People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation symptom scores

Helané Wahbeh; Dean Radin

doi:10.12688/f1000research.12019.1

Home Browse People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Note

People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation symptom scores

[version 1; peer review: 1 not approved]

Helané Wahbeh ^1,2, Dean Radin¹

PUBLISHED 10 Aug 2017

Author details Author details

¹ Institute of Noetic Sciences, Petaluma, CA, 94952, USA
² Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

Helané Wahbeh
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Dean Radin
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: Dissociative states exist on a continuum from nonpathological expressions, such as highway hypnosis and day-dreaming, to pathological states of derealization and depersonalization. Claims of anomalous information reception (AIR) are often dismissed as symptoms of dissociation disorder, despite other studies that show otherwise. This study examined the relationship of dissociation symptoms and AIR in a large convenience sample (n= 3,984).
Methods: These secondary analyses of cross-sectional survey data were examined. The survey included demographics, the Dissociation Experience Scale Taxon, and AIR data. Summary statistics and linear and logistic regressions evaluated dissociation variables and AIR endorsement relationships with and without covariates.
Results: 3023 respondents with complete data were included. Participants were mostly middle aged (51 years ± 16; range 17-96), female (70%), Caucasian (85%), college educated (88%), had an annual income over $50,000 (55%), were raised Christian (71%), and now affiliated as Spiritual but not Religious (60%). AIR ability was endorsed by 42% of participants, with their first experience starting in childhood (81%), and 53% having family members with similar experiences. The mean dissociation score was 14.4 ± 17.3 (range 0-100) for all participants and was significantly higher for AIR claimants (18.2 ± 19.3), as compared to non-claimants (11.8 ± 15.2; t = -10.3, p<0.000). In total, 11% of AIR non-endorsers and 22% of AIR endorsers had a cut-off score greater than 30 (X² = 63.0, p=<0.000).
Conclusions: Both AIR claimants and non-claimants scored lower than the clinical cutoff for dissociation, with the claimants having significantly higher scores. Future studies comparing AIR claimants versus non-claimants may benefit by incorporating comprehensive dissociation symptom measurement, as well as their effects on the person’s functionality, to discern the pathological versus non-pathological nature of purported AIR experiences.

Keywords

Dissociation, Anomalous information reception

Corresponding author: Helané Wahbeh

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This work was supported by FUNDAÇÃO BIAL (grant number No. 257/14).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2017 Wahbeh H and Radin D. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

How to cite: Wahbeh H and Radin D. People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation symptom scores [version 1; peer review: 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1416 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12019.1) First published: 10 Aug 2017, 6:1416 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12019.1) Latest published: 04 Jan 2018, 6:1416 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12019.3)

Introduction

Dissociation is conceptualized as the disruption to usually integrated functions of consciousness, memory, identity or perception of the environment¹. Dissociative Identity Disorder is defined as a personality disorder, when two or more distinct identities or personalities are present, each with its own pattern of perceiving, relating to and thinking about the environment and self. The core clinical symptoms of dissociative disorders include amnesia, depersonalization, derealization, identity confusion and identity alteration. Dissociative states are prevalent in other psychiatric disorders, such as PTSD^2,3, and are more prevalent in younger nonclinical populations³. Dissociative states exist on a continuum^4–6, from nonpathological expressions, such as highway hypnosis and day-dreaming, to pathological states of derealization (surrealness), and depersonalization (absence of identity)⁷. Almost half of United States adults have experienced a dissociative episode in their lives³.

A widespread belief possibly related to dissociation is the idea that it is possible to communicate with deceased individuals; people who report such experiences are called “mediums”⁸. A survey of 18,607 people in thirteen European countries found that 25% reported contact with the dead⁹. Some empirical literature suggests that in some cases the information obtained is accurate even under double-blind conditions^10–13. Claims of such abilities are often considered to be symptoms of dissociation disorders^5,14,15, despite the fact that pathological dissociation studies have not systematically indicated increased prevalence in people who maintain these claims compared to control groups or the general population^16,17.

This study’s aim was to examine the relationship between self-report dissociation symptoms and anomalous information reception (AIR) about deceased humans in a large convenience sample of surveyed adults. We hypothesized that the prevalence of pathological dissociative symptoms in people who claim these purported abilities would be the same as in those who do not maintain such claims.

Methods

These analyses were performed on data collected during a larger research study approved by the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) Institutional Review Board (approval number, wahh_2016_01). A survey was administered through SurveyMonkey.com with HIPAA compliant methods. Participants were recruited through the IONS Facebook page, IONS mailing lists, including the IONS membership list, and the IONS community networks.

The survey (Supplementary File 1) began with the study’s purpose and informed consent details. Date and country of birth, race, education, and childhood and current spiritual/religious affiliation and education were collected. Gender was collected on a subsample of participants. Participants indicated if they had experienced AIR or “mediumship,” defined as the “ability to mediate communication between spirits of the dead and the living or the empathic ability to feel the presence and energies of spirits,” age of onset (if applicable), and family history of AIR.

