ArticleslgStudy

science

Sensory leakage

Sensory leakage is a science topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Sensory leakage rather than just read about it. In short: Sensory leakage is a term used to refer to information that transferred to a person by conventional, non-paranormal means during an experiment into extrasensory perception. For example, where the subject in an experiment receives a visual cue—the reflection of a Zener card in the holder's glasses—sensory leakage can be said to have occurred.

Sensory leakage — main illustration
Sensory leakage — illustration

Key takeaways

  • Sensory leakage belongs to science; place it in that map before memorising details.
  • Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
  • Connect Sensory leakage to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
  • Reproduce the core statement of Sensory leakage from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Sensory leakage is a term used to refer to information that transferred to a person by conventional, non-paranormal means during an experiment into extrasensory perception. For example, where the subject in an experiment receives a visual cue—the reflection of a Zener card in the holder's glasses—sensory leakage can be said to have occurred.

History

Scientists such as Donovan Rawcliffe (1952), C. E. M. Hansel (1980), Ray Hyman (1989) and Andrew Neher (2011) have studied the history of psi experiments from the late 19th century up until the 1980s. In every experiment investigated, flaws and weaknesses were discovered so the possibility of naturalistic explanations (such as sensory cues) or deception and trickery were not ruled out. The data from the Creery sisters and the Soal–Goldney experiments were proven to be fraudulent, one of the subjects from the Smith-Blackburn experiments confessed to fraud, the Brugmans' experiment, the experiments by John E. Coover, Joseph Gaither Pratt, and Helmut Schmidt did not rule out the possibility of sensory cues or trickery. In the 20th century, J. B. Rhine carried out experiments into ESP. His experiments were discredited due to the discovery that sensory leakage or cheating could account for all his results such as the subject being able to read the symbols from the back of the cards and being able to see and hear the experimenter to note subtle clues. Terence Hines has written:

The methods the Rhines used to prevent subjects from gaining hints and clues as to the design on the cards were far from adequate. In many experiments, the cards were displayed face up, but hidden behind a small wooden shield. Several ways of obtaining information about the design on the card remain even in the presence of the shield. For instance, the subject may be able sometimes to see the design on the face-up card reflected in the agent's glasses. Even if the agent isn't wearing glasses it is possible to see the reflection in his cornea. Once Rhine took precautions in response to criticisms of his methods, he was unable to find any high-scoring subjects. Due to the methodological problems, parapsychologists no longer utilize card-guessing studies. Rhine's experiments into psychokinesis (PK) were also criticized. John Sladek wrote:

His research used dice, with subjects 'willing' them to fall a certain way. Not only can dice be drilled, shaved, falsely numbered and manipulated, but even straight dice often show bias in the long run. Casinos for this reason retire dice often, but at Duke, subjects continued to try for the same effect on the same dice over long experimental runs. Not surprisingly, PK appeared at Duke and nowhere else. The Turner-Owenby long-distance telepathy experiment was discovered to contain flaws. Frances May Turner positioned herself in the Duke Parapsychology Laboratory whilst Sarah Owenby claimed to receive transmissions 250 miles away. For the experiment, Turner would think of a symbol and write it down whilst Owenby would write her guesses. The scores were highly successful and both records were supposed to be sent to J. B. Rhine, however, Owenby sent them to Turner. Critics pointed out this invalidated the results as she could have simply written her own record to agree with the other. When the experiment was repeated and the records were sent to Rhine the scores dropped to average. A famous ESP experiment at Duke University was performed by Lucien Warner and Mildred Raible. The subject was locked in a room with a switch controlling a signal light elsewhere, which he could signal to guess the card. Ten runs with ESP packs of cards were used and he achieved 93 hits (43 more than chance). Weaknesses with the experiment were later discovered. The duration of the light signal could be varied so that the subject could call for specific symbols and certain symbols in the experiment came up far more often than others which indicated either poor shuffling or card manipulation.

Ganzfeld experiment

The Ganzfeld experiment studies that were examined by Ray Hyman and Charles Honorton had methodological problems that were well documented. Honorton reported only 36% of the studies used duplicate target sets of pictures to avoid handling cues. Hyman discovered flaws in all of the 42 Ganzfeld experiments and to assess each experiment, he devised a set of 12 categories of flaws. Six of these concerned statistical defects, the other six covered procedural flaws such as inadequate documentation, randomization and security as well as possibilities of sensory leakage. Over half of the studies failed to safeguard against sensory leakage and all of the studies contained at least one of the 12 flaws. Because of the flaws, Honorton agreed with Hyman the 42 Ganzfeld studies could not support the claim for the existence of psi. Possibilities of sensory leakage in the Ganzfeld experiments included the receivers hearing what was going on in the sender's room next door as the rooms were not soundproof and the sender's fingerprints to be visible on the target object for the receiver to see. Hyman also reviewed the auto-Ganzfeld experiments and discovered a pattern in the data that implied a visual cue may have taken place:

The most suspicious pattern was the fact that the hit rate for a given target increased with the frequency of occurrence of that target in the experiment. The hit rate for the targets that occurred only once was right at the chance expectation of 25%. For targets that appeared twice the hit rate crept up to 28%. For those that occurred three times it was 38%, and for those targets that occurred six or more times, the hit rate was 52%. Each time a videotape is played its quality can degrade. It is plausible then, that when a frequently used clip is the target for a given session, it may be physically distinguishable from the other three decoy clips that are presented to the subject for judging. Surprisingly, the parapsychological community has not taken this finding seriously. They still include the autoganzfeld series in their meta-analyses and treat it as convincing evidence for the reality of psi. Hyman wrote the auto-Ganzfeld experiments were flawed because they did not preclude the possibility of sensory leakage.

Remote viewing

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Illustrations

Sensory leakage: Participant in a Ganzfeld telepathy experiment
Participant in a Ganzfeld telepathy experiment

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Sensory leakage

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Sensory leakage claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In science, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Sensory leakage before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Sensory leakage ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Sensory leakage

In research
Sensory leakage appears in science research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry
Engineering practice reuses Sensory leakage in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom
Sensory leakage is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics Paranormal terminology, Parapsychology, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life
Look for Sensory leakage outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.
Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “Sensory leakage” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Sensory leakage in 20 minutes

  1. Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
  2. Close the page and write down what Sensory leakage means in your own words.
  3. Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
  4. Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
  5. Explain Sensory leakage out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Sensory leakage in simple terms?

Sensory leakage is a term used to refer to information that transferred to a person by conventional, non-paranormal means during an experiment into extrasensory perception. For example, where the subject in an experiment receives a visual cue—the reflection of a Zener card in the holder's glasses—s…

Why does Sensory leakage matter?

Because it connects several science ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Sensory leakage?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Sensory leakage.

Tags

  • Paranormal terminology
  • Parapsychology

Keep exploring