects are common targets
in remote viewing projects today. This exploratory experiment investi-
gated whether the background within which the object is positioned may
impact the accuracy of remote viewing. Twelve experienced remote view-
ers each completed 30 open-response, triple-blind remote viewing trials,
requiring them to utilize extrasensory perception to describe the photo-
graphic image they would receive via email a few days later. Investigators
created a photographic target pool of complex objects set within one of
three background conditions: 1) White: devoid of information; 2) Normal:
a setting in which the object would typically be found; 3) Unusual: a set-
ting in which the object would not typically be found. Participants com-
pleted a total of 360 in-depth transcripts consisting of 8,460 written
descriptors and 1,472 sketches. Two methods were used to analyze the
transcripts for accuracy, the traditional sum of ranks matching procedure
and an exploratory method involving the scoring of each item and sketch
by both the participant and an independent judge. These two methods
revealed signicant but opposite dierences for photographic targets of
objects set within white backgrounds compared to the other two back-
grounds. Better scores for targets with a white background were found
for the traditional matching procedure, but worse scores were found for
this background when each item and sketch were rated individually. In
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 752–787, 2021 0892-3310/21

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
753
addition, the individual items and sketches were found to describe the
target object more frequently than the background when normal or un-
usual backgrounds were present. Results suggest that object background
can aect the outcome of remote viewing sessions, although the eect
may depend on the scoring method applied.
Keywords: Remote viewing, target material, extrasensory perception,
anomalous cognition, photographic target material
BACKGROUND
Within the parapsychological literature, an emphasis has been
placed on certain target material characteristics that might lead to
greater success in free-response experiments involving nonlocal, psi-
based perception. These characteristics include: familiarity with one’s
natural environment (Pratt et al., 1940; Sinclair, 1930; Warcollier, 1948);
movement—dynamic vs. static (Honorton & Schechter, 1987; Honorton
et al., 1990; Krippner & Zeichner, 1974; Morris, 1977; Warcollier, 1948);
surprising, interesting, and meaningful content but not disturbing
(Delanoy, 1989; Nash & Nash, 1961; Tart, 1980; Warcollier, 1938; Watt,
1989); use of objects or elements in which the foreground is distinctive
from the background (Warcollier, 1948; Watt, 1989); and the portrayal of
a potentially realistic scene or object vs. one that is abstract or presented
in an unrealistic or unrecognizable fashion (Delanoy, 1989; Krippner
& Zeichner, 1974). May (2011) noted that targets with thermodynamic
properties, those involving the release of a large amount of energy in
a short period of time, such as nuclear tests and rocket launchings,
“never seemed to fail” (p. 65). Some researchers found that emotion-
triggering images such as those containing sexual content sometimes
produced stronger eects under certain conditions (Honorton, 1985;
Bem, 2011).
A re-occurring theme across all the above studies was that
individual participants oen diered in their emotional responses to
certain targets. Warcollier (1938, 1948) found that those who tended to
exhibit stronger emotional reactions than others in their lives seemed
to be impacted by the emotionality of targets more than others as
well. Delanoy (1989) found what one is normally attracted to in regular

754 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
perception tends to be the same thing that one is attracted to with
psi perception, so for example a person who enjoys cityscapes over
natural landscapes may have better success at scenes of cities over
nature scenes. Additionally, many researchers have suggested that psi
perception may parallel regular perception in terms of a participant’s
ease or diculty in perceiving dierent types of targets or aspects of
them. Warcollier (1948) argued that certain principles emerging from
the Gestalt schools of psychology, such as gure and ground (the
ways in which one distinguishes a gure from the background) and
closure (the tendency to ll in missing information from an incomplete
object) were applicable to emerging data from his own telepathy
experiments. He stated, “We can look to the psychology of perception
for other principles that reveal themselves in paranormal behavior” (p.
26). Schmeidler (1977) wrote “nd what a person perceives best and
perceives less accurately, whether in vision, auditory, etc., then test
the hypothesis in remote viewing that he will be most accurate and
least accurate—in parallel ways” (p. 1). Other researchers who theorized
that psi perception may mirror regular perception included Pratt et al.
(1940), Mitchell (1981), Watt (1989), May and Lantz (1991), May et al.,
(1994a, 1994b), Swann and Putho (1987), Targ et al. (1995), and Thorpe
(2013).
Types of objects used in successful free-response telepathy,
clairvoyant, dream ESP, GESP, Ganzfeld, and remote viewing
experiments and applied projects spanning the past 100 years have
included: simple drawings (Carrington, 1941; Sinclair, 1930; Warcollier,
1948); video clips (Krippner & Zeichner, 1974; Storm et al., 2010); picture
compilations or collages including a mixture of photos and cartoon-like
drawings (Honorton, 1985; Krippner et al., 2018); photographs of real
locations (Katz et al., 2019a, 2019b; Müller et al., 2019); actual locations
(May et al., 1990; Schwartz, 1977, 2019; Targ & Putho, 1977, 2005); and
real objects (Mitchell, 1988; Targ & Putho, 1974, 1977; Targ et al., 1995).
Rationale for Current Project
In recent times, remote viewing projects outside of academic
research settings have moved toward the use of photographs of objects
as targets, encouraged by the ease of acquisition of photographic
images through free or inexpensive online photo-sharing sites. This

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
755
provides a much broader range of potential target objects. In these
images the object is sometimes shown on a white or plain-colored
background devoid of information, and sometimes it is set within a
real background that can both provide contextual information about a
target, but that could potentially distract from the main focus.
Despite lack of formal testing of the importance of image format,
these varied images have oen been used, perhaps forming the entire
target pool or mixed with more traditional photographic images of
actual locations, in applied and experimental remote viewing projects.
Most of these projects have not been reported in the research literature,
although the present researchers have participated in them as remote
viewers and judges. These have been carried out by parapsychological
researchers attempting exploratory studies, and by applied RV or
ARV project managers (Katz et al., 2018a, 2018b; Rosenblatt, 2000;
Rosenblatt et al., 2015; Williams & Siegel, 2014) for purposes of using
psi for wagering in stock market predictions or sporting events or horse
races.
Objects within Normal Settings vs. Unusual Settings
Additionally, one of the present researchers (the rst author)
noticed that many of her remote viewing students, who were located
at various distances and meeting via teleseminar conferencing, had
an easier time recognizing larger gestalts, even naming the target,
when real objects were set in normal locations vs. unusual ones. A
normal background would be a boat in the water, or a piano located
in a living room. Unusual might be a boat or a piano positioned in a
desert landscape. This seemed in alignment with results from earlier
studies that Delanoy (1989) included in her literature review of target
characteristics.
A Theoretical Model for a Conceptual Replication
We conducted a search of the more recent cognitive attention
literature involving types of photographs that are more easily perceived
than others. Of greatest relevance was a series of experiments conducted
by Barenholtz (2013). The experimenters sought to understand
factors involved in visual recognition of objects as they are related to
environmental settings. While most visual research had focused on

