Jump to content

Michael Persinger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 4.243.161.42 (talk) at 19:54, 25 May 2006 (→Magnetic neurotheology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dr. Michael A. Persinger (born June 26, 1945), a cognitive neuroscience researcher, has worked since 1971 at Laurentian University, Canada.

Early life

Persinger, though born in Jacksonville, Florida, grew up primarily in Virginia, Maryland and Wisconsin. He attended Carroll College from 1963 to 1964, and graduated from the University of Wisconsin, Madison in 1967. He then obtained an M.A. in physiological psychology from the University of Tennessee and a Ph.D. from the University of Manitoba in 1971.

Research and academic work

Persinger focuses much of his work on the commonalities that exist between the sciences. He aims to integrate fundamental concepts of various branches of science. He organized the Behavioral Neuroscience Program at Laurentian University. This program became one of the first to integrate chemistry, biology and psychology.

Because of the interdisciplinary nature of much of his work, Persinger insists on publishing his techniques and results within the public forum (the scientific literature). Except for $10,000 given to him in 1983 by a researcher from the U.S. Navy who had an interest in magnetic fields and brain activity, his private practice has supported all of his work. Laurentian University supplies only space and infrastructure. Recently, Persinger has received grants from a Canadian SIDS foundation.

Dr. Pehr Granqvist omitted some crucial preparatory work and procedures in his experiment at Uppsala University , and Granqvist's conclusions overlook many of Persinger's procedures.

Granqvist's procedures were an attempt at eliciting the 'sensed presence' experience. However, in Persinger's words, his "methodology deviated significantly from the procedures known to evoke an experimental sensed presence."

The software Granqvist used was provided by Persinger and Koren, but it required either a calibration program or a 286 PC. Stan Koren, technician for persinger's group, authored a calibration program which went into use shortly after the need for it was discovered (V. 1.4). Granqvist cannot be blamed because the bug wasn't found until after he was provided with the software (V. 1.15). He would have been sent another version had he stayed in touch.

Granqvist reported using a Pentuim PRO PC, which would give it a processor speed between 166 and 200mhz. Granqvist's version of COMPLEX was written for the 286 series, with processor speeds close to 10 mhz. Pehr Granqvist ran his signals around ten times too fast.

Another point related to the software used in Persinger's lab is that it cannot be run under windows. Persinger's hardware connects to a PC through the LPT port (the printer port). Windows adds significant noise to the printer port's output - enough that it will "disconfigure the temporal patterns of the applied magnetic fields." The Granqvist paper mentioned that the PC used in his experiment was running windows 95. COMPLEX is a DOS program, and it doesn't work properly under Windows.

Although it's a good thing when significant research is replicated, getting the fields and signals wrong is liable to lead to failure, just like leaving out compounds in a chemical lab.

Persinger described the procedure he uses for television documentaries and colleagues: "The experiences were most easily evoked if a frequency-modulated pattern (tailored after a "chirp" sequence from standard signal generators) was applied over the right hemisphere for 20 minutes and then a bilateral burst-firing pattern (designed after the discharge of amygdaloid neurons... ) was applied bilaterally over the temporal lobes for an additional 20 minutes note. These experiences occurred with equal vigor in dozens of reporters accompanying television film crews who have visited the laboratory during the last 10 years. The sensitivity of the functions of the right hemisphere to complex magnetic fields even within the picotesla range has been shown repeatedly by Sandyk."

In contrast, Granqvist applied the signals for only 15 minutes in each of the two phases. Even if he had used the calibration program, the shorter sessions make 'the sensed presence' and other similar experiences less likely. The difference of 5 minutes amounts to a 25% reduction in the length of the session, quite enough to eliminate reports from less-sensitive people, and influence the outcome of the experiment. Another point worth noting is that Persinger used an acoustic chamber, while Granqvist used an "isolation" chamber. A significant portion of the temporal lobes activity is given over to monitoring ambient sound. The silence achieved in a proper acoustic chamber helps in eliciting the phenomena Persinger is known for, and it's replacement by a quiet isolation chamber deprives the sessions of true silence. This factor, while by no means decisive in Granqvist's failure to replicate Persinger's results, can reduce the number of experiences reported, as optimal conditions for the less-sensitive subjects are no longer present.

Granqvist's isolation chamber was significantly smaller than Persinger's, too. Two cubic meters instead of the seven used in Persinger's lab. A bit cramped.

