OPINION ARTICLEpublished: 22 August 2014

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00907

Future directions in precognition research: more researchcan bridge the gap between skeptics and proponentsMichael S. Franklin1,2*, Stephen L. Baumgart2 and Jonathan W. Schooler1,2

1 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA2 Theoretical and Applied Neurocausality Laboratory, Santa Barbara, CA, USA*Correspondence: franklin@psych.ucsb.edu

Edited by:

James M. Broadway, University of California Santa Barbara, USA

Reviewed by:

Imants Baruss, King’s University College at The University of Western Ontario, CanadaDaryl J. Bem, Cornell University, USA

Keywords: precognition, retrocausality, psi, skepticism

INTRODUCTIONAlthough claims of precognition have beenprevalent across human history, it is nosurprise that these assertions have beenmet with strong skepticism. Precognition,the ability to obtain information about afuture event, unknowable through infer-ence alone, before the event actually occurs,conflicts with the fundamental subjectiveexperience of time asymmetrically flowingfrom past to future, brings into ques-tion the notion of free will, and con-tends with steadfast notions of cause andeffect. Despite these reasons for skepti-cism, researchers have pursued this topic,and a large database of studies conductedunder controlled laboratory conditionsnow exist. This work roughly spans fromthe 1930’s (e.g., Rhine, 1938) up to thisday (Bem, 2011; Mossbridge et al., 2014;Rabeyron, 2014). The accumulated evi-dence includes significant meta-analysesof forced-choice guessing experiments(Honorton and Ferrari, 1989), presen-timent experiments (Mossbridge et al.,2012), and recent replications from Bem(2011, discussed below; Bem et al., 2014).

Perhaps most central to the recentdebate regarding the existence of pre-cognition is work by Bem (2011). Bem(2011) time-reversed several classic psy-chology effects (e.g., studying after insteadof before a test; being primed after, insteadof before responding) and found evi-dence across nine experiments supportingprecognition. Given the sound method-ology and publication at a high-impactmainstream psychology journal, Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, thiswork has prompted the attention of

psychologists; and, not surprisingly, theresponse has been skeptical (Rouder andMorey, 2011; Wagenmakers et al., 2011).While we acknowledge skepticism andclose scrutiny is vital in reaching consen-sus on this topic, given the equivocationsurrounding the results, we propose thatmore research is needed. In particular,we suggest that applied research designsthat allow for the prediction of meaning-ful events ahead of time can move thisdebate forward. Since it is not obvious howexperiments that do not require explicit“guessing” of future events could be usedfor this goal, we give a general overviewof two methodologies designed towardthis aim.

PHYSICAL IMPLAUSIBILITYIt is not unexpected that psycholo-gists are most skeptical of precognition(Wagner and Monnet, 1979). This islikely due to their knowledge of themany illusions and biases that influ-ence perception and memory. However,putting these cognitive biases aside, thiswork is often dismissed out of handunder the assumption that precogni-tion would require overturning basicand essential physical and psychologicaltenets. Schwarzkopf (2014) illustrates thisposition:

“. . . the seismic nature of these claimscannot be overstated: future eventsinfluencing the past breaks the sec-ond law of thermodynamics. . . It alsocompletely undermines over a cen-tury of experimental research basedon the assumption that causes precedeeffects”

Some clarification is needed here. Froma physics perspective, except for severalprocesses studied in high-energy physics(such as B meson decay), non-thermalphysics is time-symmetric, perhaps allow-ing the possibility of precognitive effects.The formalism of time symmetric physicshas been used, for example, in theWheeler-Feynman absorber theory ofradiation (Wheeler and Feynman, 1945) aswell as in the transactional interpretationof quantum mechanics (Cramer, 1986),in which quantum wavefunction collapseis described as being due to an interac-tion between advanced waves (travelingbackwards-in-time) and retarded waves(traveling forwards-in-time). With regardsto precognition, Bierman (2008) has pro-posed that coherent conditions presentin the human brain allow the fundamen-tal time symmetry of physics to manifestitself.