756 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
the inherent properties of objects, Barenholtz wanted to understand
the relationship of visual context to object recognition through testing
reaction time. The study involved comparing the time it would take for
a participant to recognize an object when it was set within one type
of setting or background, compared to another. To measure this, she
devised a system where presented images would rst be pixelated to
such an extent they could not be identied. Then, the number of pixels
was increased over time until the participant could identify the object.
Recognition reaction times were compared for objects in three
settings: a background devoid of information (without context), a
familiar background in which the object would normally be found, and
an unusual background. Barenholtz found that object identication was
faster when the object was in a familiar context. Objects in an unusual
context were identied more slowly, and those presented with no
background were identied even more slowly. While the present study
does not attempt to replicate reaction time to changes in pixilation,
and therefore adopts a dierent design from Barenholtz’s, it does base
its hypothesis on her ndings regarding object–context familiarity,
seeking to determine the extent to which these translate to nonlocal
perception.
Objective
The purpose of this exploratory project was to perform a
comparative analysis of remote viewers’ performances when tasked
with describing an object placed in one of three dierent types of
background. We also wanted to know whether remote viewers are more
likely to describe the main target object compared to the setting of the
object within the photographic image.
Hypothesis 1. Background/Setting within Photographs of Objects
will make a dierence to remote viewing success. Based on the theory
that extrasensory perception mirrors physical sensory perception, it
was hypothesized that experienced remote viewers would have most
success viewing objects set within their natural or expected background.
It was predicted that performance would decline for these experienced
viewers when working with photographs of objects placed within a
plain background devoid of information. This is based on the idea that
most of the participants are trained in and/or utilize methodologies

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
7 5 7
that encourage them to use imagery that has them visualizing they are
moving around a location and positioning their awareness at dierent
vantage points, while allowing sensory data to come in on a full body
level through asking probing questions such as “what do I hear, feel,
taste, smell, etc.” We predicted that viewers would have the highest
rate of incorrect information when the target object was placed in
an unusual, confusing, or illogical background. This prediction was
based on our theory that viewers tend to have greater instances of
psi missing or distortion of information when they cannot reconcile
confusing elements during a session, and on Barenholtz’s ndings that
participants in her research had the most diculty identifying objects
placed in an unusual, confusing, or illogical background.
Hypothesis 2. Some participants will perform better than others. This
is based on ndings from past studies that certain remote viewers did
consistently better in ongoing projects then others (Utts, 2018) and
that “select subjects” did better than non-select (Storm & Tressoldi,
2020). Further, a recent study found that had results been assessed
individually, rather than collectively for the group of viewers, results (in
terms of both hit/miss rate and amount of earnings from wagers made
on predictions for sporting events) could have been signicantly better
(Katz et al., 2019a).
Hypothesis 3. Object Categorization. Given that all of our
participants had substantially more experience with location-based
targets than object-based targets, we hypothesized that more of their
correct impressions would pertain to the background than to the main
object. This was only relevant to two of the conditions, those with
normal or abnormal backgrounds. Even though remote viewers were
advised that all the targets contained objects as focal points, they were
given permission to describe the entire photograph.
METHODS
Participants
Five men and seven women participated as remote viewers. Six had
more than 10 years of remote viewing experience, four had 5 to 10 years,
and two had 2 to 4 years. Three of the remote viewers had completed
more than 1,000 sessions. Five had completed between 500 and 1,000

758 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
sessions. Three had completed between 200 and 500 sessions. Two had
completed between 20 and 99 sessions. Nine indicated they had been
trained in Controlled Remote Viewing methodology (Smith, 2014) or a
derivative. One had training in Extended Remote Viewing (Morehouse,
1998). The remaining two had unspecied training and approaches. Ten
of twelve indicated that they did not have a lot of experience describing
objects within photos, but they felt condent they could do so.
Traditionally in remote viewing research or operation projects,
participants have been assigned viewer numbers (Smith, 2005).
However, researchers felt numbers can have a dehumanizing eect.
In order to give viewers a sense of empowerment and create a fun,
positive environment, viewers were told to choose a God or Goddess
name of their choice from any mythology or tradition. These names
were used as participant identiers to maintain condentiality.
Separation of Roles
Researchers’ roles were dened to ensure appropriate blindness at
all phases of the project. Descriptions can be found in Table 1.
Materials
Materials included the photographic targets, score sheets for
Phase I judging, and survey forms and photo sets for Phase II judging.
Targets. Targets were selected specically for this project by the rst
author. 30 photographs were created and utilized, each containing a
prominent single object clearly and immediately identiable, even
by cursory observation, as the center of interest. We referred to these
center-of-interest objects as “main objects.” Photographs were mostly
collected from royalty-free Internet sites.
Object themes. The main purpose of the project was to compare
remote viewing performance for target objects set within three dierent
background conditions. Therefore, it was necessary to ensure that the
photos to be compared would be similar in other ways. It would have
been ideal to be able to use the exact same object across each dierent
background condition, but this would have then meant we had the
same ten objects occurring across three backgrounds. It was felt that
this might produce cognitive noise narrowing the “free response” into
more of a forced-choice task, if the viewers started to suspect that the

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
7 5 9
same object was going to continue to reappear. Therefore, as the next
best option, ten object themes were created, with the idea these would
either include the same kind of object (but using a dierent photograph
of that object type), or an object that was very similar in its construction,
size, material makeup, purpose, emotional impact, etc., to the others
in the theme.
For example, one theme was guns. A photo of a rie in a hand in
TABLE 1
Researchers' Roles and Responsibilities
Researcher Responsibilities
Researcher #1
(Katz)
Initial project design, Initial recruitment of remote viewers and
judges; designing the participation agreement and training
materials; overseeing viewer and judge trainings; creation of the
target pool; sending target descriptors to an individual we will
refer to as “the Randomizer”; creation of the photo sets for Phase
II judging, overseeing data entry into master spreadsheets aer
receiving all score sheets from Researcher #2.
Researcher #2
(Bulgatz)
Oversaw the entire experimental phase of the project which
included communicating with all potential subjects along with
Phase I and Phase II judges, the randomizer, the score sheet
creator, etc.; preparation and delivery of the score sheets; and
serving as a liaison between these participants and Researcher #1.
Researcher #3
(Lane)
Served as a statistician for the overall project (in addition to and
aer having served as an independent judge for Phase I). He
calculated all statistics and supplied the statistical portions of this
paper and served as a scientic advisor.
Randomizer This was the individual assigned to generate the random
assigning of targets. He sent the list to Researcher #2,
communicated on a biweekly basis with Researcher #2 by sending
the photo feedback per trial according to schedule, etc.
Key Holder The Director of the Rhine Research Center, John Kruth, accepted
our request to hold the key in the event something should
happen to the Randomizer. He was the only other person
besides the Randomizer who ever had access to the target list of
randomized numbers connected to their photo names, prior to
the photo feedback being released. He had no other connection
with the project, nor was he aware of the identity of any of the
remote viewers.

760 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
a nondescript room was chosen for the regular background; a machine
gun underwater was chosen for the unusual background; and a photo
of a colorful squirt gun against a white background was used for the
third condition. For the musical instrument themes, a grand piano in a
studio was used for the regular background; an upright piano located
at a shoreline was used for the unusual background; and an accordion
set against a white background was used for the third condition.
In constructing the target pool, attempts were made to balance
gestalts of water, land, sky, movement, desert, indoors, outdoors,
natural, manmade, human, animal, etc., so these did not appear too
oen. Many of the object selections were informed by ndings in the
parapsychological literature discussed above. For example, one theme
included objects possessing thermodynamic qualities as dened by
May (2011). In alignment with Bem’s (2011) target pool we included a
theme of guns (related to violence) and bras (related to sexual arousal).
At the same time, we wanted to incorporate themes of objects that
are oen used as targets within informal associative remote viewing
projects, such as food, animals, and transportation devices. Table 2
contains the object themes and types of objects used.
TABLE 2
Category Object Name and Type of Object Used
Subject Type White Background Regular Background Abnormal Background
Guns Squirt Gun Rie in Hand Machine Gun under
Water
Bras Spikey Bra Pink Bra on Woman Bra on Tree in Forest
Instruments Accordion Piano in Studio Piano on Beach
Food Chocolate Cake Italian Food on Table Sushi Plate on Satellite
in Outer Space
Cigarettes Marijuana Cigarette in Human
Mouth
Cigarette in Fish Mouth
on Land
Bikes Green Quad Tandem Bike with
Kids on Pavement
Bike in Water
Buildings Castle House on Land House in Sky
Explosions /
Fire
Exploding Balloons Nuclear Explosion in
Desert
Fire on Burning Man
Animals /
Birds
Parrot Polar Bears on Ice Penguins in Desert

