The unlikely role of infrasound

[Dr B]

A colleague of mine has finally located the original NASA report paper that Tandy based his 'eye-ball' resonance suggestion on which provided the basis for all the ideas about infrasound and anomalous haunt-reports.

I have had a quick look - and it's highly dubious. No infrasound was used in the NASA report - skull & body vibration was employed by applying 0.5 - 1.0G vibration to observers. This is hardly the same thing. In addition, my colleague noted that the data do not really look like 'resonance' phenomena at all.....

The whole assumption Tandy made was based on this paper (which we have questioned elsewhere). It seems there really is no evidence at all that true-infrasound (IAV - inaudible air vibration) has any implications for anomalous cognition.

Based on this, there seems to be little need to measure it. It appears to be a total irrelevance. Any thoughts?

[Dr B]

I should add that I am also writing a new paper on this as well. It's nearly finished.

I think the whole confusion itself is interesting for other reasons - but i know of no evidence suggesting an effect between IAV and apparitions.

[bobdezon]

It amazing what can come from a good debate isnt it

Will the original NASA report be made available to us for comparison?

[Dr B]

It amazing what can come from a good debate isnt it

Will the original NASA report be made available to us for comparison?

I have two new papers - one nearly finsihed which reiterates my 2006 JSPR comments more explicitly. Another one is in the planning stage with my colleague MT. We feel a short research note covering this is important. The report itself is quite long and very old - so if we provide a precis that should help others. 8)

[Parascience]

A colleague of mine has finally located the original NASA report paper that Tandy based his 'eye-ball' resonance suggestion on which provided the basis for all the ideas about infrasound and anomalous haunt-reports.

I have had a quick look - and it's highly dubious. No infrasound was used in the NASA report - skull & body vibration was employed by applying 0.5 - 1.0G vibration to observers. This is hardly the same thing. In addition, my colleague noted that the data do not really look like 'resonance' phenomena at all.....

The whole assumption Tandy made was based on this paper (which we have questioned elsewhere). It seems there really is no evidence at all that true-infrasound (IAV - inaudible air vibration) has any implications for anomalous cognition.

Based on this, there seems to be little need to measure it. It appears to be a total irrelevance. Any thoughts?

Your colleague's reading of the NASA report quoted by Tandy is flawed. The application of vibrating stimulus is an acceptable means of determing the effects of low frequency and Infrasound exposure. Low Frequency soundwaves have been demonstrated in many lab experiments to induce vibrations within human body organs and systems. Vibration is normally measured using accelerometers which can be calibrated to provide measurement data expressed in terms of G or as a vibration frequency output in Hz. Both systems of measurement are used by Low Frequency sound and Vibration researchers. The fact that NASA expressed their results in terms of acceleration (G) was normal practise for that time.

The assumption by Vic Tandy that a specific frequency (18.9Hz) was responsible for some individuals reporting visual apparitions in the peripheral vision field resulting from low frequency sound / vibration induced eyeball oscillation has been demonstrated by substantial experimentation to be wrong. A paper is currently in production that provides the data for this claim.

However, Infrasound remains of great interest to paranormnal investigators as it has been demonstrated through many experiments to cause a number of Psychophysical effects on experients including changes in cardio-vascular function, irritability, anxiety, nausea, headaches etc., there is a but a selection of the effects upon the human that have been documented.
Many of these known effects of Infrasound exposure are similar to the effects often described and attributed by witnesses to paranormal experiences. Hence the case for Infrasound and Low frequency vibration research in the context of paranormal claims is not only valid but essential. It is poor science that claims "total irrelevance" and dismisses the case without proper measurement and testing of the claims being made.

I should like to add a quote to finish if I may on your use of IAV to describe Infrasound:

"A disturbing issue is the widespread missunderstanding that Infrasound is inaudible to humans, because the frequency components are placed below the claimed audible frequency range from 20Hz to 20kHz.
Although it was shown at least as early as the 1930's that Infrasound can be perceived, when only the sound pressure level is sufficiently high, this missunderstanding still exists, even among professionals. As a consequence, the mere mentioning of the word Infrasound brings up associations to 'inaudible sound' that can hardly be taken seriously."
(Henrik Meller & Morten Lydolf, Dept. of Accoustics, Aalborg University)

[dalriada]

Your colleague's reading of the NASA report quoted by Tandy is flawed. The application of vibrating stimulus is an acceptable means of determing the effects of low frequency and Infrasound exposure. Low Frequency soundwaves have been demonstrated in many lab experiments to induce vibrations within human body organs and systems.