Granqvist is mistaken that Persinger's results are due to suggestion. In Persinger's experiments " ... the subjects were not aware of their experimental conditions and experimenters were not familiar with the hypotheses being tested or both were not aware of the experimental condition. Subjects were randomly or serially allocated to conditions. The person generating the hypothesis never had direct contact with the subjects."source Further, Persinger's results include cases where an experiment found one signal pleasant when applied over the right hemisphere, and a different signal more pleasant over the left. This precludes suggestibility as an explanation. In order for a researcher to get such reports through suggestability, they would have to plant very specific suggestions informing the subjects of the expected outcome. These results cannot be explained as suggestability except by recourse to accusations of fakery or an abandonment of sound procedure.

Granqvist's subjects were told that the experiment "was about the influence of complex, weak magnetic fields on experiences and feeling states". Persinger's subjects are told they are participating in an experiment concerning relaxation. If anything, Persinger's procedures are more 'blind' than Granqvist's.

Granqvist wrote that the lab was "neutral in terms of affective induction", meaning that the setting gave the subject no clues about the procedure. But, he also wrote that the lab had two computers and an EEG device. If the intake information didn't tell the subjects what the experiment was about, the EEG could have.

His subjects were undergraduate theology and psychology students, two groups who are interested in mental health, and easily well-educated enough to recognize an EEG, with it's characteristic rows of pens.

If you tell a research subject that they're helping to study the 'influence' of 'magnetic fields' on 'feeling states', and then walk them through a room with an EEG in it, you'll have presented a suggestion - that they're going to experience neural stimulation. The subjects were given two cues about the nature of the experiment, one verbal (the experiment "was about the influence of complex, weak magnetic fields on experiences and feeling states"), and one visual (the EEG machine). It's not surprising that Granqvist's results correlated with suggestibility. The field configuration his subjects received was so distorted that the principle effects had no chance of appearing.

In addition to the studies that demonstrate hemispheric effects, there are also studies published reporting significant after-effects. In two studies Persinger and Baker-Price found lasting after-effects (a reduction in depression caused by closed head injuries). At this time of writing, similar results are being obtained with clinical depression in Texas. Follow-up for these studies lasted six weeks past the series of sessions. Subjects reported a reduction in depression and phobias. A result that can't be explained through suggestion.

These are relevant studies. They were done using the same hardware and one of the same signals as the better-known sessions seen on television. Based on the same principles as the experiments Granqvist tried to recreate, their success casts doubt on the swedish team's attempt to replicate.

During the 1980s Persinger stimulated people's temporal lobes artificially with a weak magnetic field to see if he could induce a religious state (see God helmet). He found that the field could produce the sensation of "an ethereal presence in the room".

In 2005 Pehr Granqvist, a psychologist at Uppsala University in Sweden, questioned Persinger's neurotheological findings in a paper published in Neuroscience Letters. Dr. Granqvist believes Dr. Persinger's work failed to utilise "double blind" methodology. Those conducting Persinger's trials (often graduate students) knew what sort of results to expect, giving rise to the risk that they could transmit unconscious cues to experimental subjects. Persinger's group also frequently gave subjects an idea of what they expected by asking subjects to fill in (prior to the trials) questionnaires designed to test their suggestibility to paranormal experiences. Dr. Granqvist set about conducting the experiment double-blinded, and found that the presence or absence of the field had no relationship with any religious or spiritual experience reported by the participants.

Dr. Persinger stands by his findings. He argues that "Dr Granqvist and his colleagues failed to generate a 'biologically effective signal' in their subjects because of a failure to use the equipment properly". He says the Granqvist group "omitted our two major publications, with 148 people, that had been completed under double blind conditions".

In a December 2004 issue of Nature, reporting on the Granqvist/Persinger controversy, Susan Blackmore, a former academic psychologist and parapsychology researcher, expressed her reluctance to give up on the theory just yet: "When I went to Persinger's lab and underwent his procedures I had the most extraordinary experiences I've ever had." "I'll be surprised if it turns out to be a placebo effect."

Other critics state that Persinger uses magnetic stimuli orders of magnitude too weak to influence any brain activity. People routinely encounter magnetic-field strengths and frequencies similar to those used by Persinger when they cook over electric stoves or use electric hair-driers, yet people do not typically report religious experiences during these activities. In contrast, transcranial magnetic stimulation with commercial devices requires magnetic stimuli millions of times greater in strength either to marginally stimulate or to inhibit brain activity. This raises a problem as to what physical mechanism would account for the results Persinger claims to have induced in his subjects using far weaker stimuli.

Persinger theorizes, however, that the intensity of the magnetic field does not matter, but the pattern (information) that it carries does. For example, one can turn on a television set with just snow on the channel and increase the volume, yet it does not convey the same information as a network channel set on a minimum volume. However, how this explanation answers the criticisms (or how Persinger could test his explanation) remains unexplained. Studies currently continue which examine exposure to different patterns of electromagnetic fields with varying intensities in an effort to explain this phenomenon.

Tectonic Strain Theory

Tectonic strain theory (Earthlights)
Claims
Related scientific disciplines
Year proposed
  • 1975
Original proponents
  • Michael Persinger
Subsequent proponents
  • Persinger and Paul Devereux
(Overview of pseudoscientific concepts)

Persinger has also come to public attention due to his 1975 Tectonic Strain Theory (TST) of how geophysical variables may correlate with sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Persinger argued that strain within the earth's crust near seismic faults produces intense electromagnetic (EM) fields, creating bodies of light that some interpret as glowing UFOs. Alternatively, the EM fields generate hallucinations in the temporal lobe, based on images from popular culture, of alien craft, beings, communications, or creatures.

Canadian researcher Chris Rutkowski of the University of Manitoba has become a prominent harsh critic of Persinger's Tectonic Strain Theory. For one thing, Rutowski argues, in order to try to accommodate UFO sightings in regions far removed from faults, Persinger has claimed that UFO-like lights or hallucinations can manifest hundreds of miles away from an area of seismic activity. Not only does this place an absurdly great distance between the actual area of tectonic stress and the surmised significant EM field, it also makes the theory unscientific by destroying any possible predictive power. Nearly every place on the planet lies within a few hundred miles of a seismically active area. Rutkowski pointed out severe flaws in Persinger's statistical methodology, since he confused possible correlation (however weak) with causality. For example, one could more easily explain occasional clusters of UFO sightings along earthquake fault-lines by the fact that populations often occur there in higher densities and by the fact that transportation routes often follow major fault lines, such as the San Andreas fault in California.

As with criticisms of Persinger's claims that minute laboratory magnetic fields can invoke hallucinations, Rutowski also points out that Persinger's inferred seismic EM fields would have much less influence than what people commonly experience near electrical appliances like television sets or hair driers. This again raises the question as to why people don't experience UFOs or aliens far more often than they do, or why these hypothetical hallucinations from electrical devices wouldn't drown out any possible contribution from much weaker geophysical fields. Once again, Persinger notes that the magnitude of the EM fields may have less significance than the particular temporal patterns.

In the UK, Paul Devereux advocates a variant geophysical theory similar to TST, the Earthlights theory. However, unlike Persinger, Devereaux generally restricts such effects to the immediate vicinity of a fault line. Devereux's approach also differs from Persinger's in holding triboluminescence rather than piezoelectricity as the "more likely candidate" for the production of naturally occurring UFOs. Devereux doesn't advocate, as in Persinger's TST, that the phenomenon might create hallucinations of UFO encounters in people, instead proposing an even more radical hypothesis: that earthlights may possess intelligence and even have the ability to read witness' thoughts. [1]

That witnesses sometimes see very diffuse lights during (and sometimes before and after) very severe earthquakes may give weak support to some parts of TST and Earthlights theory (see Earthquake lights). However, whether such light phenomena can occur near fault lines not under severe stress and also manifest as confined rather than diffuse light, remains at best questionable and controversial. Even critics like Rutowski think such theories hold some promise for explaining a small percentage of UFO phenomena, but doubt that they can ever offer a comprehensive explanation for the vast majority of unexplained UFO cases.

Witnesses have reported earthlights-type phenomena (also referred to as "ghost lights") from around the world. Various theories other than TST have attempted to explain them. The Hessdalen Lights in Norway [2] provide a well-known example of repeatable light phenomena that have undergone intensive study. Whether these light phenomena will ultimately support either Persinger's or Devereux's theories will have to await further research.

The temporal lobes of epileptic rats

In one paper, Persinger also theorized that extremely tiny fluctuations in Earth's geomagnetic field caused some of his experimental lab rats prone to epilepsy to suddenly drop dead. Persinger considered these rats unusually sensitive to such fields because of their unstable temporal lobes that triggered epileptic seizures. Therefore, Persinger thought the fields affected the temporal lobes, a theme that carries through his present work. However, critics again portray Persinger's methods and theories as unscientific, noting that something like a simple lab infection in the animals would provide a far more likely cause of their sudden death. The matter remains unresolved, however, as such supposed "infections" do not usually occur widely or virulently across the laboratory, nor do they usually affect cagemates.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Persinger&oldid=55123950"