Some quantum mechanical experi-ments can be interpreted as showingretrocausal influence where a decisionat a future time seems to affect a pasttime. One example is Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment in which the way aphoton travels through an interferom-eter (wave-like or particle-like) appearsto be affected by a measurement deci-sion made at a later time (Wheeler, 1984;Jacques et al., 2007). However, informa-tion transfer into the past (retrocausal sig-naling), as opposed to influence withoutinformation transfer, remains controver-sial since it has not yet been demonstratedexperimentally. That said, there is no phys-ical law which precludes retrocausal infor-mation transfer. There has been some

www.frontiersin.org August 2014 | Volume 5 | Article 907 | 1

Franklin et al. Future directions in precognition research

effort put into experimental realizationof retrocausal signaling. Cramer proposedthat standard quantum mechanics allowsthe construction of a retrocausal signalingmachine using quantum optical interfer-ometry (Cramer, 2007). Though Cramer’swork has reached an impasse (Cramer,2014), an approach of using entangled sys-tems for retrocausal communication mayreveal a physical explanation for precog-nition. Lastly, it is worth noting, thatultimately whether any given theory canaccommodate precognition or not is irrel-evant; what is relevant are the data.

RELIABILITY CONCERNSAlthough it appears premature to ruleout precognition from a physics stand-point, there have been concerns regard-ing the reliability of precognitive effects.In essence, the question boils down towhether there are in fact small, yet real,precognitive effects that are hard to pindown and require further study to isolate,or, whether the evidence for precognitionis based on false-positives emerging due tobiases in the research process. For a recentoverview of these issues in psychology seethe November, 2012 issue of Perspectiveson Psychological Science. Interestingly, arecent commentary (Jolij, 2014) notesthe similarity between precognitive effectsand those in social priming research.Indeed, both research areas report smalleffect sizes, replication difficulty, and spe-cific “boundary” conditions (covariates)that moderate the effect (Wilson, 2013).Although researchers point toward meta-analyses to bolster their position, meta-analyses are also susceptible to bias andrarely lead to headway in controversialareas (Ferguson, 2014). The resemblancebetween precognitive effects and thoseseen in the mainstream psychological liter-ature has been used to leverage support forprecognition (e.g., Cardeña, 2014); how-ever, the difficulties of replicating otherparadigms in psychology seems a dubioussource of solace for the challenge of repli-cating precognition findings. Moreover,even if precognition results were robustlyreplicated as some meta-analyses have sug-gested, there is always the concern thatthere is some artifact driving the effect. Assuch, we suggest new directions for futureresearch in precognition; one that cansimultaneously address concerns about the

robustness of the effects and the possibil-ity that they are driven by unrecognizedartifacts.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS INPRECOGNITION RESEARCHWhat would provide the most com-pelling evidence for skeptics? Ultimately,we realize that the most convincingdemonstration would be to show tangi-ble effects applied in real-world settings.If a paradigm can make accurate predic-tions about events that people considerimportant and are incapable of predictingusing standard means, then the signif-icance of the paradigm becomes self-evident. Perhaps most compelling wouldbe if an experiment could be devisedto predict games of chance and/or thewhether it will be a good or bad day on thestock market. Although a few reports existin the literature of precognitive applica-tions, in particular those that utilize asso-ciative remote viewing (predicting silverfuture: Puthoff, 1984; stock market; Smithet al., 2014), there has not been a sin-gle replicable methdology that has trans-lated into consistent winnings in games ofchance. Below we give a brief overview oftwo experiments designed to predict theoutcome of random1 binary events in real-time (specifically, the outcome of a roulettespin, black vs. red, excluding green; seeFigure 1).