Could you reference some of the 'many' studies?

The assumption by Vic Tandy that a specific frequency (18.9Hz) was responsible for some individuals reporting visual apparitions in the peripheral vision field resulting from low frequency sound / vibration induced eyeball oscillation has been demonstrated by substantial experimentation to be wrong.

Could you reference the 'substantial' experimentation?

A paper is currently in production that provides the data for this claim.

To be published where?

However, Infrasound remains of great interest to paranormnal investigators as it has been demonstrated through many experiments to cause a number of Psychophysical effects on experients including changes in cardio-vascular function, irritability, anxiety, nausea, headaches etc., there is a but a selection of the effects upon the human that have been documented.

Could you provide some references for a) the 'great interest' in infrasound for paranormal investigators and b) provide references for some of the 'documented effects'?

Many of these known effects of Infrasound exposure are similar to the effects often described and attributed by witnesses to paranormal experiences.

Could you list these effects, outline similarities and provide references?

"A disturbing issue is the widespread missunderstanding that Infrasound is inaudible to humans, because the frequency components are placed below the claimed audible frequency range from 20Hz to 20kHz.
Although it was shown at least as early as the 1930's that Infrasound can be perceived, when only the sound pressure level is sufficiently high, this missunderstanding still exists, even among professionals. As a consequence, the mere mentioning of the word Infrasound brings up associations to 'inaudible sound' that can hardly be taken seriously."
(Henrik Meller & Morten Lydolf, Dept. of Accoustics, Aalborg University)

I think this refers to the work of Henrik Møller could you list a date of publication , title of journal rather than authorial affiliation, and provide a page number for the quotation ?*

[Parascience]

Could you reference some of the 'many' studies?




Could you reference the 'substantial' experimentation?



To be published where?



Could you provide some references for a) the 'great interest' in infrasound for paranormal investigators and b) provide references for some of the 'documented effects'?



Could you list these effects, outline similarities and provide references?



I think this refers to the work of Henrik Møller could you list a date of publication , title of journal rather than authorial affiliation, and provide a page number for the quotation ?*

As this is a discussion forum and not a peer reviewed journal I omitted for clarity and briefness the many references I could have chosen from.
However, if you are interested in Infrasound and low frequency sound and vibration then I can recommend that you read "The Effects of Low-Frequency Noise & Vibration on People" Edited by Colin Hansen, published by Multi-Science Publishing Co. It should provide with most of the additional information you seek plus thousands of references which you seem to have a fondness for.

The 'substantial experimentation' you request further information of will be published in due course as the paper is currently in preparation. It would not be the correct to release the information without it having undergone proper peer review which is not normally done in a discussion forum such as this.

Henrik Møller is indeed correct for the author of the quote I used - you are right to have drawn that error to my attention - next time I will remember to use the extended keyboard characters please accept my apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

[dalriada]

As this is a discussion forum and not a peer reviewed journal I omitted for clarity and briefness the many references I could have chosen from.
However, if you are interested in Infrasound and low frequency sound and vibration then I can recommend that you read "The Effects of Low-Frequency Noise & Vibration on People" Edited by Colin Hansen, published by Multi-Science Publishing Co. It should provide with most of the additional information you seek plus thousands of references which you seem to have a fondness for. d.

This is a discussion forum, and many people debating here have postgraduate research experience of relevance to your topic, furthermore a number are professionally employed as academics. As a result we are more likely to prefer that claims should be properly substantiated than a populist audience would be. After all, it is good scholarly practice and your own disavowal of "poor science" has been noted in the previous post.

[Dr B]

I think Dalriada has beaten me to it.........however some thoughts and suggestions are as follows;

Your colleague's reading of the NASA report quoted by Tandy is flawed. The application of vibrating stimulus is an acceptable means of determing the effects of low frequency and Infrasound exposure.

