ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Research Note

Electrocortical correlations between pairs of isolated people: A reanalysis

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
PUBLISHED 15 May 2017
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

A previously reported experiment collected electrocortical data recorded simultaneously in pairs of people separated by distance. Reanalysis of those data confirmed the presence of a time-synchronous, statistically significant correlation in brain electrical activity of these distant “sender-receiver” pairs. Given the sensory shielding employed in the original experiment to avoid mundane explanations for such a correlation, this outcome is suggestive of an anomalous intersubjective connection.

Keywords

electrocortical, coherence, synchronization

Introduction

Giroldini et al. (2016) reported an experiment where pairs of people isolated by distance each had 14-channel electroencephalograms (EEGs) recorded simultaneously (Emotiv EPOC+, San Francisco, CA). The “sender” (S) of each pair was exposed to 128 stimulus epochs per test session, where each epoch consisted of a one-second exposure to a light or sound stimulus (the latter presented over earbuds). Using a whole brain EEG coherence metric, Giroldini et al. found that after 25 experimental sessions that the “receiver’s” (R) electrocortical coherence increased during the stimulus epochs. This was interpreted as a reflection of a “nonlocal” connection between S and R. The effect was primarily observed in the EEG alpha band of 8 – 12 Hz, with a statistically stronger effect reported in the range of 9 – 10 Hz. To double-check how robust the reported effect might be, this study developed a simpler correlational approach and applied it to the original, unfiltered EEG data.

Methods

The raw EEG data from Giroldini et al. (2016) was obtained from: doi, 10.6084/m9.figshare.1466876.v8 (Tressoldi, 2016).

Matlab (R2013a) scripts were written to conduct the analysis. These scripts may be obtained from: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4954643.v2 (Radin, 2017).

To process the raw EEG data, first use the script readEEG.m (this uses the function importfile1.m), then put all of the newly processed files (in Matlab’s .mat format) into a single folder and run the script EEG_xcorr_raw.m in that folder. This will create Giroldini’s et al.’s brain coherence metrics for each pair of participants. Finally, run the script EEG_analysis_Radin.m, which will analyze those files and generate results in graph form.

As a brief description of the method, the processing scripts follow Giroldini et al.’s method for creating a whole brain coherence metric for each S and R datafile. The scripts then create an ensemble median of this metric plus and minus one second from stimulus onset. A Pearson correlation is then formed between the ensemble median curves for S and R pairs. The two-tailed p-value associated with that correlation is transformed into a one-tailed z score using an inverse normal transform. Then a nonparametric permutation analysis is used to determine the probability associated with that z score (i.e., this z is not distributed as a standard normal deviate because its variance is inflated due to the autocorrelated nature of EEG data). The p-value resulting from the permutation analysis is converted into a standard normal deviate (this is now a conventional z score). The same process is used on the remaining 24 pairs of EEG data. The final step combines the 25 z scores into a Stouffer Z = ∑zs/5, where Z is distributed as a standard normal deviate.

Results

The above procedure results in a Stouffer Z = 2.705, p = 0.006 (two-tailed). Four of the 25 sessions are independently significant at p < .05 (two-tailed); all four of those sessions had positive S-R correlations.

To check if this S-R relationship is in time-synchrony, the Matlab script circular shifts each R’s EEG coherence signal -2 seconds, and then repeats the entire analytical procedure to determine the overall Stouffer Z score. Then R’s coherence signal is shifted to the right by 100 msec, reanalyzed, and this is repeated until reaching a lag of +2 seconds. If the original S-R correlation was synchronized in time, then we would expect to see the peak result at lag 0. Figure 1 shows that this was indeed the case.

905db961-1d6b-40f4-a8f9-f8d33f6ae6a2_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Time-synchrony analysis.

Positive lags in this graph represent post-stimulus S-R correlations; negative lags are pre-stimulus.

Figure 1 also shows a significantly negative deviation at a lag of 900 msec post-stimulus. Because this analysis is based on the absolute magnitude and not the direction of the correlation, this decline indicates that the S-R correlation strength declined below chance-expected levels about 1second post-stimulus. This may reflect a drop in electrocortical coherence in S generated by the explicit presentation of a stimulus; thus, during that time, the magnitude of the S-R correlation would be expected to momentarily drop. If similar negative correlations are observed in future experiments of this type, it may prove to be a useful secondary indicator of a genuine S-R relationship.

Conclusion

Analysis of previously collected EEG data showed a significant time-synchronized correlation between the electrocortical activity of “sender” and “receiver” pairs. Because the data were collected under conditions where participants were isolated by shielding and distance, this outcome is suggestive of a “nonlocal” mind-to-mind interaction.

Data availability

The raw EEG data from Giroldini et al. (2016) was obtained from: doi, 10.6084/m9.figshare.1466876.v8 (Tressoldi, 2016).

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 15 May 2017
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Radin D. Electrocortical correlations between pairs of isolated people: A reanalysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:676 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11537.1)
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

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe 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 approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 15 May 2017
Views
26
Cite
Reviewer Report 23 Jun 2017
Aliodor Manolea, Faculty of Psychology and Social Sciences, Hyperion University from Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania 
Approved
VIEWS 26
The statistical method seems to be the correct one if we consider each experimental session corresponding to an S-R pair as a separate experiment.
The study is very concise and on the subject, and the results comes from  a ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Manolea A. Reviewer Report For: Electrocortical correlations between pairs of isolated people: A reanalysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:676 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.12461.r22756)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
36
Cite
Reviewer Report 18 May 2017
Edward Justin Modestino, Department of Psychology, Curry College, Milton, MA, USA 
Approved
VIEWS 36
This is a brief research note that is under review.  It refers to an independent reanalysis of data from another research group was done for a controversial study on non-local consciousness.  The reanalysis used a non-parametric permutation.  The only thing ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Modestino EJ. Reviewer Report For: Electrocortical correlations between pairs of isolated people: A reanalysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:676 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.12461.r22753)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 30 May 2017
    Dean Radin, Integral and Transpersonal Psychology, School of Consciousness and Transformation, California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco, 94103, USA
    30 May 2017
    Author Response
    > It appears that the results of 25 session (different subject pairs) divulged a significant p-value of p = 0.006 in a group analysis.  Next, it is explained that four out ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 30 May 2017
    Dean Radin, Integral and Transpersonal Psychology, School of Consciousness and Transformation, California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco, 94103, USA
    30 May 2017
    Author Response
    > It appears that the results of 25 session (different subject pairs) divulged a significant p-value of p = 0.006 in a group analysis.  Next, it is explained that four out ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 15 May 2017
Comment
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
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.