The left side of Figure 1 presents ageneral overview of one approach. Thisexperiment is based on work designed toexamine whether extended future practicein some domain can extend backwardsin time to influence prior performance.The original experiment designed towardthis aim used a novel 2-phase Go-NoGoexperiment (Franklin, 2007). In phase 1of the experiment, all participants com-plete an identical Go-NoGo task in whichindividual shapes are presented for a sec-ond, one at a time, on a computer screen.Each stimulus either requires a response(“Go”) or not (“NoGo”). Participants aretold to respond (using the spacebar) toshapes A and B and withhold responses to

1 Although there is an important distinction betweentruly random vs. pseudorandom selection, since anygenuine precognitive effect of future stimuli on pastbehavior/physiology should be independent of selec-tion method, we do not distinguish between these forthe purposes of this overview.

shapes C and D. In phase 2, participantsare randomly divided into 2 groups witheach group responding exclusively to a sin-gle shape (A or B). The rationale is akinto the subtraction method/additive factorsmethodology (Sternberg, 1969). If phase1 performance is influenced by only pastexperience, then there should be no differ-ence in reaction times or accuracy basedon future condition assignment. If, how-ever, phase 1 performance is influencednot only by past experience, but futureexperience as well, systematic differencesin performance based on phase 2 condi-tion assignment should emerge. As seen inFigure 1B, by mapping shapes A and B tooutcomes of the roulette spin (RED andBLACK), it should be possible (assuminga genuine precognitive effect) to use phase1 performance to predict the roulette spinoutcome before the wheel is spun.

Next we describe an experiment usingEEG to detect predictive anticipatoryactivity (PAA; Mossbridge et al., 2014);also known as presentiment, the find-ing that various physiological measures ofarousal are higher preceding the onset ofemotionally charged vs. neutral picturesthat are randomly presented (Biermanand Radin, 1997; Radin, 1997; Biermanand Scholte, 2002; Spottiswoode and May,2003; Mossbridge et al., 2012). The spe-cific methodology below extends workreported in Radin (2011), in which thepre-stimulus EEG activity of experiencedmeditators was found to differ signifi-cantly in response to light flashes andauditory tones. As seen in Figure 1, bymapping the light flash and auditorytone to a binary target (RED vs. BLACKroulette spin) and by evaluating baselineand pre-stimulus EEG potentials in real-time, it should be possible to predict thestate of a future random target, allowingabove-chance retrocausal communication.Similar to the first experiment design, theresults of the prediction can be comparedagainst chance (50%) with an exact bino-mial test. Currently, pilot testing with thisbasic design is underway, along with addi-tional testing to assess whether a stimulus(flash vs. tone) triggered by the appro-priate symmetric pre-stimulus response(a “neurofeedback” condition; e.g., flashdelivered when occipital EEG increases)can condition response patterns in antic-ipation to random stimuli determined by

Frontiers in Psychology | Perception Science August 2014 | Volume 5 | Article 907 | 2

Franklin et al. Future directions in precognition research

FIGURE 1 | The left side displays the experimental design of two-phase

Go-NoGo precognition task: (A) 4 random polygons are displayed

individually on screen for 1 s at a time. Shape A is (arbitrarilly) associatedwith RED, and Shape B is associated with BLACK. During phase 1 allparticipants are told to press the spacebar only when shape A and B appear(the “Go” shapes, colored green), and withhold responses to shapes C and Dwhile these responses and reaction times are recorded. In phase 2,particpants only respond to one “Go” shape. As seen in (B) the phase 2shape is determined by a roulette spin outcome2. As such, the precognitiveinfluence of phase 2 practice on phase 1 performance (e.g., improveddetection of the shape practiced in the future) would allow for a real-time

prediction of the future practice shape, and hence the future roulette spinoutcome. On the right, is an overview of the experimental design of the“applied” EEG presentiment experiment: (C) Short duration visual or auditorystimuli are randomly presented to participants (equal probability). For thepurposes of roulette spin prediction, each stimulus type is arbitrallyassociated with an outcome (Visual—RED, Auditory—BLACK) (D) EEG iscontinuously recorded from occipital electrodes (O1/O2). Prior to assigning astimulus, a prediction is made based on a comparsion of the pre-stimlusinterval to the baseline. Specfically, if voltage is positive relative to baseline,predict VISUAL (bet RED); if voltage is negative relative to baseline, predictAUDITORY (bet BLACK).

roulette spin; allowing for a retrocausalBrain Computer Interface (BCI).