Measure

The Dissociation Experiences Scale Taxon (DES-T)¹⁸ distinguishes pathological dissociation with a cutoff score of 30, which captures 87% positive predictive value (Cronbach Alpha of 0.75)^19,20. Respondents select a percent frequency for eight dissociative symptoms. The DES-T results in two variables: a continuous variable calculated from the mean of the eight items; and a binary variable based on the >30 cutoff score¹⁸.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variable percentages were calculated and presented qualitatively. Means, standard deviations and ranges of continuous variables were calculated. Covariates included gender, age, race, education, income, childhood spirituality and current spirituality, family history, and age of the claimed ability onset. Missing values were randomly distributed except for gender. T-test and chi-square tests evaluated relationships among the demographic variables. Linear and logistic regressions evaluated dissociation variables and AIR endorsement relationships. Statistics were performed with Stata 12.0.

Results

In total, 3984 participants took the survey from May 4, 2016 to June 7, 2017. Participants were not required to complete all fields and thus only data from 3023 participants who answered the “AIR” question (question 49 of the survey) and completed the DES-T (question 75) were included. Most participants were from the United States (62.6%) followed by the United Kingdom (7.7%) and then Canada (6.3%), and the remaining participants represented thirteen other countries. Participants were mostly middle aged (51 years ± 16; range 17-96), female (70%), Caucasian (85%), college educated (88%), had an annual income over $50,000 (55%), were raised Christian (71%), and now affiliated as Spiritual but not Religious (60%; Table 1). Gender, race and current spiritual/religious affiliation were different between people who did and did not endorse AIR.

Table 1. Demographic variables for participants by purported ability for anomalous information reception about deceased humans.

Mean ± standard deviation; t, Student’s two-sample t-test statistic; X², chi-square statistic; p, probability.

	Anomalous information reception
	Yes (N=1257)	No (N=1766)	N	t/X²	p
Age, years Range	51.7 ± 14.3 17-96	51.4 ± 16.4 17-89	2751	-0.4	0.68
Gender (% female)	80	67	519	5.90	0.01
Race (% Caucasian)	87	84	2970	4.76	0.03
Education (% ≥ some college)	87	89	2977	1.66	0.20
Income (% ≥ $50,000 annual income)	39	36	2768	2.32	0.13
Childhood spiritual/religious affiliation (% Christian)	72	71	2986	0.40	0.51
Current spiritual/religious affiliation (% spiritual but not religious)	66	56	2991	29.60	0.00

AIR ability was endorsed by 42% of participants, with their first experience starting in childhood (81%), and 53% having family members with similar experiences. The mean DES-T score was 14.4 ± 17.3 (range 0-100) for all participants and was significantly higher for AIR claimants (18.2 ± 19.3) as compared to non-claimants (11.8 ± 15.2; t = -10.3, p<0.000; Table 2). A DES-T continuous variable linear regression model including all covariates found only race and education to be significant. Repeating the model with these covariates resulted in a highly significant DES-T difference between groups (F (3, 2947) = 73.2, p<0.0000). For the DES-T binary cutoff score, 11% of AIR non-endorsers and 22% of AIR endorsers had a cut-off score greater than 30 (X² = 63.0, p<0.000). These values are significantly different with education (> college) and income (>$50,000) as covariates in a logistic regression (LR X² = 99.12, p< 0.0000).

Table 2. The eight item and total means, standard deviations, and mean difference sorted by highest mean percentage by anomalous information reception.

Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. DES-T, Dissociation Experiences Scale Taxon; t - Student’s two-sample t-test statistic; p, probability.

	Anomalous information reception
DES-T Item	Yes (n=1257)	No (n=1766)	Mean difference	t	p
5. Some people sometimes have the experience of feeling that other people, objects, and the world around them are not real.	25.8 ± 32.0	17.5 ± 26.7	8.3	-7.1	0.0000
8. Some people sometimes find that they hear voices inside their head which tell them to do things or comment on things that they are doing.	25.5 ± 33.5	13.7 ± 25.7	11.8	-4.9	0.0000
3. Some people sometimes have the experience of feeling as though they are standing next to themselves or watching themselves do something and they actually see themselves as though they were looking at another person.	22.2 ± 29.8	12.9 ± 22.9	9.3	-9.7	0.0000
7. Some people find that in one situation they may act so differently compared to another situation that they feel almost as if they were two different people.	21.5 ± 30.6	17.6 ± 28.2	3.9	-4.0	0.0001
6. Some people sometimes have the experience of feeling that their body does not seem to belong to them.	20.6 ± 30.0	13.4 ± 24.5	7.2	-7.7	0.0000
1. Some people have the experience of finding themselves in a place and having no idea how they got there.	13.0 ± 23.3	7.8 ± 17.2	5.2	-7.2	0.0000
2. Some people have the experience of finding new things among their belongings that they do not remember buying.	10.4 ± 21.5	6.9 ± 17.4	3.5	-3.6	0.0003
4. Some people are told that they sometimes do not recognize friends or family members.	6.6 ± 17.7	4.3 ± 14.3	2.3	-11	0.0000
Total	18.2 ± 19.3	11.8 ± 15.2	6.4	10.3	0.0000

Dataset 1.Dissociation symptoms for those with and without self-report anomalous information reception.