I know it is done - but what you have failed to acknolwedge is the way these experiments are being used in the arguments for infrasound. How are you comparing G-force to sound pressure? In other words, what equations do you use to standardise these into comparable form? I can think of a potential way to do it - but not sure how valid it is. Could you tell me how you are doing it?

In addition - being an acceptable way to induce vibration does not mean one is engaging in the same biophysics under both circumstances. Think about it....

Low Frequency soundwaves have been demonstrated in many lab experiments to induce vibrations within human body organs and systems.

Only at excessive amplitudes and i note you did not call them infrasound - wise move. My other point is these studies are largely irrelevant for perceptual effects from weak IAV or true-infrasound. Thats my whole point which has always gone way over your head....

Vibration is normally measured using accelerometers which can be calibrated to provide measurement data expressed in terms of G or as a vibration frequency output in Hz.

Actually, you can use accelerometers to measure sound and this is preferred by some. It requires a sensitive sensor and a suitable membrane material - but the advanatges are a truly flat response at low frequencies. However, it is technical to set up and calibrate (OK for a scientist but not the lay person perhaps )

The fact that NASA expressed their results in terms of acceleration (G) was normal practise for that time.

Yes - i know - but its relatively meaningless unless you can coordinate the results from both G and db in a meaningful way - like I asked above, what equations are you using?

The assumption by Vic Tandy that a specific frequency (18.9Hz) was responsible for some individuals reporting visual apparitions in the peripheral vision field resulting from low frequency sound / vibration induced eyeball oscillation has been demonstrated by substantial experimentation to be wrong. A paper is currently in production that provides the data for this claim.

A paper already exists steve - its mine!!!!! I argued clearly that its implausible on logical and empirical grounds. I know you want to ignore that paper - but it is academically dishonset to do so. This argument has already been made. Its a done deal. However, it is nice to know your results are in line with my predictions (which i think you argued against sometime ago). Phew! - its not easy being right all the time

However, Infrasound remains of great interest to paranormnal investigators as it has been demonstrated through many experiments to cause a number of Psychophysical effects on experients including changes in cardio-vascular function, irritability, anxiety, nausea, headaches etc., there is a but a selection of the effects upon the human that have been documented.

Untrue - bring these references or this remains nothing but forum vomit. I have argued in my published paper and the new one that all those experiments use high-energy low frequency sound - its painful on the ears its that loud!!!! Can you dig out a paper showing all these effects at energy levels less than say 50db - 60db (replicated and in good journals). You see, your argument only works if you fudge the infrasound debate to high-energy low frequency sound - if you remove those studies - there is no evidence and so all the points above and elsehwere stand.8) This again is intellectually misleading and dishonest.

Many of these known effects of Infrasound exposure are similar to the effects often described and attributed by witnesses to paranormal experiences.

Wrong, peer-reviewed references?

Hence the case for Infrasound and Low frequency vibration research in the context of paranormal claims is not only valid but essential.

nop - its flawed and unsubstantiated

It is poor science that claims "total irrelevance" and dismisses the case without proper measurement and testing of the claims being made.

It's poor science to not know what you're talking about. Remember the key thing is the difference between sensation and perception (that is, physics and brain) which you have never really understood as far as i can see.

You also show very poor scientific training here as you seem to assume that all science is based on experiments alone. Science could not function if that were the case. Sometimes, some experiments are pointless on purely rational grounds as well. I dont need to run an experiment on Geller to know that PK energy from a human brain is so unlikely that it would be perverse to think it so.

"A disturbing issue is the widespread missunderstanding that Infrasound is inaudible to humans, because the frequency components are placed below the claimed audible frequency range from 20Hz to 20kHz.
Although it was shown at least as early as the 1930's that Infrasound can be perceived, when only the sound pressure level is sufficiently high, this missunderstanding still exists, even among professionals. As a consequence, the mere mentioning of the word Infrasound brings up associations to 'inaudible sound' that can hardly be taken seriously."
(Henrik Meller & Morten Lydolf, Dept. of Accoustics, Aalborg University)

Wonderful!!!!! More quotes from the ill informed on biophysics. Steve, I told you over a year ago that for your work you need a biophysical definition and framework - not just a physical one. Nice to see you are still stuck in that cul-de-sac of confusion. Shame really......

I agree that those definitions of IS are suitable for engineers and physics etc - but not for the psychologist who also needs to deal with neural response, psychophysics, information representation & competition, neural and cognitive resources, sensory adaptation and responsiveness, information processing, perception, behaviour, awareness, and consciousness - all based (or not as the case is more likely to be) on sensation. It does matter to the psychologist as to whether the sound is heard as the brain response will be totally different when it is and when it is not. You need to be clear on isolating these factors in order to understand the biophysics - be they auditory biophysics, vestibular, or otherwise.......

The biophysics of high-amplitude IS are likely to be multi-dimensional and you need to be clear on which ones you are isolating - that's all.

I should also point out your fallacy above as your quote does not address my suggestion - i (and others) have fragmented the notion of IS which is more helpful. We have never argued that those definitions given above in your quote do not exist and are not typical - just that, to the psychologist - they are not totally suitable.

[Dr B]

Some useful references (not forgetting Braithwaite & Townsend, 2006 JSPR )

Bedard Jr, A.J., & Georges, T.M. (2000) Atmospheric infrasound. Physics Today, 53 (3), 32-37.

Broner, N. (1978). The effects of low frequency noise on people: A review. Journal of Sound
Vibration,58, 483-500.

Haneke, K.E., Carson, B.L., Gregorio, C.A., & Maull, E.A. (2001) Infrasound: Brief review of
toxicological literature. Infrasound toxicological summary, November. N01-ES-65402

Holt, N.J. (2006) “Project haunt”: An attempt to build a ‘haunted’ room. Paranormal Review, 38, pp 11-
13.

Kuralesin, N.A. (1997) Health related and medico-biological aspects of the effects of infrasound. Noise
Vibration Bulletin, 5, 221-226.

Tandy, V. (2000). Something in the cellar. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 64, 129-140.

Tandy, V., & Lawrence, T. R. (1998). The ghost in the machine. Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 62, 360-364.

[Dr B]

bump.....

seems that paper demonstrating sooooo much evidence never happened......

Things are not true just because someone wants to be or merely shouts loud enough....

Still no direct evidence for true-infrasound (IAV) to impact on perception. While the absence of evidence is indeed meaningless either way, it does show the claims being made above by some are unsupported.

There are more likely interpretations which are more consistent with the evidence. And besides, the 'evidence' alluded to above that could not be discussed as it was not yet published was being discussed at the same time over on BadPsychics...(by the same person)..truth was that they failed to get effects of IS on perception - exactly as predicted here and in other threads around here years ago.

[dalriada]

Dr B are you Perhaps overlooking the infrasound paper on the Space-Dog website?

http://www.spacedog.biz/extras/Infra...nicResults.doc
It's not in a journal, its pretty brief, it doesn't seem peer-reviewed but it is an actual paper. Seriously, it has writing.

Is Steve Parsons (of Parascience) still supposed to be doing a Phd on this? I know he was at Liverpool Hope with the parapsychology research group but Ciaran O'Keeffe left his academic post there years ago to do Ghostbusting tours and unaccredited online courses, so who would supervise it? Matt Smith (another Wiseman parapsychology PhD student) also left Liverpool Hope a year or so ago to become a psychic and Christine Simmonds Moore went off to America around the same time . The remaining two lecturers in the 'unit' study things like psychic animals and "energy healing" (for which they have recently taken a slating on ethical grounds in Qualitative Research in Psychology) and don't seem to have the background in neuroscience or physics which would seem to be necessary for a subject like this.

I'm wondering also who would be the external examiner for the viva exam. There may well be people overseas with the expertise (Persinger etc.) but it's a bit unlikely he could be persuaded or paid to come over to the UK for a Viva at Hope (but who knows?). In the Uk, with the possible exception of Chris French the only person I can think of in the broad fields of anomalous cognition/parapsychology who'd have the necessary knowledge and record of peer-reviewed publications (both mainstream and "para") would be a certain Dr Jason Braithwaite...

I'd pay money to witness that.


Or would it be a lot easier just to choose for an external examiner, someone with a parapsychology PhD, from another fringe university who wouldn't have any experience or publications in the relevant areas but who could be relied upon to look favourably on a fellow parapsychologist and not rock the boat with awkward questions??

[Dr B]

Well, when i said publication.......i kind of meant, well, a real publication.....

PS - that paper is quite poor evidence of anything as far as i can see. Maybe that is why it never really got published. This sort of stuff just confuses people rather than help promote science in the public domain.

I guess the process of publishing coffee-table books on ghosthunting is less taxing than journals....

[dalriada]

Well, when i said publication.......i kind of meant, well, a real publication.....

You Neuroscience people are just so..so picky....

Steve. P (Parascience) did note in post #7 above (from three years ago) that :

The 'substantial experimentation' you request further information of will be published in due course as the paper is currently in preparation. It would not be the correct to release the information without it having undergone proper peer review which is not normally done in a discussion forum such as this.

As you have pointed out the paper "in preparation" back in March 2008 still hasn't been published yet (if it ever will be) but as it turns out Parascience had in fact already posted preliminary results on the Bad Psychics Forum (prior to claiming on this thread, that it would not be appropriate to release information on a discussion board!)

So here is what was said on the Bad Psychics thread:

Parascience: Please bear in mind these are preliminary results from the first of a series of experiments. A total of 439 people took part in the experiment (this will increase slightly in the final paper, as one experimental session took place on sunday night after the initial results had been collated).
249 were subjected to generated infrasound during their tour of the close, and 190 were not. One third of the people in the infrasound on condition reported unusual experiences, and 35% of people in the infrasound off condition reported unusual experiences. This shows no significant difference between the two conditions (infrasound on or off).However, when the number of experiences reported by each person were looked at, 36% of people in the infrasound on condition reported multiple experiences, whereas only 16.4% of people in the infrasound off condition reported multiple experiences.
So approximately the same proportion of people are having experiences, but the people being subjected to infrasound are having more multiple experiences than those who are not. I had a quick look at reports of temperature changes, as these are anecdotally reported in combination with many apparent paranormal experiences, usually in the form of temperature drops. Participants in both conditions reported temperature changes, but of the participants subjected to infrasound, 20% reported a temperature rise, as opposed to 5% of the infrasound off participants. As a comparison, results from our online paranormal experience questionnaire show 10% of temperature reports describe a rise in temperature. There is obviously a lot more data to crunch yet, but we thought you may like a quick taster of what has been found so far

All seems fairly inconclusive.
Dr. B. do you have an opinion? And Incidentally, do you know anyone who'd be capable of being external for that kind of infrasound PhD?

We've been joking about this, but it does seem at least plausibly possible to get a PhD in complete piffle and have it validated by your supervisor's friends and that's not good for academia as a whole or psychology in particular and most especially, it's not good for the credibility of parapsychology/psychical research in the UK.

[Harryprice]

Is this the same study?

"The subjective anomalous experiences of 439 individuals were surveyed. The results obtained strongly indicated that infrasound exposure was a component in the production of subjective paranormal experiences for around 1/3 rd of the total survey. However, the study failed to demonstrate any of the visual disturbances and resulting apparitional experiences that Tandy had suggested would be created by exposure to the frequency range around 18Hz (Para.Science, 2008). The infrasound generator (ARIA) has also been used in two public performances (Silent Sound, 2006 & 2010) in which a frequency of 18.9Hz was produced at an SPL exceeding 90DBS. Unreported anecdotal accounts from participants and audience members did indicate a number of psycho-physiological effects such as feeling ill at ease, anxiousness and physical discomfort were experienced when ARIA was in use but no visual or apparitional experiences were reported. "

(from http://www.parascience.org.uk/articles/infra.htm).

The key parts for me were "... the study failed to demonstrate any of the visual disturbances and resulting apparitional experiences that Tandy had suggested would be created by exposure to the frequency range around 18Hz ... when ARIA was in use but no visual or apparitional experiences were reported. "