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
76 1
Backgrounds and Settings
To test the extent to which diering backgrounds aected remote
viewer performance to distinguish and parse prominent center-of-
interest objects (“main objects”) against an array of backgrounds, three
visual background conditions were selected.
White background: The target object is shown on a white background,
devoid of information or context
Normal background: The target object is shown within a setting in
which the object could typically be found (e.g., piano in a
living room)
Unusual background: The target object is shown in an unusual setting,
where the object would not typically be found (e.g., piano on
a beach).
Inevitably, both normal and unusual backgrounds might contain
additional secondary objects within them. We selected backgrounds
such that these secondary objects would be much less attention-
attracting than the main objects, so as to interfere as little as possible
in the process.
Blinding Protocols
All remote viewers and those in contact with them were blind
to the nature and content of the assigned targets for each trial. They
were told the denition of objects was very broad and could include
anything of an inorganic or organic nature, with no parameters in
terms of size or subject matter. They were told this in advance so they
could adjust their chosen methodology to the task. All participants and
both Researchers #1 and #2 were blind to the order of the assigned
targets. During data collection, Researcher #1, who had constructed
the target pool, intentionally did not communicate with the viewers. All
communications were conducted between the viewers and Researcher
#2, who was blind to the nature of the target pool and to all targets.
Randomization of Target Material
Aer careful selection of the 30 targets, Researcher #1 recruited a
volunteer (referred to as the “Randomizer”) with statistical experience

762 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
who was willing to both randomize the targets and send the photo
feedback to Researcher #2, according to a predetermined schedule.
The randomizer was provided the link to an online computer program
designed for the purpose of randomizing remote viewing targets,
created by P. J. Gaenir (2013).
The Randomizer was instructed to examine the list of target themes
to ensure that the same object theme did not repeat in succession. In
this respect the randomization was only partial. The randomizer was not
given any directions as to how to perform the separation. The rationale
behind this request was that remote viewers oen experience a sense of
confusion when they begin to get impressions which remind them of a
target they recently worked with. They cannot discern if it is related to
the present target, or if they are just still focused on, or remembering, a
past target. This then becomes a psychological dilemma and oen they
may choose to not report the aspects that are too close to the target
they just had. This is not an intuitive problem, but an analytic one.
Although it would decrease the overall eectiveness of randomizing, it
was felt there was far less to lose from this decision than there would
be to have too many repeating elements in a consecutive order, which
was likely to happen given that out of ten target types, each would be
repeating three times.
Once the list of target numbers was generated by this Randomizer,
the list of target numbers only (without the attached photos) was given
to Researcher #2.
Target numbers construction. Two-digit numbers were added on
to the randomized numbers, according to the order they were assigned
to viewers. So 01 was added to the end of the rst random number for
the very rst trial and 30 was added to the very last target number that
was assigned to viewers. These created the target numbers the viewers
would see and work with.
Rationale for Participants Completing All Targets at the Same Time
and in the Same Order
Aer much consideration, it was decided that all participants
would receive the same target numbers at the same time, thus also
receiving the same feedback photo at the same time. It was felt this
would create greater cohesiveness, while decreasing the possibility

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
76 3
of displacement occurring to other feedback photos, which has been
observed to be a problem in our other projects when dierent viewers
are receiving dierent targets during the same time period and then
submitting their results to the same researchers. “Displacement” or
“displaced psi” is thought to occur when one attempts to utilize one’s
psi-based perceptions to describe a target but then inadvertently
describes something else, such as another photo in the judging set or
another target that will assigned for a later trial. (Carrington, 1940/1941;
Milton, 1986a, 1986b). This decision was also related to feasibility issues
and a desire to maintain double-blinding protocols as our highest
priority. We had 30 dened targets total, which had taken quite a bit
of time to assemble. The only way to ensure that Researcher #2, who
needed to have ongoing contact with the remove viewers, remained
blind to all targets and even to the nature of the target pool, was to
have her only see a single feedback photo per each trial, once all remote
viewing transcripts and score sheets were submitted. Once she and the
viewers saw a photographic target, it was not reused.
While decisions such as this have been criticized by some
parapsychologists concerned with a stacking eect, according to Brier
(1976), who rst discussed the stacking eect in relation to forced-
choice task type experiments involving multiple trials in one setting
(such as when a deck of 52 cards is being “guessed” at), there are
sometimes valid reasons to assign all participants the same target
types, in the same order, such as when doing otherwise would render
a project unfeasible, and this should not disqualify a design as being
awed (Thouless & Brier, 1970).
Timing and Procedures
Viewer location. All remote viewers completed their sessions by
themselves, unmonitored, from the privacy of their homes.
Viewer instructions. Viewers were given the following instructions:
“Describe the main object that appears within the parameters of the photo
that you will be shown at feedback time that is connected to the same
target number you will be provided.” Based on an understanding of the
participants’ various mental imagery methods and approaches typically
utilized in remote viewing, further instructions included: “You are free
to ‘go’ to the object in its location, or you can describe the photo itself. Not

764 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
all photos may have a place to ‘go’ to. If you ‘go’ to a location, try to remain
within the parameters of the photo because only your impressions that can
be judged via looking at the photo will be scorable.”
JUDGING PROTOCOLS AND ANALYSIS—PHASE I RATING
AND PHASE II RANKING OF SESSIONS
Two dierent modes of judging were performed at two dierent
points in time. (The rationale for this is presented below in the
Discussion section.) These were broken down into Phase I and Phase
II, which used dierent approaches and were conducted at dierent
time periods. Viewers were aware of Phase I but not of Phase II. Phase I
included viewers as self-judges and then independent judges. Phase II
only utilized independent judging.
Phase 1 Judging
The schedule for Phase I judging is displayed in Table 3.
Independent Phase I judges. Six independent, volunteer judges
were recruited either by personal invitation, referrals, or from postings
on remote viewing forums. Criteria for judging were prior experience
with rating sessions, a background in remote viewing, or knowledge
in research methodology. Each judge was assigned to two viewers
throughout the duration of the trial and was responsible for rating all
of their transcripts (a total of 60, 30 per viewer).
The rationale behind this was to increase the likelihood of judging
consistency across all target types and categories. Since researchers
have witnessed on multiple occasions in the past that some judges
are more generous in their scoring while others are much more
conservative, we were aware that this could play out in decreasing some
individual viewers’ overall performance ratings, while enhancing others.
However, since it was the target categories and photos themselves we
were ultimately testing as part of our main hypothesis, we went for this
approach.
Phase I judging approach. This approach involved comparing every
single descriptive item and sketch to the feedback image, designating
each as “correct” or “incorrect.” Judges used a rating sheet created by
Alexis Poquiz. It is a simplied modication of his earlier system which

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
76 5
TABLE 3
Schedule of Remote Viewing Sessions and Phase I Judging (Biweekly)
Steps Activity Timing
1 Viewer was sent tasking email notifying
them of the target number and due date.
2 to 3 days before due date,
which is either Tuesday or
Friday, by 9:00 a.m. PDT.
2 Viewer performs RV session, produces
a transcript on white paper. Fills in data
score sheet and emails transcript and
data sheet to Researcher #2.
No later than 9:00 a.m. PDT
on either Tuesday or Friday.
3 Researcher #2 contacts the randomizer to
ask for the correct feedback photo to be
sent. Randomizer promptly responds.
As soon as every viewer
(12) has turned in their
transcripts.
4 Researcher #2 sends the feedback photo
instructing viewer to rate all perceptions
and sketches using the same data score
sheet for self-judging.
As soon as every viewer
(12) has turned in their
transcripts.
5 Viewers self-judge and indicate on the
score sheet whether perceptions pertain
to object or background. Return the score
sheet. They then immediately turn in to
Researcher #2.
Viewers need to send in
prior to the start of the next
trial, so either by Monday or
Thursday.
6 Researcher #2 hides/locks viewers self-
scores protected by a password and
forwards the score sheet to independent
judges.
Sent to independent judges
once received from viewer.
7 Phase I independent judges make use
of the viewer’s RV perceptions already
inputted into score sheet (so they don’t
have to input themselves) but are blind to
the viewers’ scores. They return the score
sheet to Researcher #2.
Returned to Researcher #2
prior to commencement of
next trial.
This completes the trial, and the process starts all over again.

