In a previous post I reviewed the current status of psychical research in reference to so-called ‘confirmatory studies’ of laboratory psi. I concluded that the body of recent evidence suggests that the non-existence of laboratory psi is looking ever more certain.
The case for the existence of laboratory psi appears to rely almost entirely on studies led by a single, notable researcher, Dr. Patrizio Tressoldi at the University of Padua in Italy. Tressoldi’s collaborators include John Kruth, Executive Director of the Rhine Research Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA, Rupert Sheldrake and other notable figures in Parapsychology.
In total Tressoldi has registered 11 studies that are claimed to be confirmatory at the Koestler Parapsychology Unit. Nine of these preregistered studies have already published findings and findings for two of the studies are yet to be announced.
An ongoing investigation is examining the documentation of Tressoldi’s extraordinary claims. I say ‘extraordinary’ not only because of the nature of the claims, which fly in the face of accepted Science, but because they are the outliers of the majority of confirmatory studies, which are pointing to the non-existence of psi. Thus Tressoldi’s findings are exceptional.
As noted in my previous post, all of the studies claimed as fully confirmatory come from Patrizio Tressoldi’s laboratory. This preliminary report considers the status of two of Tressoldi’s confirmatory studies that are claimed to have found evidence of psi. An analysis is ongoing but is already revealing some disquieting features.
There is a case for voiding two studies with IDs 1002 and 1013 registered at the Koestler Parapsychology Unit for the reasons outlined below.
Reasons for Voiding Study 1002
According to the registration document, this study tests a single confirmatory hypothesis, namely that pupil dilation can predict and avoid potential negative stimulation. The report of the study is published in the journal EXPLORE with the title: “Does Psychophysiological Predictive Anticipatory Activity Predict Real or Future Probable Events?”
The paper states:
Experiments 1 and 2:The first two experiments are conceptual replications of studies by Tressoldi et al.,2, 3 using heart rate (HR) as PAA, instead of PD.
Experiments 3 and 4:The following two experiments are a variant of the experiments of Tressoldi et al.3 The only difference being that the negative event predicted in the anticipatory phase was skipped instead of presented. Comparing the results with the previous experiments and the following ones, it is possible to test further the “bilking paradox,” that is, whether it is possible to avoid predicted future negative events, giving more support to the results observed in the experiment 2.
Experiment 4 This is an exact replication of the experiments by Tressoldi et al.,3 aimed at testing if the observed prediction accuracy holds even when the alerting stimuli get skipped when predicted from the measurement of the PD before their presentation.
Note that reference 3 is to a paper in F1000: Tressoldi PE, Martinelli M, Semenzato L. “Pupil dilation prediction of random events [v2; ref status: approved with…]” which is disconfirmed study ID 1001.
A study (1002) cannot be called “confirmatory” if the study it is supposed to be replicating (1001): 1) did not itself find any significant outcomes and 2) was not fully approved for publication by its two peer reviewers.
Reasons for Voiding Study 1013
In study 1013, the investigators changed the hypothesis for the study after the data had been collected. This invalidates the study as a pre-registered confirmatory study.
In addition, a post-publication re-analysis by an independent reviewer indicates that an incorrect statistical analysis was carried out for the original report of the findings.
Revision of Table of Confirmatory Findings
The voiding of two studies by Tressoldi for the reasons given above leads to a revised distribution of outcomes as shown in the table below.
INVESTIGATOR | CONFIRMATION | DISCONFIRMATION | TOTALS |
TRESSOLDI | 4 | 3 | 7 |
OTHERS | 1(partial) | 17 | 18 |
TOTALS | 5 | 20 | 25 |
after voiding of studies 1002 and 1013
The above figures give an Exact Fisher Test statistic value of 0.0123 (p<.01). The percentage of claimed confirmatory psi studies is 20.0%, four of which are Tressoldi’s.
Conclusions
Owing to voiding of two studies, the number of genuine preregistered, confirmatory studies by Tressoldi has been reduced from 9 to 7. Of these seven, only four have reported positively confirmatory findings. These four studies remain as outliers beside the 20 disconfirming studies in the total of 25.