The design presented in Figure 1 hasthe benefit of more protection againstanticipation/learning strategies (there isonly one future event). Also, extendedexposure to the future stimulus maystrengthen the effect and allow for moretime between the prediction, bet and out-come. Although the EEG experiment relieson fewer data points for each prediction,this method could lead to BCI applications

2 If the ball lands on green, re-spinning would occuruntil it lands on either black or red.

and be more powerful due to the largenumber of trials collected within andacross participants. Altogether, thereappears to be no inherent confound ineither design given sufficient sample size—i.e., we know of no conventional confoundthat could lead to consistent above chanceprediction in real time of a roulette spin.As such, both designs are worth exploringin future research.

FINAL THOUGHTSDespite the accumulated data, andrecent positive findings in the literature,significant controversy remains regarding

the interpretation of the evidence for theexistence of precognition. Proponentsfind the combined results as compellingevidence in support of precognition,with similar (small) effect sizes to thosereported throughout the psychologicalliterature. Skeptics, however, questionpotential methodological and/or analyt-ical confounds in those studies, as well asthe physical plausibility of precognition.Both, however, agree regarding the pro-found implications if these bold claimsare true. We suggest that although thecurrent state of evidence does not quitemerit proponents’ strong claim of having

www.frontiersin.org August 2014 | Volume 5 | Article 907 | 3

Franklin et al. Future directions in precognition research

demonstrated replicable precognition inthe laboratory, the accumulated experi-mental evidence, combined with advancesin theoretical physics, warrant furtherresearch. We believe the most effective wayforward is through the development ofparadigms that use software in real-timeto predict meaningful future outcomesbefore they occur. As others have noted(Mossbridge et al., 2014) a new technol-ogy that uses behavior and/or physiologyto consistently predict random futureevents above chance would certainly bea “game-changer.”

REFERENCESBem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: experimen-

tal evidence for anomalous retroactive influenceson cognition and affect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100,407–425. doi: 10.1037/a0021524

Bem, D., Tressoldi, P. E., Rabeyron, T., and Duggan,M. (2014). Feeling the Future: A Meta-Analysisof 90 Experiments on the Anomalous Anticipationof Random Future Events (SSRN Scholarly PaperNo. ID 2423692). Rochester, NY: Social ScienceResearch Network. Available onlie at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2423692

Bierman, D. J. (2008). “Consciousness inducedrestoration of time symmetry (CIRTS): a psy-chophysical theoretical perspective,” in Proceedingsof the 51st Parapsychological Association AnnualMeeting, 33–49.

Bierman, D. J., and Radin, D. I. (1997).Anomalous anticipatory response on ran-domized future conditions. Percept. Mot. Skills 84,689–690.

Bierman, D. J., and Scholte, H. S. (2002). “Anomalousanticipatory brain activation preceding exposureto emotional and neutral pictures,” in PaperPresented at The Parapsychological Association, 45thAnnual Convention (Paris).

Cardeña, E. (2014). A call for an open, informedstudy of all aspects of consciousness. Front. Hum.Neurosci. 8:17. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017

Cramer, J. G. (1986). The transactional interpreta-tion of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 58,647–687.

Cramer, J. G. (2007). A test of Quantum NonlocalCommunication. CENPA Annual Report. Seattle,WA: University of Washington, 52.

Cramer, J. G. (2014). Status of Nonlocal QuantumCommunication Test. CENPA Annual Report.Seattle, WA: University of Washington, 114.

Ferguson, C. J. (2014). Comment: why meta-analyses rarely resolve ideological debates. Emot.Rev. 6, 251–252. doi: 10.1177/1754073914523046

Franklin, M. S. (2007). “Can practice effects extendbackwards in time?,” in A Talk Presented at the 26thAnnual Society for Scientific Exploration Meeting(Lansing, MI: Michigan State University).

Honorton, C., and Ferrari, D. C. (1989). Futuretelling: A meta-analysis of forced-choice precog-nition experiments, 1935–1987. J. Parapsychol. 53,1–308.

Jacques, V., Wu, E., Grosshans, F., Treussart,F., Grangier, P., Aspect, A., et al. (2007).Experimental realization of wheeler’sdelayed-choice Gedanken experiment.Science 315, 966–968. doi: 10.1126/science.1136303

Jolij, J. (2014). Social priming and psi. PISCesLAB.Available online at: http://www.jolij.com/?p=188

Mossbridge, J., Tressoldi, P. E., and Utts, J. (2012).Predictive physiological anticipation pre-ceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: ameta-analysis. Front. Percept. Sci. 3:390. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390

Mossbridge, J., Tressoldi, P. E., Utts, J., Ives, J., Radin,D., and Jonas, W. (2014). Predicting the unpre-dictable: critical analysis and practical implica-tions of predictive anticipatory activity. Front.Hum. Neurosci. 8:146. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00146P

Puthoff, H. E. (1984). “ARV (AssociationalRemote Viewing) applications,” in Researchin Parapsychology 1984, eds R. White and J. Solfvin(Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press), 121.

Rabeyron, T. (2014). Retro-priming, priming, anddouble testing: psi and replication in a test–retest design. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:154. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00154

Radin, D. (1997). Unconscious perception of futureemotions: an experiment in presentiment. J. Sci.Explor. 11, 163–180.

Radin, D. (2011). Electrocortical activity priorto unpredictable stimuli in meditators andnonmeditators. Explore 7, 286–299. doi:10.1016/j.explore.2011.06.004

Rhine, J. B. (1938). Experiments bearing on the pre-cognition hypothesis: I.Pre-shuffling card calling.J. Parapsychol. 2, 38–54.

Rouder, J. N., and Morey, R. D. (2011). A Bayes fac-tor meta-analysis of Bem’s ESP claim. Psychon.Bull. Rev. 18, 682–689. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0088-7

Schwarzkopf, D. S. (2014). We should have seenthis coming. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:332. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00332

Smith, C. C., Laham, D., and Moddel, J. (2014). Stockmarket prediction using associative remote view-ing by inexperienced remote viewers. J. Sci. Explor.28, 7–16.

Spottiswoode, S. J. P., and May, E. C. (2003). Skin con-ductance prestimulus response: analyses, artifactsand a pilot study. J. Sci. Explor. 17 617–641.

Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of pro-cessing stages: extensions of Donders’method. Acta Psychol. 30, 276–315. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9

Wagenmakers, E., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., andvan der Maas, H. L. (2011). Why psycholo-gists must change the way they analyze theirdata: the case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011).J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100, 426–432. doi: 10.1037/a0022790

Wagner, M. W., and Monnet, M. (1979). Attitudesof college professors towards extrasensory percep-tion. Zetetic Scholar 6, 7–17.

Wheeler, J. A. (1984). In Quantum Theory andMeasurement, ed J. A. Zurek (Princeton, NJ:Princeto University Press), 182–213.

Wheeler, J. A., and Feynman, R. P. (1945). Interactionwith the absorber as the mechanism of radiation.Rev. Mod. Phys. 17, 157–181.

Wilson, A. (2013). Social Priming: of Courseit Only Kind of Works. Notes from TwoScientific Psychologists. Available online at:http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2013/09/social-priming-of-course-it-only-kind.html

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declarethat the research was conducted in the absence of anycommercial or financial relationships that could beconstrued as a potential conflict of interest.

Received: 26 June 2014; accepted: 29 July 2014;published online: 22 August 2014.Citation: Franklin MS, Baumgart SL and SchoolerJW (2014) Future directions in precognition research:more research can bridge the gap between skeptics andproponents. Front. Psychol. 5:907. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00907This article was submitted to Perception Science, asection of the journal Frontiers in Psychology.Copyright © 2014 Franklin, Baumgart and Schooler.This is an open-access article distributed under theterms of the Creative Commons Attribution License(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in otherforums is permitted, provided the original author(s) orlicensor are credited and that the original publicationin this journal is cited, in accordance with acceptedacademic practice. No use, distribution or reproduc-tion is permitted which does not comply with theseterms.

Frontiers in Psychology | Perception Science August 2014 | Volume 5 | Article 907 | 4