DT# are the Dissociation Experience Scale Taxon items.

Discussion

In total, 42% of participants endorsed AIR experiences in this convenience sample, similar to other prevalence belief studies^9,21,22. The overall dissociation mean score for AIR respondents fell below the clinical cutoff for pathological dissociation despite being higher than and different to non-endorser scores. Much debate exists for the use of cutoff scores^18,23. Notably, the top five endorsed DES-T items were consistent with an AIR experience. Also, our total samples grand mean DES-T score was higher than observed in random general population samples¹⁹. This likely reflects the convenience sampling method for this survey, which reduces the generality of these findings. This outcome also does not clarify if AIR endorsers with high DES-T scores have the five core clinical symptoms of dissociation. Future studies comparing AIR claimants versus non-claimants may benefit by incorporating comprehensive dissociation symptom measurement, as well as their effects on the person’s functionality.

Data availability

Dataset 1: Dissociation symptoms for those with and without self-report anomalous information reception. DT# are the Dissociation Experience Scale Taxon items. doi, 10.5256/f1000research.12019.d171352²⁴

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This work was supported by FUNDAÇÃO BIAL (grant number No. 257/14).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Amira Sagher, Leena Michel and the Institute of Noetic Sciences.

Supplementary material

Supplementary File 1: Survey on genetics of psychic ability.

Click here to access the data.

F1000 recommended

References

1. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (5th ed.). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc, 2013. Publisher Full Text
2. Coons PM: Confirmation of childhood abuse in child and adolescent cases of multiple personality disorder and dissociative disorder not otherwise specified. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994; 182(8): 461–464. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Ross CA, Joshi S, Currie R: Dissociative experiences in the general population. Am J Psychiatry. 1990; 147(11): 1547–1552. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Kihlstrom JF: Dissociative disorders. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005; 1: 227–253. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Seligman R, Kirmayer LJ: Dissociative experience and cultural neuroscience: narrative, metaphor and mechanism. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2008; 32(1): 31–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Ruchsow M, Herrnberger B, Beschoner P, et al.: Error processing in major depressive disorder: evidence from event-related potentials. J Psychiatr Res. 2006; 40(1): 37–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Stolovy T, Lev-Wiesel R, Witztum E: Dissociation: adjustment or distress? Dissociative phenomena, absorption and quality of life among Israeli women who practice channeling compared to women with similar traumatic history. J Relig Health. 2015; 54(3): 1040–1051. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Haraldsson E: Popular psychology, belief in life after death and reincarnation in the Nordic countries, Western and Eastern Europe. Nordic Psychology. 2006; 58(2): 171–180. Publisher Full Text
9. Haraldsson E, Houtkooper JM: Psychic experiences in the multinational human values study: Who reports them. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. 1991; 85(2): 145–165. Reference Source
10. Delorme A, Beischel J, Michel L, et al.: Electrocortical activity associated with subjective communication with the deceased. Front Psychol. 2013; 4: 834. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Delorme A, Pierce A, Michel L, et al.: Prediction of Mortality Based on Facial Characteristics. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016; 10: 173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Beischel J, Boccuzzi M, Biuso M, et al.: Anomalous information reception by research mediums under blinded conditions II: replication and extension. Explore (NY). 2015; 11(2): 136–142. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Beischel J, Schwartz GE: Anomalous information reception by research mediums demonstrated using a novel triple-blind protocol. Explore (NY). 2007; 3(1): 23–27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Castillo RJ: Trance, functional psychosis, and culture. Psychiatry. 2003; 66(1): 9–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Seligman R: Distress, dissociation, and embodied experience: Reconsidering the pathways to mediumship and mental health. Ethos. 2005; 33(1): 71–99. Publisher Full Text
16. Roxburgh EC, Roe CA: A survey of dissociation, boundary-thinness, and psychological wellbeing in spiritualist mental mediumship. The Journal of Parapsychology. 2011; 75(2): 279–299. Reference Source
17. Negro PJ Jr, Palladino-Negro P, Louzã MR: Do religious mediumship dissociative experiences conform to the sociocognitive theory of dissociation? J Trauma Dissociation. 2002; 3(1): 51–73. Publisher Full Text
18. Waller NG, Ross CA: The prevalence and biometric structure of pathological dissociation in the general population: taxometric and behavior genetic findings. J Abnorm Psychol. 1997; 106(4): 499–510. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Waller N, Putnam FW, Carlson EB: Types of dissociation and dissociative types: A taxometric analysis of dissociative experiences. Psychol Methods. 1996; 1(3): 300–321. Publisher Full Text
20. Zingrone NL, Alvarado CS: The Dissociative Experiences Scale-II: Descriptive Statistics, Factor Analysis, and Frequency of Experiences. Imagin Cogn Pers. 2001; 21(2): 145–157. Publisher Full Text
21. Greeley A: Mysticism goes mainstream. American Health. 1987; 7: 47–49. Reference Source
22. Castro M, Burrows R, Wooffitt R: The paranormal is (still) normal: The sociological implications of a survey of paranormal experiences in Great Britain. Sociol Res Online. 2014; 19(3): 16. Publisher Full Text
23. Leavitt F: Dissociative Experiences Scale Taxon and measurement of dissociative pathology: Does the taxon add to an understanding of dissociation and its associated pathologies? J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 1999; 6(4): 427–440. Publisher Full Text
24. Wahbeh H, Radin D: Dataset 1 in: People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation symptom scores. F1000Research. 2017. Data Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 10 Aug 2017

