ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
From laboratory targets to experiential authenticity: reframing the study of veridicality in OBEs.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) are altered states sometimes accompanied by reports of veridical perception-accurate information seemingly obtained from a vantage point outside the body and ostensibly without conventional sensory input. While case collections and early laboratory studies suggest this possibility, replication under conventional laboratory protocols has been challenging. This article reviews the evidentiary landscape and argues that standard target-identification paradigms-often conducted in sterile settings with inexperienced participants-misalign with the dynamics of the OBE state. We identify five key determinants that constrain laboratory outcomes: (1) the participant's mental/emotional state, (2) the participant-researcher relationship, (3) researcher intention, (4) variability in participant skill, and (5) the intrinsic purpose of the experience. We propose reframing methodology around these determinants, complementing lab tasks with rigorously vetted spontaneous cases. Together, these adjustments can increase ecological validity while preserving falsifiability, offering a pathway toward more effective investigation of veridical perception in OBEs and the implications for models of consciousness, using structured case evaluation and independent verification criteria.
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.