Journal of Exceptional Experiences and Psychology evening during which the suspected RSPK agent was unaware that the REG device was actively collecting data. However, further study is needed to truly explore the non-focused aspect of this study as telling a participant “not to focus” on the REG device, as was the case in some the data collections, could have led the participant to implicitly focus on the REG device because they know it is there. It has also been previously described elsewhere that task oriented indirect feedback leads to both intended and unintended effects on a hidden REG device by individuals who showed conscious-purposive focus (Varvoglis & McCarthy, 1986). Therefore, future studies exploring true non-focus and eliminating conscious-purposive focus will be needed. The finding that significant deviations from chance expectation were only found in sessions of nonfocused attention following focused attention could also help explain inconsistent results obtained in other studies where REG devices were run in apparent RSPK locations (Bierman, 1996; Gerding et al., 2002; Schumacher, 2009; Caswell et al., 2014b). Simply being at the location where the activity occurs may not be sufficient to cause significant deviations in randomness. Instead, the focal agent of the apparent phenomenon should be actively engaged in a PK-like task prior to any subsequent detachment from the investigation. Though the “linger effect” (Wells & Watkins, 1975; Cohen, 1999; Radin et al., 2004; Nelson & Bancel, 2006; Caswell et al., 2014b; Gaona et al., 2014), or proposed residual influence could explain the significant findings in some studies, there still seems to be a psychological component of focused followed by nonfocused attention that is required. Additional studies in RSPK scenarios are required to explore the role and duration of the “linger effect” in focused then non-focused attention to further elucidate the subjective factors which may mediate this process. The Living Room session during which EMF spikes were observed occurred approximately three hours after the focused followed by non-focused attention session and this was the only time during the investigation when potential EMF anomalies were recorded. The REG deviation during this time did not achieve statistical significance. The RSPK agent in the Waukesha study claimed there had been anomalous electromagnetic effects in the location and similar effects have been noted in many other RSPK cases (Rhine, 1963; Bauman, 1995). These EMF spikes may be due to a RSPK electromagnetic disturbance and/or residual influence. However, this “linger effect” has only been reported to last 25 to 30 minutes (Watkins et al., 1973; Watkins & Watkins, 1974; Wells & Watkins, 1975) and the REG segment that included the EMF spikes was run almost three hours after the kitchen segment. Also, no electrical disturbances were noted during the kitchen investigation. An additional consideration is the immersion of REGs in “noisy” electromagnetic fields, which has previously demonstrated directional effects on the output of a REG device (Caswell et al., 2014d). It has also been shown that REG target systems could be affected by geomagnetic fluctuations through a possible stochastic resonance mechanism when there is electromagnetic noise present, and the level of change in the REG output is similar to that seen in micro-PK studies (Stevens, 1999; 2000; 2005). Even though the Psyleron REG-1 is designed to protect against external physical effects, future studies should continue to consider geomagnetic and electromagnetic factors as they may play a role in REG output via direct or indirect effects and/or biophysical processes (Caswell et al., 2013; Caswell et al., 2014c; 2014d; 2014e). Dr. William Roll also noted that the distance an object moved is proportional to the length of time a RSPK agent focused on the object (Persinger, 2014). It may be interesting to note that the Janesville focused attention time was 46% greater than the amount of time the Waukesha suspected RSPK agent focused on the REG. The non-focused attention segment Stouffer’s Z (z c) for Janesville was 3.49 vs. -1.958 for Waukesha. While this preliminary, exploratory finding may provide preliminary support Dr. Roll’s observations, future studies would need to be done to accumulate a greater number of similar experiments and subsequently
Vol. 3 No. 1
57