Author details Author details

¹ Institute of Noetic Sciences, Petaluma, CA, 94952, USA
² Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

Helané Wahbeh
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Dean Radin
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This work was supported by FUNDAÇÃO BIAL (grant number No. 257/14).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 04 Jan 2018, 6:1416

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12019.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 23 Oct 2017, 6:1416

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12019.2

version 1

Published: 10 Aug 2017, 6:1416

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12019.1

© 2017 Wahbeh H and Radin D. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Wahbeh H and Radin D. People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation symptom scores [version 1; peer review: 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1416 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12019.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 10 Aug 2017

Views

Reviewer Report 21 Aug 2017

Etzel Cardeña, Center for Research on Consciousness and Anomalous Psychology (CERCAP), Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.12999.r24906

This paper is a good example of why the F1000Research model is so bad... The manuscript is poorly written, does not show a good grasp of the relevant literature or that a good literature search was conducted, misrepresents some of its references, and very probably has an important mistake in a Table or its analyses. All of these issues could have been solved during the regular peer review process so that at the end the only publicly available version would have been an adequate one.

Although it is a short paper, it would take me too long to list all of the problems in it, so I will just mention 2-3 examples per problematic issue:

Poor writing:
From the abstract: a) "symptoms of [a] dissociation [dissociative] disorder". b) "Both AIR claimants and non-claimants scored lower than the clinical cutoff" [despite the previous sentence in the abstract mentioning that percentages of both groups had scored above the cutoff. c) "incorporating [a] comprehensive dissociative symptom measurement, as well as their effects on the person's functionality" [grammatical number is inconsistent, besides the fact that "measurement[s]" would not have an effect on functionality.
Inadequate coverage of the literature:
a) There have been various recent studies specifically evaluating possible psychopathology in people reporting anomalous experiences (in general) and spirit possession/mediumship (in particular), yet only very few are listed in the Reference section. b) Contrary to what the authors write that "Claims of such abilities are often considered to be symptoms of dissociation [dissociative] disorders", yet both the anthropological literature and, more relevant in this case, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual taxonomy, ever since its 4th edition, has specifically required that clinically significant levels of distress or dysfunction be present to consider a dissociative manifestation pathological.
Misrepresentations of cited literature:
a) A paper by Rebecca Seligman is used to support the above quotation that mediumship abilities are often considered to be symptoms of dissociation, yet she specifically states that "dissociation is not a pathological experience, but rather a therapeutic mechanism", along the lines of what others in anthopology and psychology have written. b) "Almost half of United States adults...", yet this study was conducted in Winnipeg, Canada.
Statistical issues:
a) In Table 1, a 3% difference (87 vs 84%) is reported as significant at the minus .05 level, yet an almost identical difference with about the same number of participants (87 vs 89%) is reported as non-significant. I very much doubt that both statements, particularly the first one, are accurate. b) There are multiple references to probability values = 0 or less than 0, but of course it goes against inferential statistics to state that instead of, for example, less than .001, or whatever.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 23 Oct 2017

Helané Wahbeh, Oregon Health & Science University, USA

23 Oct 2017

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1

"This paper is a good example.....so that at the end the only publicly available version would have been an adequate one."
-Thank you for you ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer #1

"This paper is a good example.....so that at the end the only publicly available version would have been an adequate one."
-Thank you for you taking the time to review our paper and for your thoughtful comments. Yes, we agree that through the traditional peer-review process, the final public version is superior to initial versions. We appreciate the transparent nature of F1000 review process as a way to reduce bias in publishing.

"Poor writing"
-Thank you for highlighting writing errors in our manuscripts. We have corrected the highlighted grammatical errors and unclear wording. We have also reviewed the entire paper for other writing errors.

"Inadequate coverage of the literature"
-We agree that the paper does not fully examine the literature related to this topic. The reason for this is the word count limits of a short article (1000 words). We have included additional references and attempted to succinctly include a broader understanding of the current literature.

"Misrepresentations of cited literature"
a) A paper by Rebecca Seligman
- Rebecca Seligman also states “Medical approaches to the question have implicated psychological disturbance as a motivational factor for some, yet they fail to explain how and why some psychological disturbances, in some individuals, come to be expressed as spirit-possession mediumship.” She also has a very nice discussion in the section “MEDIUMSHIP AND MENTAL ILLNESS REVISITED” on mediumship being considered a pathology. Because of the word limitations, we did not highlight the specific sections of her paper that refer to these issues but allow the reader to read the paper to appreciate the full scope of the discussion of mediumship and mental illness.

b) "Almost half of United States adults...", yet this study was conducted in Winnipeg, Canada.
-This reference has been corrected.