766 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
the present authors have referred to as the Poquiz Method of Scoring
(Katz & Bulgatz, 2013; Katz & Knowles, 2021), which utilizes an Excel
sheet that allows for various elds to be hidden and locked and for
individual scores from columns to be automatically calculated. The
sheet allowed for the scoring of individuals’ words and sketches.
The Poquiz Scoring system (Poquiz, 2012a, 2012b) is based on a
systematic interpretation of the traditional SRI 7-point scale (Targ et al.,
1995). Poquiz’s interpretation uses numerically dened levels based on
percentage values of correct and incorrect matches and the percentage
value of unknown matches. The core concept of this approach involves
systematically listing out every single descriptor and sketch from the
viewer’s session into a spreadsheet. Each descriptor and sketch is then
rated by a judge as “Yes,” “No,” or “Unknown.” The unknown response
means the judge cannot evaluate the perception, but that does not
necessarily mean it is correct or incorrect. For example, if the photo is
of an ocean and the viewer says they feel a breeze, or smell sh, or hear
birds. If these are not in the photo some judges may feel they cannot
evaluate such impressions, but the impressions are not necessarily
wrong.
This Phase I judging was completed by the viewers (self-judging),
followed by independent judging by others who evaluated the same
items. Judging was completed for one trial before the next trial could
begin. This approach provides no statistical means to determine
whether scores diered from chance. However, it was possible to
compare the proportion of “yes” ratings (hit rate) across the three
background conditions.
Phase II Judging
Judges for Phase II analysis method (sum of ranks matching).
Twelve judges with remote viewing experience were recruited. These
included newer remote viewing students and those who had either
served as viewers, judges, or managers in multiple projects over the
course of many years. One Phase II judge was assigned to one viewer,
so that the same judge rated all 30 transcripts for that viewer. Most
completed these during a one-week period following the completion
of all viewing trials.

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
76 7
Phase II judging approach. Using standard matching procedures,
the 12 judges compared the viewers’ data sheets and sketches to a
randomly selected set of four photos, rank ordering the matches from 1
through 4 (best match to worst match) using the sum of ranks method
described by Solfvin et al. (1978).
Judging sets. The sets of four photos were created by Researcher
#1 (Katz). Three decoy photos were chosen from the same royalty-
free websites per the same rules as the original targets and combined
with the target image into a set. While other experiments have oen
used the targets for one trial as decoys in another, researchers wanted
to avoid the possibility of judges logically dismissing certain photo
choices because they had seen them appear elsewhere. This was found
to be a problem with early remote viewing experiments (Utts, 2018). For
this reason, it was decided that photos in the judging sets would not
repeat. Once all 30 sets of targets and decoys were created, these were
randomized by an online survey program which automatically shued
the sets into dierent positions for each judge.
Phase II judging sets followed the criteria for creating sets that have
been outlined in the work of May et al. (1990) as far as the importance
of photos to be orthogonally dierent, yet similar as far as their level
of interest, emotionality, and in entropy. To ensure the photos within
each set of four were dierent from each other, the following rules were
established for creation of the sets: All photos in a set ideally should
have dierent backgrounds in terms of all major and minor gestalts
(water, land, structure, air). All objects should dier as much as possible
in shape, color, size, texture, luminosity, patterns, number, concept,
and function. To ensure that judges’ choices were based on the quality
of the remote viewing session rather than on clues that could skew
results, each photo set contained dierent objects set within the same
background type. For example, targets with white backgrounds were
paired with three decoy photos of objects against white backgrounds.
RESULTS
Summary of Remote Viewing Sessions
A total of 360 remote viewing (RV) sessions were completed by the
12 viewers. Each viewer completed all 30 target images, ten in each of

768 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
TABLE 4
Number of Descriptive Items and Sketches by Viewer over 30 Trials
Values include Mean (SD) and minimum and maximum number.
Duration includes Mean (SD) and minimum and maximum time reported by the viewer.
Viewer ID Number of Descriptive
Items per Trial
Number of Sketches
per Trial
Duration of
Viewing (min)
Akeru 70.3 (16.0) 24 – 107 7.1 (2.8) 3 - 14 49.7 (24.6) 10 – 130
Athena 10.9 (3.6) 4 – 21 2.4 (1.1) 0 – 4 6.4 (3.7) 2 – 18
Bucephalus 28.6 (6.0) 19 - 40 1.9 (0.3) 1 – 2 11.4 (1.5) 8 – 15
Chicchan 23.4 (5.2) 16 – 43 4.2 (1.1) 3 - 7 7.0 (2.2) 4 – 11
Hashem 24.8 (5.7) 15 – 35 2.6 (1.2) 1 – 5 21.5 (15.9) 10 – 86
Isis 97.8 (23.5) 53 – 139 11.0 (3.) 6 – 16 23.5 (8.0) 12 – 40
Neptune 19.9 (4.2) 11 – 28 2.9 (1.1) 1 – 5 12.8 (3.6) 6 – 20
Nuadu 18.8 (5.7) 12 – 40 3.6 (1.1) 2 – 6 26.0 (5.7) 6 – 36
Parvati 6.1 (3.0) 1 – 12 7.8 (3.5) 2 – 15 19.5 (6.4) 8 – 30
Sulis 38.1 (5.5) 27 – 46 1.0 (0.0) 1 –1 23.7 (5.7) 10 – 35
Tawa 11.6 (2.6) 7 – 17 2.8 (0.8) 1 – 5 44.5 (11.3) 28 – 70
Zeus 10.0 (2.4) 5 – 15 1.9 (0.9) 1 – 4 9.4 (3.4) 5 – 23
the three background conditions. Viewer transcripts provided a total of
8,460 descriptive items and 1,472 sketches for evaluation. The number
of descriptive items and the number of sketches found within the
remote viewing transcripts varied amongst the 12 viewers, with some
providing many more than others. Table 4 summarizes these data.