TABLE OF STUDIES IN THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION
No. | Study Title | Lead Author | Date Submitted | Study ID | Link to Registered Information | Post-publication review of findings |
PT11 | PsyPhotos (C) | Patrizio Tressoldi & Luciano Pederzoli | 3rd Oct 2019 | 1054 | KPU Registry 1054 | NO PAPER YET PUBLISHED. |
PT10 | Mind-matter interaction at distance on a standalone device (C) | Patrizio Tressoldi & Luciano Pederzoli | 21st Feb 2019 | 1049 | KPU Registry 1049 Published Results DISCONFIRMED | NO CHANGE TO DISCONFIRMATION DECISION. |
PT9 | Telephone telepathy, an Italian independent exact replication (C) | Patrizio Tressoldi & Rupert Sheldrake | 3rd Nov 2018 | 1048 | KPU Registry 1048 | NO PAPER YET PUBLISHED. |
PT8 | Can our mind emit light? A confirmatory experiment of mental interaction at distance on a photomultiplier (C) STUDY SHOULD BE VOIDED. | Patrizio Tressoldi & John Kruth | 6th Jul 2015 | 1013 | KPU Registry 1013 Errata Published Results | NOTE: ON AUGUST 15, 2015,THE INVESTIGATORS CHANGED THE PREDICTION FOR THE CONFIRMATION STUDY 1013 AFTER THE DATA HAD BEEN COLLECTED. THIS INVALIDATES THE STUDY. IN ADDITION, A RE-ANALYSIS BY A POST-PUBLICATION PEER REVIEWER INDICATES THAT AN INCORRECT STATISTICAL ANALYSIS WAS CARRIED OUT. SSRN Re-analysis by Grote (2017; https://www.neuroquantology.com/article.php?id=1699) questions the finding claiming an incorrect statistical assumption by the authors. |
PT7 | Biophotons as physical correlates of mental interaction at distance: a new confirmatory study (C) | Patrizio Tressoldi & John Kruth | 29th Apr 2015 | 1012 | KPU Registry 1012 Published Results CONFIRMATION CLAIMED | Confirmatory hypotheses: The number of photons detected by the PMT in the 30 minutes after the MI will outperform those detected in the 30 minutes before the MI. These differences will hold subtracting the number of photons in the corresponding 60 minutes of the control sessions. SSRN: Same as 1013 above. Can Our Minds Emit Light at 7300 km Distance? A Pre-Registered Confirmatory Experiment of Mental Entanglement with a Photomultiplier. ANALYSIS ONGOING |
PT6 | CardioAlert: A portable assistant for the choice between negative or positive random events (C) | Patrizio Tressoldi | 17th Mar 2015 | 1011 | KPU_Registry_1011 Published Results CONFIRMATION CLAIMED | SSRN: CardioAlert: A Heart Rate Based Decision Support System for Improving Choices Related to Negative or Positive Future Events. ANALYSIS ONGOING |
PT5 | Biophotons as physical correlates of mental interaction at distance: a confirmatory study (C) | Patrizio Tressoldi & John Kruth | 8th Oct 2014 | 1010 | KPU_Registry_1010 Published Results DISCONFIRMATION | SSRN: Can our Mind Emit Light? Mental Entanglement at Distance with a Photomultiplier. ANALYSIS ONGOING |
PT4 | Mind-matter interaction at distance on a random events generator (REG): a confirmatory study (C) | Patrizio Tressoldi | 15th May 2014 | 1009 | KPU_Registry_1009 Published Results CONFIRMATION CLAIMED | NeuroQuantology: Mind-Matter Interaction at a Distance of 190 km: Effects on a Random Event Generator Using a Cutoff Method. ANALYSIS ONGOING |
PT3 | Brain-to-brain (mind-to-mind) interaction at distance: a proof of concept of mental telecommunication (C) | Patrizio Tressoldi | 23rd Apr 2014 | 1008 | KPU_Registry_1008 Published Results CONFIRMATION CLAIMED | SSRN: Brain-to-Brain (Mind-to-Mind) Interaction at Distance: A Confirmatory Study ANALYSIS ONGOING |
PT2 | Pupil dilation prediction of random negative events. Can they be avoided? (C) THIS STUDY WAS EXPLORATORY NOT CONFIRMATORY. STUDY SHOULD BE VOIDED. | Patrizio Tressoldi | 1st Feb 2013 | 1002 | KPU_Registry_1002 Published Results VOIDED | According to the registration document, this study tests a single confirmatory hypothesis, namely that pupil dilation can predict and avoid potential negative stimulation. SSRN: Does Psychophysiological Predictive Anticipatory Activity Predict Real or Future Probable Events? This paper is published in EXPLORE. It states: “Experiments 1 and 2:The first two experiments are conceptual replications of studies by Tressoldi et al.,2, 3 using heart rate (HR) as PAA, instead of PD. “Experiments 3 and 4:The following two experiments are a variant of the experiments of Tressoldi et al.3 The only difference being that the negative event predicted in the anticipatory phase was skipped instead of presented. Comparing the results with the previous experiments and the following ones, it is possible to test further the “bilking paradox,” that is, whether it is possible to avoid predicted future negative events, giving more support to the results observed in the experiment 2.” “Experiment 4 This is an exact replication of the experiments by Tressoldi et al.,3 aimed at testing if the observed prediction accuracy holds even when the alerting stimuli get skipped when predicted from the measurement of the PD before their presentation.” Note that reference 3 is from F1000: Tressoldi PE, Martinelli M, Semenzato L. Pupil dilation prediction of random events [v2; ref status: approved with…] the disconfirmed study 1001. A study cannot be confirmatory when the study being replicated did not itself find any significant outcomes and was not fully approved for publication by the reviewers at F1000 (see below). |
PT1 | Pupil dilation accuracy in the prediction of random events (C) | Patrizio Tressoldi | 26th Nov 2012 | 1001 | KPU_Registry_1001 Published Results (1 of 2) Published Results (2 of 2) DISCONFIRMATION | Publication 1 of 2: F1000 Version 1: peer review 1 approved 1 approved with reservations Version 2 peer review: 2 approved with reservations. Thus, the peer reviewers gave a lower level of approval to Version 2 than Version 1 because they remained highly concerned about the statistical analysis, which one claimed was circular. Publication 2 of 2: SSRN Results at chance level. Thus, the experimental hypothesis was disconfirmed. |
2 thoughts on “Disquieting Features of Two ‘Confirmatory’ Psi Studies by Patrizio Tressoldi”
You must log in to post a comment.