"Statistical issues"
a) In Table 1, a 3% difference (87 vs 84%) ..... I very much doubt that both statements, -particularly the first one, are accurate."
-These statistics have been double checked and they are accurately represented. We have also included a conservative Bonferroni multiple comparisons correction.

b) There are multiple references to probability values = 0 or less than 0, but of course it goes against inferential statistics to state that instead of, for example, less than .001, or whatever.
-The p statistic reporting has been corrected.

Response to Reviewer #1

"This paper is a good example.....so that at the end the only publicly available version would have been an adequate one."
-Thank you for you taking the time to review our paper and for your thoughtful comments. Yes, we agree that through the traditional peer-review process, the final public version is superior to initial versions. We appreciate the transparent nature of F1000 review process as a way to reduce bias in publishing.

"Poor writing"
-Thank you for highlighting writing errors in our manuscripts. We have corrected the highlighted grammatical errors and unclear wording. We have also reviewed the entire paper for other writing errors.

"Inadequate coverage of the literature"
-We agree that the paper does not fully examine the literature related to this topic. The reason for this is the word count limits of a short article (1000 words). We have included additional references and attempted to succinctly include a broader understanding of the current literature.

"Misrepresentations of cited literature"
a) A paper by Rebecca Seligman
- Rebecca Seligman also states “Medical approaches to the question have implicated psychological disturbance as a motivational factor for some, yet they fail to explain how and why some psychological disturbances, in some individuals, come to be expressed as spirit-possession mediumship.” She also has a very nice discussion in the section “MEDIUMSHIP AND MENTAL ILLNESS REVISITED” on mediumship being considered a pathology. Because of the word limitations, we did not highlight the specific sections of her paper that refer to these issues but allow the reader to read the paper to appreciate the full scope of the discussion of mediumship and mental illness.

b) "Almost half of United States adults...", yet this study was conducted in Winnipeg, Canada.
-This reference has been corrected.

"Statistical issues"
a) In Table 1, a 3% difference (87 vs 84%) ..... I very much doubt that both statements, -particularly the first one, are accurate."
-These statistics have been double checked and they are accurately represented. We have also included a conservative Bonferroni multiple comparisons correction.

b) There are multiple references to probability values = 0 or less than 0, but of course it goes against inferential statistics to state that instead of, for example, less than .001, or whatever.
-The p statistic reporting has been corrected.
Competing Interests: We have no competing interests to disclose Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 23 Oct 2017

Helané Wahbeh, Oregon Health & Science University, USA

23 Oct 2017

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1

"This paper is a good example.....so that at the end the only publicly available version would have been an adequate one."
-Thank you for you ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer #1

"This paper is a good example.....so that at the end the only publicly available version would have been an adequate one."
-Thank you for you taking the time to review our paper and for your thoughtful comments. Yes, we agree that through the traditional peer-review process, the final public version is superior to initial versions. We appreciate the transparent nature of F1000 review process as a way to reduce bias in publishing.

"Poor writing"
-Thank you for highlighting writing errors in our manuscripts. We have corrected the highlighted grammatical errors and unclear wording. We have also reviewed the entire paper for other writing errors.

"Inadequate coverage of the literature"
-We agree that the paper does not fully examine the literature related to this topic. The reason for this is the word count limits of a short article (1000 words). We have included additional references and attempted to succinctly include a broader understanding of the current literature.

"Misrepresentations of cited literature"
a) A paper by Rebecca Seligman
- Rebecca Seligman also states “Medical approaches to the question have implicated psychological disturbance as a motivational factor for some, yet they fail to explain how and why some psychological disturbances, in some individuals, come to be expressed as spirit-possession mediumship.” She also has a very nice discussion in the section “MEDIUMSHIP AND MENTAL ILLNESS REVISITED” on mediumship being considered a pathology. Because of the word limitations, we did not highlight the specific sections of her paper that refer to these issues but allow the reader to read the paper to appreciate the full scope of the discussion of mediumship and mental illness.

b) "Almost half of United States adults...", yet this study was conducted in Winnipeg, Canada.
-This reference has been corrected.

"Statistical issues"
a) In Table 1, a 3% difference (87 vs 84%) ..... I very much doubt that both statements, -particularly the first one, are accurate."
-These statistics have been double checked and they are accurately represented. We have also included a conservative Bonferroni multiple comparisons correction.

b) There are multiple references to probability values = 0 or less than 0, but of course it goes against inferential statistics to state that instead of, for example, less than .001, or whatever.
-The p statistic reporting has been corrected.

Response to Reviewer #1

"This paper is a good example.....so that at the end the only publicly available version would have been an adequate one."
-Thank you for you taking the time to review our paper and for your thoughtful comments. Yes, we agree that through the traditional peer-review process, the final public version is superior to initial versions. We appreciate the transparent nature of F1000 review process as a way to reduce bias in publishing.

"Poor writing"
-Thank you for highlighting writing errors in our manuscripts. We have corrected the highlighted grammatical errors and unclear wording. We have also reviewed the entire paper for other writing errors.

"Inadequate coverage of the literature"
-We agree that the paper does not fully examine the literature related to this topic. The reason for this is the word count limits of a short article (1000 words). We have included additional references and attempted to succinctly include a broader understanding of the current literature.

