SynthesisF1000Research2021
Stage 2 Registered Report: Anomalous perception in a Ganzfeld condition - A meta-analysis of more than 40 years investigation.
Synthesis in F1000Research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis is an investigation into anomalous perception (i.e., conscious identification of information without any conventional sensorial means). The technique used for eliciting an effect is the Ganzfeld condition (a form of sensory homogenization that eliminates distracting peripheral noise). The database consists of studies published between January 1974 and December 2020 inclusive. The overall effect size estimated both with a frequentist and a Bayesian random-effect model, were in close agreement yielding an effect size of approximately .08 (.04 -.12). This result passed four publication bias tests and seems not contaminated by questionable research practices. Trend analysis carried out with a cumulative meta-analysis and a meta-regression model with year of publication as a covariate, did not indicate sign of decline of this effect size. The moderators' analyses show that the selected participants' effect size was almost three-times that obtained by non-selected participants and that tasks that simulate telepathic communication show a two-fold effect size for tasks requiring the participants to guess a target. The Stage 1 Registered Report can be accessed here: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.24868.3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.