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
76 9
Analysis of Sum of Ranks Scores (Phase II)
Hypothesis # 1—The primary hypothesis of the study was that
the background in which an object is positioned would aect remote
viewing success. This was conrmed. However, the prediction, based
on visual perception research, that performance would be best in the
normal background condition was not conrmed. Instead, for this
form of judging involving a matching task activity, it was conrmed
that trials containing objects shown on a white background were
more successful than those with objects embedded within normal or
abnormal conditions.
Repeated-measures analysis of variance of the target rank score
for each transcript was conducted with a regression model including
factors for background condition and target within condition (Proc
Mixed, SAS ver. 9.4, SAS Systems, Cary, NC). Analysis revealed a
signicant dierence among the three background conditions (F(2,22)
= 5.58, p = .01). Pairwise comparisons of the three conditions revealed
that the sum of ranks for the White background (M = 21.2, SE = 0.97)
was signicantly lower than for the Normal background (M = 25.5, SE
= 1.0). This dierence was 4.3 (SE = 1.4), with p = .005. (Note: For those
unfamiliar with this type of analysis, lower indicates a stronger eect.)
Similar dierences were found between the White background and the
Abnormal background (M = 24.7, SE = 1.0) with a dierence of 3.5 (SE =
1.4) and p = .02. However, sum of ranks scores did not dier between
the Normal and Abnormal background conditions (p = .5).
Hypothesis # 2—The hypothesis that some participants would
perform better than others also turned out to be correct. The overall
success of remote viewing was assessed for each individual viewer,
both within each of the three background conditions (N = 10 sessions)
and across all three conditions (N = 30 sessions) using Monte Carlo
simulations programmed in SAS ver. 9.4 (SAS Systems, Cary, NC).
Simulations based on 10,000 trials revealed that a sum of ranks
≤19 exceeded the criterion for signicance at p ≤ .05 (one-tailed) for N
= 10 targets and four possible ranks. For the 36 combinations of viewer
and background condition, only ve of the calculated sums of ranks
scores were found to be signicantly smaller than chance. The lowest
four sums of ranks were all in the White background condition, and

770 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
the h was in the Abnormal background condition. When all 30 trials
were evaluated, the simulation estimate for 30 trials and four ranks
was sum of ranks ≤65 for p ≤ .05 (one-tailed), which only three of the 12
viewers achieved. These three participants achieved performance better
than chance in both analyses, total and by condition.
Analysis of Phase I Judging—Item Hit Rate/Transcript Analysis
The secondary objective of the project was to explore an alternative
procedure for evaluation of the RV transcripts, which assigned each
descriptive item and sketch in the transcript a designation of “hit”
or “miss” based on its relevance to the target object. Scores for each
transcript were summarized for each target as the proportion of correct
scores (“hit rate”), with separate hit rates calculated for descriptive items
and for sketches. These two hit rates were averaged to yield a combined
score that weighted them equally, despite the much higher number
of descriptive items. Separate scores were created for the viewer (self-
judging) and independent judge ratings that scored each transcript.
Separate repeated-measures analyses of variance were conducted
for the viewer self-ratings and the independent judge ratings (SAS
9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Results for these analyses were mixed.
For viewer self-rating scores, the eect of background condition was
signicant for the combined hit rates (F(2,22) = 4.53, p = .02). Pairwise
comparisons of the conditions for viewer self-ratings indicated that
hit rates for the Normal and Abnormal backgrounds were signicantly
higher than for the White background (see Table 3). This eect was
opposite to that found in the analysis of sum of ranks scores.
However, for the independent judges’ scores, the eect of condition
was not signicant (F(2,22) = 1.76, p = .19). Results are summarized in
Table 5.
Hypothesis #3—object categorization. Our hypothesis that more
of the viewers’ correct impressions would pertain to the background
than to the main object (based on the premise they are more experienced
describing locations than objects) is rejected. Results indicated that
viewers more oen described the object than the background. We had
hypothesized the opposite result would be true, based on our viewers’
responses during a pre-experimental survey that they were more
experienced with describing locations.

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
7 7 1
TABLE 5
Eects of Background Condition on Viewer and Judge Ratings (Hit Rate) of
Descriptive Items and Sketches for N = 30 Targets in Three Background Conditions
Combined ratings equally weight items and sketch ratings for each viewer and trial.
Condition
Effect
df = (2,22)
Normal
Background
M (SEM)
Abnormal
Background
M (SEM)
White
Background
M (SEM)
Viewers
Combined
Hit Rates
F(2,22) = 4.53,
p = .02 0.61 (0.05) 0.62 (0.05) 0.53 (0.05)
Judges
Combined
Hit Rates
F(2,22) = 1.76,
p = .19 0.43 (0.05) 0.46 (0.05) 0.41 (0.05)
Instructions for item scoring dened a hit as the relevant presence
of the descriptor or sketch to any part of the target image. Using the
data available for independent judges, each hit was assigned to one of
four categories related to: the main object of the target; the background
of the object; a non-essential or peripheral object in the image; or more
than one of these.
Because trials yielded widely varying numbers of item and sketch
hits, the number of hits assigned to each category was converted to a
proportion of the total for that trial.
Table 6 summarizes the distribution of these data. Category
proportions for each trial were averaged for each viewer, using all
available trials. The viewer averages were then combined into an
overall average for all viewers. A total of 207 trials were evaluated in
this manner. The overall averages indicated that the majority of items
were determined to be associated with the main object, with an
average across viewers of 0.64. Much smaller proportions of items were
associated with the image background (0.09), non-essential objects in
the image (0.14), and more than one category (0.17). The results for
individual viewers in Table 6 suggest large variations among viewers in
the proportion of items specic to the target object.

772 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
TABLE 6
Average Proportions of Transcript Items (Descriptors and
Sketches) Relevant to Four Categories within the Target Image by Viewer
N = number of targets included for each viewer.
Viewer N Main Object Background Non-Essential
Object
Multiple
Categories
Akeru 17 0.70 0.06 0.20 0.03
Athena 13 0.54 0.20 0.12 0.21
Bucephalus 18 0.45 0.03 0.18 0.30
Chicchan 16 0.66 0.22 0.24 0.18
Hashem 18 0.41 0.05 0.14 0.40
Isis 18 0.72 0.06 0.21 0.03
Neptune 18 0.53 0.13 0.08 0.27
Nuada 18 0.66 0.03 0.13 0.09
Parvati 17 0.98 0.07 0.05 0.09
Sulis 18 0.86 0.05 0.15 0.13
Tawa 18 0.48 0.04 0.10 0.02
Zeus 18 0.67 0.08 0.06 0.23
Comparisons of hit rates for viewers and independent judges.
It was found that viewers acting as self-judges scored more of their
own words and sketches higher than the independent judges did when
rating the same information.
The dierence between viewer and independent judge hit rate for
each target was determined and summarized across targets (Table 7).
Evaluation of the dierences by t test revealed statistical signicance
for 5 of 12 viewers, all with higher hit rates for viewers. Comparing
the average dierence for all targets across the group of 12 viewers by

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
7 7 3
paired t test revealed that viewers’ hit rates (M = 0.58) were signicantly
higher than those for independent judges (M = 0.43) with t(11) = 2.99,
p = .01.
The retest reliability of hit rates for viewers and judges, which is a
measure of the consistency of scores between these two categories of
raters, was evaluated by correlation/regression using the mean values
for each viewer (N = 30 trials). The correlation between mean values of
hit rates for viewers and judges was not signicant (r= 0.33,p= .30).
The linear regression of viewer mean scores on judges mean scores
yieldedF(1,10) = 1.18,p=.30, withR2= 0.10. Results show that mean hit
rates for viewers and judges were unrelated and seemingly independent
of one another.
TABLE 7
Comparisons of Target Hit Rates for Viewers and Independent Judges
Viewer Mean Hit Rate (N = 30 trials) Test of Mean Dierence t(29), (p)
Viewer Self-
Rating
Independent
Judge
Akeru 0.73 0.25 11.5 (<.00000)
Athena 0.64 0.57 1.1 (.27)
Bucephalus 0.45 0.42 0.6 (.57)
Chicchan 0.36 0.40 –1.3 (.22)
Hashem 0.73 0.42 8.5 (<.00000)
Isis 0.56 0.15 9.9 (<.00000)
Neptune 0.46 0.47 –0.2 (.88)
Nuadu 0.57 0.47 1.7 (.11)
Parvati 0.59 0.61 –0.4 (.70)
Sulis 0.78 0.71 1.3 (.22)
Tawa 0.42 0.26 3.8 (<.001)
Zeus 0.75 0.48 5.3 (<.00001)

774 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
TABLE 8
Relationship between Phase 1 Hit Rate and Phase 2 Rank for Target Match
F(3,33) (p) Estimated Hit Rate by Match Rank (M (sem))
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4
Viewer
Self-Rating
6.20 (.002) 0.64 (0.04) 0.62 (0.05) 0.55 (.05) 0.50 (0.05)
Independent
Judge
3.70 (.02) 0.48 (0.05) 0.46 (0.05) 0.42 (0.05) 0.37 (0.05)
DISCUSSION
Rationale for Including Two Dierent Types of Analysis & Self-Judging
for Phase
When rst designing the study, researchers wanted to avoid a
method of analysis that would require the use of photo sets involving
decoys, due to the extent of displacement they felt they had personally
witnessed in participating in dozens of other projects utilizing matching
tasks methods.
Displacement is thought to occur when a psi percipient who is
attempting to obtain information about a target or subject matter
instead accesses information that is spatially or temporally removed
from the designated target. This eect has been observed by numerous
Relationship of Phase 1 hit rate and Phase 2 rank. The relation-
ship between the viewer and independent judge hit rate score and
matching rank were evaluated using repeated-measures analysis
with Proc Mixed (SAS 9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, NC) with factors for
trial and viewer. Statistically signicant eects of rank were observed
for viewer and independent judge hit rates.Results are summarized
in Table 8. Estimated hit rates from the models indicate that hit rate
was highest for targets given the best (lowest) rank and decreased
monotonically as the rank increased. These results provide supportive
evidence of a relationship between the two methods of judging for the
trial transcript.

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
7 7 5
researchers, starting as early as 1884 when Richet found a decline in
results not due to lack of the existence of psi but because of “consistent
confusions of one target for another” (Alvarado, 2008, p. 543). He
was followed by others such as Bruck (1925) in relation to hypnotized
subjects and Sinclair (1930) in relation to subjects performing telepathic
and clairvoyant tasks who sometimes described a photo intended for a
future date.
The actual term “displacement” or “displacement eect” was
coined by Carrington in 1940, who ultimately concluded, “On the
whole I think there is very little to be said about forced matching for
this purpose, or any other. . . . it is liable to be completely wrecked from
the phenomenon of displacement” (p. 74). J. B. Rhine in 1950 wrote
that “Pratt and Foster of the Duke Laboratory have recently found that
the subject’s displacement and consistent missing combined may
produce a highly complex pattern of signicant eects” (Pratt et al.,
1940). In 1953, Rhine’s wife, Louisa, turned away from forced guessing
experiments, opting for a qualitative focus, explaining “Over the years,
subjects in tests have seldom made perfect scores, and such frustrating
eects such as displacement and psi missing have frequently been
encountered” (Rhine, 1962a, 1962b). Tart (1980) explored this topic
further in a paper titled, “Are we interested in making Psi function
strongly and reliably?” also arguing against the use of matching tasks.
According to Milton (1986a, 1986b), Tart’s paper reinvigorated interest
in the topic of displacement and it also led to her writing an entire
dissertation on the subject. The present authors also have observed
such eects (Katz et al., 2017) and as a result were determined to nd a
way to mitigate it in the present study.
The present researchers sought to eliminate all factors that might
lead to this phenomenon. However, during their proposal review,
advisors felt that a standard matching task would be important in
terms of statistical analysis. Therefore, we came up with a compromise
to ensure that the viewer’s attention would not be likely to move to
the wrong photos in a set. We created two phases of judging, and
only informed the remote viewers of the rst phase. We instructed the
viewers that immediately upon receiving their feedback, they would
self-judge through rating every impression as correct or incorrect to
form a hit-rate score.

776 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
This would require the viewers to spend a lot of time studying
their feedback photo. While there is some recent evidence that suggests
feedback may not be necessary (Müller et al., 2019), we theorized
intensive engagement with the correct future feedback photo might
strengthen target contact as is commonly asserted by those involved in
applied projects (Katz & Knowles, 2021).
Viewers were advised that independent raters would also rate their
responses and sketches in a similar manner, within 48 hours of when
they completed their judging. In this way, all participants’ attention
was carefully directed and kept away from the Phase II Sum of Ranks
matching tasks that did use sets of four photos, with only one being
the correct target. To create even greater distance in time and space,
Phase II judging was performed by a whole dierent team of judges
than Phase I, and only occurred aer the entire experimental phase and
Phase I judging were completed. To this day, most of our viewers still
are not aware that there was a second phase of judging that involved
matching tasks and decoy photos.
Did We Manage To Avoid Displacement?
We did a sampling of the Phase II judging responses for those
trials that resulted in misses, and polled the judges, looking to see if
there were very close matches to the wrong photo in the sets. We did
not nd any examples of this. Since we can’t know if there would have
been displacement if only Phase II judging had been utilized, we can’t
say for sure that our approach of using two judging methods did in fact
reduce displacement, but this approach does seem promising. Future
projects could test this by having one group of viewers who are made
aware of matching-task independent judging and another group blind
to the procedure to see if there were dierences.
Still, we (and some of our viewers) may have seen examples of
temporal displacement to targets that appeared later (Crandall & Hite,
1983). One viewer felt this was happening quite a bit, and reviewing her
session work we agreed with a few of her examples. One viewer in an
early trial drew a picture of an accordion that was almost an identical
match to the photo of an accordion against a white background. The
odd thing was this picture did not appear in the sequence until several
weeks later (Appendix Exhibit F). We cannot say of course if this was a

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
777
displacement eect or simple coincidence but the sketch for trial 6 and
feedback photo for trial 16 are strikingly close.
Dierences Found in Judging Methods
We are somewhat perplexed at the opposite ndings on the
eects of background condition obtained by dierent judging methods
(Phase I hit rates vs. Phase II Sum of Rank Matching Tasks). One
possible explanation for this is that when it comes to matching tasks,
there are possibly dierent perceptual and cognitive processes involved
for judges. Both forms of analysis involve comparing impressions
and sketches to a photo, but a rank ordering matching task involves
repeating these comparisons multiple times per each photo in the set,
and then having to make a number of decisions and choices. Given the
complexities involved, it may be that it is simply easier for judges to
make sense of data when there is no information in the background,
hence the greater success with the white background conditions.
Regardless of the reason for the condition dierences, these results
suggest that if only a hit-rate type of approach is being used, it may
be advisable to use photos of objects within their normal or abnormal
backgrounds and to avoid the use of photos in white backgrounds.
Conversely, if a project is going to use a matching sum of ranks form
of analysis, it may then be best to use targets of objects against white
backgrounds. A word of caution though: There are many designs within
parapsychology experiments that use matching tasks but do not use
rank ordering—meaning there will be only one score given to the best
match, and no credit given to second-best match. We don’t know if we
would have obtained the same results using an alternative approach.
Dierences Found between Self-Judging and Independent Judging
For our Phase I judging protocols (hit rates), 9 out of 12 viewers
acting as self-judges (following submission of their transcripts to
researcher 2) more frequently scored their own words and sketches
correctly then did the independent judges when rating the same
information. Also, three of the four viewers who generated the highest
number of sketches and words produced the greatest dierences
between rater self-scores and independent judges scores. We cannot
say if this is due to a desire to rate themselves more highly, or because

778 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
they had a better ability to know what they meant both from their
words and from their own sketches. Given that viewers were required
to input their words into spreadsheets and submit these along with
their transcripts prior to receiving feedback and self-scoring, we are
condent it was not the case that they simply added in data aer they
received feedback.
Rater Reliability
For Phase I judging, the choice was made to have the same judge
rate all 30 transcripts for the same two viewers so there would be
consistency of judging background conditions, since this was the main
focus of our exploration. We felt the judges did maintain intra-judging
consistency, with little variability observed across trials. Although we
provided training sessions for our judges that included verbal and
written instructions, we did notice variability in judging styles between
judges. We performed an informal test of inter-rater reliability for
several of the viewers’ sessions that had the greatest disparity between
viewer’s self-scores and independent rater scores, nding that our own
scoring would have fallen somewhere in the middle of these scores.
Therefore, we feel it was not appropriate to compare hit rates among
viewers or to make denitive statements about their performance for
this method of judging. One way around this issue would have been
to assign the same judge to rate the transcripts of all 12 viewers, for
the same trial. Then to maintain consistency across background
conditions, the same judge would have to repeat the judging for all 12
viewers when the same object theme appeared two more times. Given
the time-consuming nature of scoring all words and sketches, this may
have been too formidable a task for some judges, although perhaps not
so much so that we’d rule it out if we repeated the study.
Viewers described the main object. We originally hypothesized
that given that the remote viewers are more experienced with describing
locations, we expected they might be likely to describe locations rather
than the main object. We hoped this was not the case, but just expected
it to be, especially since over the years we have heard viewers express
a dislike for photographs of objects rather than locations. They were
instructed that the target pool consisted of objects within a variety of
locations, and that their goal was to describe the main object, but that

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
7 7 9
all correct information pertaining to every element (whether object
or background) would be scored as correct. They proved us wrong,
as results indicated they did most oen describe the main object.
However, since they knew that the photos did all involve a main object,
we cannot say whether their own perception naturally and involuntarily
went to these objects, or whether they directed themselves through
voluntary attention (Ribot, 1903) to focus on the objects themselves.
This brings us to one of the main aims of our study: Did results
correlate with Barenholtz’ “normal” visual perception study ndings?
Again, for item/sketch hit rates it did, for matching sum of ranks tasks
it did not. One may want to keep in mind that her design involved
single participants attempting to recognize objects set within dierent
backgrounds as pixels were increased as their response times were
measured. There was no judging involved and hence no perceptual
aspects of judges to potentially impact the process.
In Conclusion
Throughout our literature review two theoretical assumptions
seemed to motivate investigations into target characteristics. The
rst was that a universalized set of characteristics for target material
could, or should, be found, to enhance the non-local perception of
all participants. The second was an acknowledgement that target
characteristics may be more individualized, having a dierent eect
on dierent viewers based on factors such as personal preferences,
interests, experiences, and personality traits.
Given that only a few of our experienced remote viewers who have
reputations for doing well at location-based targets achieved signicant
results for these object-oriented targets, future researchers should not
expect that a remote viewer who performed well in one project with
a completely dierent set of targets and protocols, will necessarily
perform the same way with other materials and protocols.
Object categories and future research. Finally, we’d just
like to say a bit more about the object categories. As noted above,
choices were made to include some objects as targets based on past
parapsychological literature demonstrating that arousing images (such
as those of a sexual or violent nature or having more numinosity or
entropy) may produce a stronger eect. These include bras, cigarettes,

780 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
and guns and exploding items. Since comparing types of objects was
not part of our original plan, we did not do a formal analysis of which
targets produced the best results overall. However, we had a couple of
volunteers go through all transcripts
and visually choose which images
stood out as the most striking matches to the target photos. In our
Appendix we present a few of these. Exhibits A and C show examples of
sketches related to our smoking targets. Exhibit B shows sketches for
the nuclear explosion target, and Exhibit D shows examples of sketches
produced in relation to the guns. One viewer referred to the older rie
as a “collector gun.” Exhibit E shows one of our food targets, a cake,
which some viewers we know anecdotally have shared they tend to miss.
That viewer correctly identied it as a “cake,” although misidentied it as
a wedding cake instead of a birthday cake. What these examples suggest
is that the target pool that was specically created for this project may
hold merit for other projects, whether simply to use as targets or to be
compared to each other to see which produce higher hit rates based on
the object content alone. These can be made available to other serious
researchers upon request.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was a recipient of the IRVA/IRIS Warcollier Pr-
oposal Award. Special thanks to Dr. Paul H. Smith for his editorial
assistance.
REFERENCES
Alvarado, C. (2008). Note on Charles Richet’s ‘‘La Suggestion Mentale et le Calcul
des Probabilits’’ (1884). Journal of Scientic Exploration, 22(4), 543–548.
Barenholtz, E. (2013). Quantifying the role of context in visual object recognition.
Visual Cognition, 22(1), 30–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.865694
Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous
retroactive inuences on cognition and aect. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 100(3), 407–425. 10.1037/a0021524
Brier, R. M. (1976). Correspondence ESP experiment with high I.Q. subjects. Journal
of Parapsychology, 31(2), 143–148.
Bruck, C. (1925). Experimentelle telepathie. Proceedings, 35, 466–469. BR/PSI-X/
telepath/France.
Carrington, W. (1940/1941). Experiments on the paranormal cognition of drawings.
Proceedings of the Society of Psychical Research, 46, 34–151.

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
7 8 1
Crandall, J. E., & Hite, D. D. (1983). Psi-missing and displacement: Evidence for
improperly focused psi? Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research,
77(3), 209–288.
Delanoy, D. L. (1989). Characteristics of successful free-response targets:
Experimental ndings and observations. In L. A. Henkel & R. E. Berger
(Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1988 (pp. 92–95). Scarecrow.
Gaenir, P. J. (2013). Target reference number generator. http://www.learnrv.com/
generator/
Honorton, C. (1985). Meta-analysis of psi ganzfeld research: A response to Hyman.
Journal of Parapsychology, 49(1), 51–91.
Honorton, C., & Schechter, E. I. (1987). Ganzfeld target retrieval with an automated
testing system: A model for initial ganzfeld success. In D. H. Weiner & R. D.
Nelson (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1986 (pp. 36–39). Scarecrow.
Honorton, C., Berger, R. E., Varvoglis, M. P., Quant, M., Derr, P., Schechter, E. I.,
& Ferrari, D. C. (1990). Psi communication in the ganzfeld: Experiments
with an automated testing system and a comparison with a meta-analysis
of earlier studies. Journal of Parapsychology, 54(2), 99–139.
Katz, D. L., & Bulgatz, M. (2013, Spring/Summer). Remote viewing the outcome of
the 2012 presidential election. Aperture Magazine, 46–56.
Katz, D. L., & Knowles, J. (2021). Associative remote viewing: The art & science of
predicting outcomes for sports, politics, nances and the lottery. Living Dreams.
Katz, D. L., Bulgatz, M., & McLaughlin-Walter, N. (2017). Predicting the 2016 U.S.
Presidential Election using a double blind associative remote viewing
protocol. Eight Martini’s, 15, 4–15.
Katz, D. L., Grgic, I., & Fendley, T. W. (2018a). An ethnographical assessment of
Project Firey: A yearlong endeavor to create wealth by predicting FOREX
currency moves with associative remote viewing. Journal of Scientic Explor-
ation 32(1), 21–54.
Katz, D. L., Grigc, I., & Tressoldi, P. (2018b). The ARV rejudging project. Conference
Proceedings of the Journal of Parapsychology, 82(2), 118–119.
Katz, D. L., Smith, N., Bulgatz, M., Gra, M., Gra, D., & Lane, J. (2019a). The
Associative Remote Dreaming Experiment: A novel approach to predicting
future outcomes of sporting events. Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 83(2), 65–84.
Katz, D. L., Bulgatz, M., & Targ, R. (2019b). The other half of Hella’s brain—An
intimate conversation with Russell Targ. Eight Martini’s: The State of the Art
of Remote Viewing, 19, 4–20.
Krippner, S., & Zeichner, S. (1974). Descriptive analysis of art prints telepathically
transmitted during sleep. In W. G. Roll, R. L. Morris, & J. D. Morris (Eds.),
Research in Parapsychology 1973 (pp. 27–28). Scarecrow Press.
Krippner, S., Saunders, D., Morgan, A., & Quan, A. (2018). Remote viewing of
concealed target pictures under light and dark conditions. Explore: The
Journal of Science and Healing, 15(1), 27–37. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2018.07.001

782 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
May, E. C. (2011). Possible thermodynamic limits to anomalous cognition: Entropy
gradients. Journal of the Society for Psychic Research, 75, 65–75.
May, E. C., & Lantz, N.D. (1991). Target and sender dependencies in anomalous
cognition. Presented to the Scientic Oversight Committee. SAIC.
May, E., Utts, J. M., Humphrey, B. S., Luke, W. W., Frivold, T. J., & Trask, V. (1990).
Advances in remote viewing analysis. Journal of Parapsychology, 54(3), 193–228.
May, E. C., Spottiswoode, D. J. P., & James, C. L. (1994a). Shannon entropy: A
possible intrinsic target property. Journal of Parapsychology, 58, 384–401.
May, E. C., Spottiswoode, S. J. P, & James, C. L. (1994b). Managing the target-pool
bandwidth: Possible noise reduction for anomalous cognition experiments.
Journal of Parapsychology, 58(3), 303–313.
Milton, J. (1986a). A critical review on the displacement eect. Proceedings of
the Society for Psychical Research 1928–1952 [notes with mentions of dis-
placement] https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-
00792R000701040005-1.pdf
Milton, J. (1986b). Thesis on displacement. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical
Research 1928–1952 [notes with mentions of displacement]. Journal of Society
for Psychical Research 1884–1952. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/
docs/CIA-RDP96- 00792R000701040005-1.pdf
Mitchell, J. L. (1981). Verbal and performance skills in relation to ESP. [Ph.D.
Disssertation, City University of New York]. https://www.proquest.com/
openview/ab37767d3978277465acc8f2e0a5a4be/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=
18750&diss=y
Mitchell, J. L. (1988). Out-of-body experiences: A handbook. Aquarian Press.
Morehouse, D. (1998). Psychic warrior: The true story of America’s foremost psychic spy
and the cover-up of the CIA’S top secret Stargate Program. St. Martin’s.
Morris, R. L. (1977). The Airport Project: A survey of the techniques for psychic
development advocated by popular books. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll., &
R. L. Morris (Eds.), Research in parapsychology (pp. 54–56). Scarecrow Press.
Müller, M., Müller, L., & Wittmann, M. (2019). Predicting the stock market. An
associative remote viewing study. Zeitschri für Anomalistik, 19, 326–346.
Nash, C. S., & Nash, C. B. (1961). An ESP experiment with targets that dier in
degree of similarity. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research,
55, 73–76.
Poquiz, A. (2012a). Dung Beetle Scoring System (aka Poquiz Rating Method). http://
www.appliedprecog.com/#!Dung-Beetle-Scoring-System-AKA-Poquiz-
Rating-Method/cut6/252C8A56-B4A4-4EB0-8754-4642D71C125E
Poquiz, A. (2012b). Alexis Poquiz Capstone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STGIKHbBUio
Pratt, J. G., Smith, B. M., Rhine, J. B., Stuart, C. E., & Greenwood, J. A. (1940).
Extra-sensory perception aer sixty years: A critical appraisal of the research in
extra-sensory perception. Henry Holt.
Rhine, L. (1962a). Psychological processes in ESP experiences: Part I. Waking
experiences. Journal of Parapsychology, 26, 88–111.

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
7 8 3
Rhine, L. (1962b). Psychological processes in ESP experiences. Part II. Dreams.
Journal of Parapsychology, 26, 172–199.
Ribot, T. (1903). The psychology of attention. Forgotten Books. [Authorized trans.]]
Rosenblatt, M. (2000). Applications: AVM Precognition Project: Summary of
results for protocol-1. Connections Through Time, 7(April/June). http://p-i-a.
com/Magazine/Issue7/Applications_7.htm
Rosenblatt, R., Knowles, J., & Poquiz, A. (2015). Applied Precognition Project (APP)
and a summary of APP-2014. Connections Through Time, 38(April 2015–March
2016). http://p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue38/Connections_38.html
Schmeidler, G. (1977). Letter from Schmeidler to Ingo on relationship between
psi and perception. University of West Georgia Special Collections. https://
uwg.galileo.usg.edu/repositories/2/resources/274
Schwartz, S. A. (1977). Two application-oriented experiments employing a
submarine involving a novel remote viewing protocol, one testing the
ELF hypothesis. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 83(2), 84. doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.22217.95846
Schwartz, S. A. (2019). The location and reconstruction of a Byzantine structure in
Marea, Egypt, including a comparison of electronic remote sensing and
remote viewing. Journal of Scientic Exploration, 33(3), 451–480.
Sinclair, U. (1930). Mental radio. Hampton Roads.
Smith, P. H. (2005). Reading the enemy’s mind. Forge Books.
Smith, P. (2014). CRV—Controlled remote viewing: Manuals, collected papers &
information to help you learn controlled remote viewing. Amazon Digital
Services.
Solfvin, G. F., Kelly, E. F., & Burdick, D. S. (1978). Some new methods of analysis
for preferential-ranking data. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 72(2), 93–109.
Storm L., Tressoldi P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2010). Meta-analysis of free-
response studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the noise reduction model in
parapsychology. doi:10.1037/a0019457
Swann, I., & Putho, H. (1987). Natural ESP: The ESP core and its raw characteristics.
Bantam Books.
Targ, R., & Putho, H. E. (1974). Information transfer under conditions of sensory
shielding. Nature 252, 602–607.
Targ, R., & Putho, H. E. (1977). Mind reach. Delacorte Press.
Targ, R., & Putho, H. (2005). Mind-reach: Scientists look at psychic abilities (2nd ed.).
Hampton Roads.
Targ, R., Kantra, J., Brown, D., & Wiegand, W. (1995). Viewing the future: A pilot
study with an error-detecting protocol. Journal of Scientic Exploration, 9(3)
367–380.
Tart, C. T. (1980). Are we interested in making ESP function strongly and reliably?
A reply to J. E. Kennedy. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research,
74(2), 210–222.

784 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
Thorpe, S. (2013). J. B. Rhine banquet address. Conference proceedings 56th Annual
Convention of the Parapsychological Association, Viterbo, Italy.
Thouless, R. H., & Brier, R. M. (1970). The stacking eect & methods of correcting
for it. The Journal of Parapsychology 34(2), 124–128.
Tressoldi, P. E., & Storm, L. (2020). Stage 1 registered report: Anomalous
perception in a Ganzfeld condition: A meta-analysis of more than 40 years
investigation. F1000 Research, 9, 826). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC7883320.3/
Utts, J. (2018). An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning. Journal of
Parapsychology, 82, 118–146. https://67f74e9a-5796-416c-b911-abd91a170bd3.
lesusr.com/ugd/82c4a8_100ed65cae6649949ca3ddd6e0ef0527.pdf
Warcollier, R. (1938). Experiments in telepathy. Harper.
Warcollier, R. (1948). Mind to mind. Hampton Roads Publishing.
Watt, C. A. (1989). Characteristics of successful free-response targets: Theoretical
considerations. In L. A. Henkel & R. E. Berger (Eds.), Research in para-
psychology (pp. 95–99). Scarecrow.
Williams, L. V., & Siegel, D. S. (2014). The Oxford handbook of the economics of
gambling. OUP.
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT A

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
7 8 5
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT B

786 Debra Lynne Katz, James D. Lane, and Michelle Bulgatz
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
"Wedding Cake.” “Feels like there is writing on it.” “Many layers,” “Golden Brown”

Effects of Background in Photo Targets on Remote Viewer Performance
7 8 7
EXHIBIT F
Example of potential out-of-time sequence displacement.