"Misrepresentations of cited literature"
a) A paper by Rebecca Seligman
- Rebecca Seligman also states “Medical approaches to the question have implicated psychological disturbance as a motivational factor for some, yet they fail to explain how and why some psychological disturbances, in some individuals, come to be expressed as spirit-possession mediumship.” She also has a very nice discussion in the section “MEDIUMSHIP AND MENTAL ILLNESS REVISITED” on mediumship being considered a pathology. Because of the word limitations, we did not highlight the specific sections of her paper that refer to these issues but allow the reader to read the paper to appreciate the full scope of the discussion of mediumship and mental illness.

b) "Almost half of United States adults...", yet this study was conducted in Winnipeg, Canada.
-This reference has been corrected.

"Statistical issues"
a) In Table 1, a 3% difference (87 vs 84%) ..... I very much doubt that both statements, -particularly the first one, are accurate."
-These statistics have been double checked and they are accurately represented. We have also included a conservative Bonferroni multiple comparisons correction.

b) There are multiple references to probability values = 0 or less than 0, but of course it goes against inferential statistics to state that instead of, for example, less than .001, or whatever.
-The p statistic reporting has been corrected.
Competing Interests: We have no competing interests to disclose Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 10 Aug 2017

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 3 (revision) 04 Jan 18			read
Version 2 (revision) 23 Oct 17		read	read
Version 1 10 Aug 17	read

Etzel Cardeña, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Colin A. Ross, The Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, Richardson, USA
Adrian Parker, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

6 Views

19 Jan 2018 | for Version 3

Adrian Parker, Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

6 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors have taken into account the mandatory changes. The article is now substantially improved and merits indexing.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

23 Views

01 Dec 2017 | for Version 2

Adrian Parker, Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

23 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

The version I have seen is basically sound but needs some attention to the issues that I raise below. As a native (UK) English speaker, I can endorse that the English in this version is correct (with the exception of a couple of missing words noted below) and clear. The statistical treatments are appropriate and are judged to be correct. The study has some importance relating to the efforts to distinguish little understood spiritual and transpersonal experiences from the more bizarre and perhaps pathological ones.

Given the major constraints of the word count then the paper is acceptable but it is less than commendable that no hint of the complexity of the issues has been made in the paper. The article focuses rather exclusively on one singular conception of dissociation – that by Colin Ross and co-workers and their the DES-T scale. According to this view there is a normal continuum to dissociative experiences along with a cut-off point for the more bizarre types of experiences, which are seen then as an expression of pure pathology. The eight questions from DES-T that were selected for this study are those highlighting this potential diagnosis. There are of course other conceptions – such as those of Watson and co-workers - and at least a half dozen other tests of dissociation (Watson, 2001¹; Watson & Loftus, 1999²). The authors write “Claims of such abilities have been considered symptoms of dissociative disorders” which is partially true but it is equally true that contact with dead (or even living) spirits is often considered to be symptomatic of individuals being psychosis-prone that is schizotypy – and if there is no distress to warrant a main DSM-diagnosis or DSM axis of personality disturbance - then this is labeled “happy schizotypy”. Indeed, found amongst the authors’ battery of tests and questions which number some 70 or more, are a set relating to just this. From this presentation it is clear that this study is only a minor part of a larger one, which will be or is being ”milked” for several papers. This is of course nowadays a standard practice (but involving naturally some major weaknesses) with internet studies. What is perhaps here rather misleading is that the study is presented to the potential responders as ”a study of genetics of extended human experience” – a presentation which might be considered a little disingenuous in the context of the issues in the current paper(s).

This brings up the issue of what I think needs to be dealt with before indexing: how the context of the presentation might have influenced the major finding that the authors report and which the reviewer Prof. Ross attributes much importance to, namely that mediumship claimants were twice as likely as non-claimants to end up on the ill-side of the pathology cut-off. Although together 42% of the respondents endorsed communicating with the dead - the so-called ”AIR experiences”, it should be emphasized that AIR experiences were not the same as trance in that so-called channeling and clairaudience experiences might fall under this. Indeed it is surprising that a simple question concerning trance states does not seem to have been included since such individuals might have formed an interesting core group. The Noetic Sciences website under the aegis of which the (Surveymonkey) study was conducted, is dedicated to studying ”interconnectiveness” so it seems likely that those viewing the website and willing to answer the huge multitude of questions were highly motivated to confirm the mission of the website. This may well have created response biases. The authors write: ”Notably, the top five endorsed DES-T items were consistent with an AIR experience.” (Personally I think the addition of yet another acronym and neologism in the form of AIR only adds confusion to the overladen terminology in this field – it would surely have been better to keep to the explicit term mediumhip.). Accordingly I think their comment should be extended here so as to make some concession as to how the above findings can be vulnerable to the above mentioned influence.

Page 1 line 6 from bottom: should read than non-claimants
Page 3 line 3 from bottom should read (presumably) of pathological dissociative

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Watson D: Dissociations of the night: individual differences in sleep-related experiences and their relation to dissociation and schizotypy.J Abnorm Psychol. 2001; 110 (4): 526-35 PubMed Abstract
2. Wright DB, Loftus EF: Measuring dissociation: comparison of alternative forms of the dissociative experiences scale.Am J Psychol. 1999; 112 (4): 497-519 PubMed Abstract

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Reader Comment

04 Jan 2018

Helané Wahbeh, Oregon Health & Science University, USA

Thank you for your thoughtful comments to our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in an attempt to address your feedback.

Regarding complexity of dissociative pathology:
We have added a sentence about this in the discussion and included another sentence and reference about schizotypy.

Regarding larger dataset.
Additional language was added to the manuscript to clarify that this manuscript included a secondary analysis of data collected from a study with very different research questions. The survey included “a study of genetics of extended human experience” since that was the purpose of the larger study through which the data was collected. This secondary analysis was not a research question or aim of that study. The results of that study will submitted for publication when it is complete.

Regarding mediumship versus the other AIR experiences surveyed.
Yes, we agree we are very interested in such relationships. We are working on another analyses that will explore the relationship of the different AIR data collected in this and other studies in a full-length research paper. We were particularly interested in the mediumship and dissociation relationship and thus, evaluated this relationship in the data in this short report.

Regarding AIR versus mediumship terminology.
We agree this language likely confuses the issue. We have replaced AIR with mediumship throughout.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

30 Views

06 Nov 2017 | for Version 2

Colin A. Ross, The Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, Richardson, TX, USA

30 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

This is an interesting study with a large N. Within the limitations of the methodology, it tells us that individuals with anomalous information reception (AIR) tend to be somewhat more dissociative than those without such experiences. This is consistent with prior literature. The study would have been stronger if the taxometric statistical analysis had been applied to the 8 DES-T items (available at www.isst-d.org), and if the full 28-item DES had been administered, but this would have made for a lengthy survey. The sample population is more dissociative and has more AIR than the general population and this provides interesting information about IONS members and affiliates that I don’t think has been published before. As Dr. Cardena noted, the references could have been more extensive, but I would say they are sufficient for a brief report.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Dissociative disorders, psychological trauma

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

74 Views

21 Aug 2017 | for Version 1

Etzel Cardeña, Center for Research on Consciousness and Anomalous Psychology (CERCAP), Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

74 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

Poor writing:
From the abstract: a) "symptoms of [a] dissociation [dissociative] disorder". b) "Both AIR claimants and non-claimants scored lower than the clinical cutoff" [despite the previous sentence in the abstract mentioning that percentages of both groups had scored above the cutoff. c) "incorporating [a] comprehensive dissociative symptom measurement, as well as their effects on the person's functionality" [grammatical number is inconsistent, besides the fact that "measurement[s]" would not have an effect on functionality.
Inadequate coverage of the literature:
a) There have been various recent studies specifically evaluating possible psychopathology in people reporting anomalous experiences (in general) and spirit possession/mediumship (in particular), yet only very few are listed in the Reference section. b) Contrary to what the authors write that "Claims of such abilities are often considered to be symptoms of dissociation [dissociative] disorders", yet both the anthropological literature and, more relevant in this case, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual taxonomy, ever since its 4th edition, has specifically required that clinically significant levels of distress or dysfunction be present to consider a dissociative manifestation pathological.
Misrepresentations of cited literature:
a) A paper by Rebecca Seligman is used to support the above quotation that mediumship abilities are often considered to be symptoms of dissociation, yet she specifically states that "dissociation is not a pathological experience, but rather a therapeutic mechanism", along the lines of what others in anthopology and psychology have written. b) "Almost half of United States adults...", yet this study was conducted in Winnipeg, Canada.
Statistical issues:
a) In Table 1, a 3% difference (87 vs 84%) is reported as significant at the minus .05 level, yet an almost identical difference with about the same number of participants (87 vs 89%) is reported as non-significant. I very much doubt that both statements, particularly the first one, are accurate. b) There are multiple references to probability values = 0 or less than 0, but of course it goes against inferential statistics to state that instead of, for example, less than .001, or whatever.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

23 Oct 2017

Helané Wahbeh, Oregon Health & Science University, USA

Response to Reviewer #1

"This paper is a good example.....so that at the end the only publicly available version would have been an adequate one."
-Thank you for you taking the time to review our paper and for your thoughtful comments. Yes, we agree that through the traditional peer-review process, the final public version is superior to initial versions. We appreciate the transparent nature of F1000 review process as a way to reduce bias in publishing.

"Poor writing"
-Thank you for highlighting writing errors in our manuscripts. We have corrected the highlighted grammatical errors and unclear wording. We have also reviewed the entire paper for other writing errors.

"Inadequate coverage of the literature"
-We agree that the paper does not fully examine the literature related to this topic. The reason for this is the word count limits of a short article (1000 words). We have included additional references and attempted to succinctly include a broader understanding of the current literature.

"Misrepresentations of cited literature"
a) A paper by Rebecca Seligman
- Rebecca Seligman also states “Medical approaches to the question have implicated psychological disturbance as a motivational factor for some, yet they fail to explain how and why some psychological disturbances, in some individuals, come to be expressed as spirit-possession mediumship.” She also has a very nice discussion in the section “MEDIUMSHIP AND MENTAL ILLNESS REVISITED” on mediumship being considered a pathology. Because of the word limitations, we did not highlight the specific sections of her paper that refer to these issues but allow the reader to read the paper to appreciate the full scope of the discussion of mediumship and mental illness.

b) "Almost half of United States adults...", yet this study was conducted in Winnipeg, Canada.
-This reference has been corrected.

"Statistical issues"
a) In Table 1, a 3% difference (87 vs 84%) ..... I very much doubt that both statements, -particularly the first one, are accurate."
-These statistics have been double checked and they are accurately represented. We have also included a conservative Bonferroni multiple comparisons correction.

b) There are multiple references to probability values = 0 or less than 0, but of course it goes against inferential statistics to state that instead of, for example, less than .001, or whatever.
-The p statistic reporting has been corrected.

View more View less

Competing Interests

We have no competing interests to disclose

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Click here to access the data.

Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data

[1] 1. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (5th ed.). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc, 2013. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Coons PM: Confirmation of childhood abuse in child and adolescent cases of multiple personality disorder and dissociative disorder not otherwise specified. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994; 182(8): 461–464. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Ross CA, Joshi S, Currie R: Dissociative experiences in the general population. Am J Psychiatry. 1990; 147(11): 1547–1552. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Kihlstrom JF: Dissociative disorders. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005; 1: 227–253. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Seligman R, Kirmayer LJ: Dissociative experience and cultural neuroscience: narrative, metaphor and mechanism. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2008; 32(1): 31–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Ruchsow M, Herrnberger B, Beschoner P, et al.: Error processing in major depressive disorder: evidence from event-related potentials. J Psychiatr Res. 2006; 40(1): 37–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Stolovy T, Lev-Wiesel R, Witztum E: Dissociation: adjustment or distress? Dissociative phenomena, absorption and quality of life among Israeli women who practice channeling compared to women with similar traumatic history. J Relig Health. 2015; 54(3): 1040–1051. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Haraldsson E: Popular psychology, belief in life after death and reincarnation in the Nordic countries, Western and Eastern Europe. Nordic Psychology. 2006; 58(2): 171–180. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Haraldsson E, Houtkooper JM: Psychic experiences in the multinational human values study: Who reports them. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. 1991; 85(2): 145–165. Reference Source

[10] 10. Delorme A, Beischel J, Michel L, et al.: Electrocortical activity associated with subjective communication with the deceased. Front Psychol. 2013; 4: 834. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. Delorme A, Pierce A, Michel L, et al.: Prediction of Mortality Based on Facial Characteristics. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016; 10: 173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Beischel J, Boccuzzi M, Biuso M, et al.: Anomalous information reception by research mediums under blinded conditions II: replication and extension. Explore (NY). 2015; 11(2): 136–142. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Beischel J, Schwartz GE: Anomalous information reception by research mediums demonstrated using a novel triple-blind protocol. Explore (NY). 2007; 3(1): 23–27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Castillo RJ: Trance, functional psychosis, and culture. Psychiatry. 2003; 66(1): 9–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Seligman R: Distress, dissociation, and embodied experience: Reconsidering the pathways to mediumship and mental health. Ethos. 2005; 33(1): 71–99. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Roxburgh EC, Roe CA: A survey of dissociation, boundary-thinness, and psychological wellbeing in spiritualist mental mediumship. The Journal of Parapsychology. 2011; 75(2): 279–299. Reference Source

[17] 17. Negro PJ Jr, Palladino-Negro P, Louzã MR: Do religious mediumship dissociative experiences conform to the sociocognitive theory of dissociation? J Trauma Dissociation. 2002; 3(1): 51–73. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Waller NG, Ross CA: The prevalence and biometric structure of pathological dissociation in the general population: taxometric and behavior genetic findings. J Abnorm Psychol. 1997; 106(4): 499–510. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Waller N, Putnam FW, Carlson EB: Types of dissociation and dissociative types: A taxometric analysis of dissociative experiences. Psychol Methods. 1996; 1(3): 300–321. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Zingrone NL, Alvarado CS: The Dissociative Experiences Scale-II: Descriptive Statistics, Factor Analysis, and Frequency of Experiences. Imagin Cogn Pers. 2001; 21(2): 145–157. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Greeley A: Mysticism goes mainstream. American Health. 1987; 7: 47–49. Reference Source

[22] 22. Castro M, Burrows R, Wooffitt R: The paranormal is (still) normal: The sociological implications of a survey of paranormal experiences in Great Britain. Sociol Res Online. 2014; 19(3): 16. Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Leavitt F: Dissociative Experiences Scale Taxon and measurement of dissociative pathology: Does the taxon add to an understanding of dissociation and its associated pathologies? J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 1999; 6(4): 427–440. Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Wahbeh H, Radin D: Dataset 1 in: People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation symptom scores. F1000Research. 2017. Data Source

People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation symptom scores

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Measure

Statistical analysis

Results

Table 1. Demographic variables for participants by purported ability for anomalous information reception about deceased humans.

Table 2. The eight item and total means, standard deviations, and mean difference sorted by highest mean percentage by anomalous information reception.

Discussion

Data availability

Competing interests

Grant information

Acknowledgements

Supplementary material

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

The problem

How to fix it

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated