Ghoul Vibrations: press release.

[Dr B]

So in that case we do not perceive vibrations then...such as from passing heavy traffic, thunder or Earthquakes unless they are loud enough to hear?

Why would you arrive at that conclusion? I never said that at all. Again i think you need to concentrate on the psychology of what I am saying a little more

Infrasound is sound / noise below the range of normal human hearing - you are just fudging the issue

You mean inaudible?

- I and many other people have 'Heard' Infrasound as I would wager have you. All it needs is sufficient amplitude. I am starting to sound like a broken record - I could bore you with very many definitions of Infrasound to make the point that it is only defined by Frequency.

No - what you have failed to grasp is infrasound is a frequnecy range (the response of the ear rolls off and is not absolute) some of this 'range' is above hearing threshold but mainly because it does not make any physical sense to have a major cut off here. However, true infrasound is inaudible and as such, must be of low frequency (say <20hz) and of sufficiently low amplitude not to be heard as sound (say 50-60db for arguments sake). For our purposes it is important to have a marker between sound that is clearly heard as sound and vibration that is not experienced in the same way.

Every expert I have ever spoken to about this - hates the term 'infrasound' - when i ask why (even though i know) - they say it is because of the use of 'sound' in the title - all infrasound is air vibration but not all air vibration is infrasound. They claim it generates confusion (and clearly it does) for all the reasons we have discussed. Your claims about frequency alone are dated and based on estimates using average natural sound levels.

I believe there is a case for clarity - that is all. When you report your study you will need to be clear whether you used true-infrasound or low-frequency sound (I suspect the latter).

You have managed to find a definition that actually mentions Infrasound is Inaudible (there are several others) but it doesn't alter the fact that Infrasound is defined by Frequency alone and NOT amplitude, which is the point you seem to keep overlooking.

Nop - i have loads of references and all point to to covariation of frequency and amplitude. It is ridiculous to talk of sound without its associated energy - all infrasound can be made audible with sufficient power.

I'm well within my area of competance and understanding here as I am sure that my Ph.D research will demonstrate in the fullness of time.

I wish you well with it and i know you will take on board what has been discussed here

[Parascience]

all infrasound is air vibration but not all air vibration is infrasound.

Agreed - above 20Hz (ish) it's Sound and above 20kHz (ish) it's Ultrasound.

The rest we can just agree to disagree about for the time being at least

[median]

Nop - i have loads of references and all point to to covariation of frequency and amplitude. It is ridiculous to talk of sound without its associated energy - all infrasound can be made audible with sufficient power.

Quick question.

If infrasound is categorised as being below a certain frequency range but on increasing the amplitude it was heard, would the sound actually become 'audible' using the proper auditory channels or rather would it be a consequence of vibration being transmitted through the body and impingeing on the bones of the ear? Would it be interpretted as more of a feeling than a sound?
Is the term audible the right one to use in this context?

[Cuddles]

Parascience, the problem here seem to be that you are arguing definitions for the sake of the definition itself and not actually paying attention to the physics behind it. I think both of you, and everyone else, agree that the common usage of "infrasound" simply means a frequency below the normal human hearing threshold of about 20Hz. However, as Dr. B has pointed out several times, this definition is completely meaningless, especially from a scientific point of view.

The problem is that sound is a continuum. There is no difference between sound with frequency of 21Hz and sound with frequency of 19Hz (except the frequency of course). There is no cutoff. There is nothing different about infrasound from regular sound. Add to this the fact that humans are all different and have different thresholds for hearing and your attempts to force some kind of difference between sound above and below 20Hz are just utterly meaningless.

The only way it can possibly make any sense to discuss infrasound and human perception is by defining infrasound to be air vibrations that are inaudible. Otherwise, as Dr B says, it is just sound. How can you possibly measure different methods of perception whithout first eliminating the normal one? You must use infrasound that is inaudible to humans, regardless of frequency, otherwise you have no way of seperating the effects of infrasound and the effects of just regular sound, or more accurately, perception via the ears and perception via other means. Dr. B is not arguing that your definition is wrong, he is simply saying it is useless for your work.

[Parascience]

Parascience, the problem here seem to be that you are arguing definitions for the sake of the definition itself and not actually paying attention to the physics behind it. I think both of you, and everyone else, agree that the common usage of "infrasound" simply means a frequency below the normal human hearing threshold of about 20Hz. However, as Dr. B has pointed out several times, this definition is completely meaningless, especially from a scientific point of view.

Definitions form an important part of science and they are worth fighting for - if we all decided to force a new definition into existence just to suite our argument we would soon dissolve into chaos. Infrasound is a commonly accepted term and has an accepted definition which we need to maintain - it is not therefore meaningless, especially from a scientifc point of view.

and your attempts to force some kind of difference between sound above and below 20Hz are just utterly meaningless.

Where have I said there is any difference between sounds above and below 20Hz - in terms of the Physics of sound there is none but what I am trying to get across is that accoustic energy below 20Hz (ish) is defined as Infrasound regardless of whether of not it can be heard

The only way it can possibly make any sense to discuss infrasound and human perception is by defining infrasound to be air vibrations that are inaudible.

Don't tell me - tell the Accoustic Scientists, Military Scientists, Physicists, Academics etc who have been happily using the definition for years - if they are wrong then they need to be informed. I'm just using the accepted standard definition and if I am wrong blame them.

You must use infrasound that is inaudible to humans, regardless of frequency,

So by what you have just written then all sound (regardless of Frequency) that we cannot hear is Infrasound - wish I had known that before I developed the system - I could have done the whole thing using an iPod and a couple of wallkman speakers and generated any old frequency I liked (2kHz is a nice easy one to make) provided I simply kept the volume turned down low enough to ensure that it could not be heard.

I surrender to your obviously greater understanding of the Laws and Definitions of Physics than my own - I shall go and watch all the back episodes of Brainiac to try and brush-up on my knowledge - until then, Please accept my profound apologies for troubling you.

[Admin]

I think the important point is that whatever parameters were used for the infrasound in this experiment (frequency, intensity, etc.) they're clearly presented - which I'm sure they will be.

I'm looking forward to seeing the hypothesis tested and whether the statistical data supports it or not.

Also, whether any unexpected results came in which could lead to further hypotheses being developed.

I suspect that it's impossible to do an experiment that cannot be criticised in any way, but let's look at it within its limitations (which I'm sure the authors will acknowledge) and see what it tells us.

[Dr B]

Definitions form an important part of science and they are worth fighting for

Not if they are no longer sufficient (and it is unlikely they ever were). You see, i keep returning to the same point - 'sound' is a perceptual definition. If you think about it - inaudible infrasound is a misnomer. Sound that cannot be heard is air vibration. I have been saying this all along

- if we all decided to force a new definition into existence just to suite our argument we would soon dissolve into chaos.

Incorrect - if you make a reasoned case illustrating why certain terminology does not work in new circumstances - then you have made a case for the new terminology. This was discussed in the paper.

Remember the example steve? If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to see / hear it does it make a sound??????

Answer - no!!!!! Why do you think that is?

Infrasound is a commonly accepted term and has an accepted definition which we need to maintain - it is not therefore meaningless, especially from a scientifc point of view.

Totally incorrect - it is common but far from being accepted - as i said above, everyone i talk to (professionals) hates the term. In addition, in the context of these experiments the term is meaningless. Now, you could use the term "true-infrasound" but this is equivalent to inaudible air vibration - and the latter is more explanatory and accurate.

We do not need to maintain a term which is worthless and confusing. All sound is vibration, but not all vibration is sound. You are missing an opportunity for clarity here - which was started by myself and maurice.

Where have I said there is any difference between sounds above and below 20Hz - in terms of the Physics of sound there is none but what I am trying to get across is that accoustic energy below 20Hz (ish) is defined as Infrasound regardless of whether of not it can be heard

Totally wrong - true infrasound is inaudible. Remember we are not just talking about the physics of sound (though that is important). You are using a psychological term 'sound' to descibe a physical entity - this is misleading.

Don't tell me - tell the Accoustic Scientists, Military Scientists, Physicists, Academics etc who have been happily using the definition for years - if they are wrong then they need to be informed. I'm just using the accepted standard definition and if I am wrong blame them.

Steve, you are making a logical fallacy here - known as ad-populum. They are wrong (in this context) and note - none of them are psychologists. They use the term because its easy for their audience - however, we are talking about biophysics and so this is an important difference and the terms breakdown.

So by what you have just written then all sound (regardless of Frequency) that we cannot hear is Infrasound - wish I had known that before I developed the system

Cuddles can answer well enough....but i answered this posts ago - infrasound is a crude term for low-frequency sound.

I surrender to your obviously greater understanding of the Laws and Definitions of Physics than my own - I shall go and watch all the back episodes of Brainiac to try and brush-up on my knowledge - until then, Please accept my profound apologies for troubling you.

No need to be filpant steve, but some of the people you have been talking to are engineers and have backgrounds in physics as well. If they share my confusion, and provide good reasons for doing so - maybe, just maybe, we are right?

[Cuddles]

Definitions form an important part of science and they are worth fighting for - if we all decided to force a new definition into existence just to suite our argument we would soon dissolve into chaos. Infrasound is a commonly accepted term and has an accepted definition which we need to maintain - it is not therefore meaningless, especially from a scientifc point of view.

This just reinforces my point. You are arguing simply for the sake of the definition and not for any practical reason. Yes, definitions form an important part of science. This means it is very important that you use the correct definition. You are not. You are attempting to find an effect caused by inaudible "sound", but you include sound that is audible. This just makes no sense at all.

Where have I said there is any difference between sounds above and below 20Hz - in terms of the Physics of sound there is none but what I am trying to get across is that accoustic energy below 20Hz (ish) is defined as Infrasound regardless of whether of not it can be heard

When you define infrasound as all sound under 20Hz and try to study it as a distinct phenomenon. Since some can be heard and some can't it is very obvious that such a definition cannot be useful.

Don't tell me - tell the Accoustic Scientists, Military Scientists, Physicists, Academics etc who have been happily using the definition for years - if they are wrong then they need to be informed. I'm just using the accepted standard definition and if I am wrong blame them.

Perhaps before making glib statements like this you should actually check who you are talking to first. Iam one of those physicists. I don't need to be informed about this, I already know. It is you who needs to be informed, and I am kind enough to do so. It's no use appealing to authority when the authority is sitting right in front of you. What you don't seem to understand is that different definitions are used in different context. The definition you use makes sense in terms of sound production and propagation. It makes no sense at all in terms of human perception.

So by what you have just written then all sound (regardless of Frequency) that we cannot hear is Infrasound - wish I had known that before I developed the system - I could have done the whole thing using an iPod and a couple of wallkman speakers and generated any old frequency I liked (2kHz is a nice easy one to make) provided I simply kept the volume turned down low enough to ensure that it could not be heard.

Under some circumstances this definition could make sense. However, since infrasound generally refers specifically to low frequency sound it is not a very common definition. What is a common definition is low frequency sound below the threshold of human hearing. The "low frequency" part allows some ambiguity. The "below the threshold of human hearing" part doesn't. Unfortunately it is the unambiguous part you are ignoring.

I surrender to your obviously greater understanding of the Laws and Definitions of Physics than my own - I shall go and watch all the back episodes of Brainiac to try and brush-up on my knowledge - until then, Please accept my profound apologies for troubling you.

Apology accepted. However, instead of watching Braniac why don't you instead listen to what an actual physicist is telling you? Failing that, try to just use some common sense. If you are trying studying the effects of low frequency sound via channels other than ordinary hearing, using audible sound just does not make sense.

[Dr B]

Quick question.

If infrasound is categorised as being below a certain frequency range but on increasing the amplitude it was heard, would the sound actually become 'audible' using the proper auditory channels or rather would it be a consequence of vibration being transmitted through the body and impingeing on the bones of the ear? Would it be interpretted as more of a feeling than a sound?
Is the term audible the right one to use in this context?

This lies at the crux of the problem. It is clear that as a term, infrasound, is breaking down in these contexts. I have suggested either using the distinction 'true-infraound' (which i still don't like) or Inaudible Air Vibration (IAV - which i much prefer) in my paper and above in this discussion.

As amplitude is increased the sound would be heard - as all low frequencies can be heard with sufficient amplitude. Now, could weak sound be misattributed as something else? - indeed yes it could - but it would be using much of the same neural apparatus in that process and the only difference would be high-level attributional processes in the brain. This would also vary from person to person.

The real question is whether vibration - at sub-threshold intensities -engages with similar or distinct mechanisms. The problem is - all studies I am aware of that claim to investigate infarasound actually use high-energy low-frequency audible sound. So this is not true-infrasound and as such has nothing to say on the matter. As such we cannot really investigate any distinct mechanism that is separate from sound perception. This has been totally missed by the community (and steve) - but was covered in the paper.

Chris French did Project haunt (a pilot study) which had people in a chamber being exposed to infrasound (versus no infrrasound) - which I think was sub-threshold (though I would have to check with him about that). There were no effects of infrasound. However, that was just a pilot and much improvement is needed.

So, does air vibration, at such weak db have the capacity to vibrate bones etc and become recruited into percpetion? This is the question that infrasound research should be addressing - but my hunch is - at such weak db - the answer is no.

The chances are any effects to be had will be at audible levels - but this may not implicate a separate biophysical mechanism.

Sound can be experienced as vibration if the sound is high-amplitude but the person has their hearing covered. But again - this is at high amplitude (the vestibular system is a likely candidate). The brain does not want to be distracted by weak db signals and so has developed methods for filtering them out.

One could look at auditory evoked potentials (via EEG) at sub-threshold intensities to see if the potential for a response is there at the cortical level (still some issues though) - but i dont want to give too many of my ideas away here......especially when you think about who could be watching

[Dr B]

While I would disagree with some of the points and statements of Leventhall, this concluding statement is interesting in light of the above discussion. Seems he agrees with me (and Cuddles) in the sense that the term infrasound is not that useful and is confusing.


“Infrasound is just a continuation of audible sound into a region where the hearing threshold rises as the frequency reduces……snip….. Consequently, it is suggested that, in scientific discourse related to human perception, the term ‘‘infrasound’’ is avoided and replaced by ‘‘low-frequency noise’’ or ‘‘low-frequency sound’’, with an indication of the frequency range under consideration. Infrasound should be reserved for investigations of very low-frequency atmospheric sounds, of natural or man-made origin, which is a well-established discipline”. Leventhall (2007)



However, for our purposes here - Inaudiable air vibration is more accurate.

[Parascience]

This just reinforces my point. You are arguing simply for the sake of the definition and not for any practical reason. Yes, definitions form an important part of science. This means it is very important that you use the correct definition.

I wholeheartedly agree so let's stick to the accepted definition that Infrasound is all acoustic oscillatory energy below a frequency of 20Hz.

You are not. You are attempting to find an effect caused by inaudible "sound", but you include sound that is audible. This just makes no sense at all.

No, we are attempting to find an effect caused by Infrasound and as we have never stated the Sound Pressure Level that was used in our experiment your assumption that we have included sound that is audible is what makes no sense at all. For the record, our Infrasound generator was producing an SPL of between 60dB SPL and 90dB SPL within the experimental areas - thus in terms of 'normal' human hearing was below the auditory threshold.

When you define infrasound as all sound under 20Hz and try to study it as a distinct phenomenon. Since some can be heard and some can't it is very obvious that such a definition cannot be useful.

I don't define Infrasound as all sound below 20Hz - I am using the accepted terminology for sake of clarity. For Example:

"Physics considers sound to be elastic media oscillations propogating as sound waves in gaseous, liquid and solid media. Sound osscilations are theoretically in the frequency range of Zero to Infinity. Depending upon the oscillation frequency, the sound oscillations are subdivided into into Infrasound, accoustic oscillations and Ultrasound (from the Latin terms of 'Infra' {under}, 'Ultra' {further, above} and the Greek term 'Akustikos' {related to hearing}." State Research Centre - Institute of Biophysics, Russian Federation, Research Report of Project 2361p.

"According to the adopted classifications, Infrasound is defined as sound oscillations of frequencies below 20Hz (some researchers sometimes note an upper limit of 16Hz). The adopted subdivision is determined by the peculiarities of the human hearing apparatus perceptiveness of the specific frequency range only. Lower Infrasound frequency is not specified; at present it is investigated to 0.001Hz i.e. Infrasound range covers ~15 Octaves." USAF Research Laboratory Technical Report 20040625 090

Sound oscillations are wave energy. A wave is characterised using the two parameters of Frequency and Amplitude. The basic quantative feature of the sound is the Sound Pressure Level. The measurement unit of sound pressure is Pascal (1Pa = 1 N/m2). To ease measurement, the logarithmic scale is used. 0 (Zero) dB SPL being the threshold magnitude of the average value of the sound pressure corresponding approximately to the hearing threshold of a 1kHz tone.

Perhaps before making glib statements like this you should actually check who you are talking to first. I am one of those physicists. I don't need to be informed about this, I already know.

I'm suprised that as a Physicist you are allowing Dr.B to use such a nonspecific definition as 'IAV' This term does not provide any information about the Frequency or Amplitude of the sound wave being either measured or produced. It is vague and unhelpful to any meaningful research. If he really wanted to find an abbreviation to avoid the use of the definition Infrasound then as a Physicist why didn't you suggest the already commonly used abbreviation 'LFAO' - Low Frequency Acoustic Oscillation as it least we would then know if he was referring to sound that has a Frequency of above or below 20Hz, which I am assuming he means.

Under some circumstances this definition could make sense.

So now a Physicist is saying that Infrasound can be re-defined as inaudible sound regardless of frequency

The "below the threshold of human hearing" part doesn't. Unfortunately it is the unambiguous part you are ignoring.

The concept of 'audibility' is meaningless in the Infrasound region. Sufficient evidence has accumulated to demonstrate that acoustic stimuli with frequencies as low as 1Hz can not only be heard but can also be described in terms of loudness refelcting differences in human hearing thresholds. Furthermore, it has been suggested that a very low frequencies human detection does not occur through hearing in the normal sense. Rather, detection results from non-linearities of conduction in the middle and inner ear which generate harmonic distortions in the higher, more easily audible frequency range. It is also critical to consider to consider waves which are detected through skeletal bones, the ear, harmonics, tactile sensations or resonance within the body organs. Detection raises the possibilty of subjective reactions and may also contribute in complex ways to effects - Physiological and Psychological.

Determination of any possible effects of Infrasound exposure must consider field data. Real occurences of Infrasound will often include considerable energy above and below 20Hz.

Apology accepted. However, instead of watching Braniac why don't you instead listen to what an actual physicist is telling you? Failing that, try to just use some common sense. If you are trying studying the effects of low frequency sound via channels other than ordinary hearing, using audible sound just does not make sense.

I gave up watching Brainiac as it was too difficult for me to understand - so I went and played with my Infrasound generating and Infrasound Measuring Equipment instead which I used my common sense to design and build

[Dr B]

I wholeheartedly agree so let's stick to the accepted definition that Infrasound is all acoustic oscillatory energy below a frequency of 20Hz.

No - it doesnt work in this context and thats what you dont understand. You have never understood this at any point in this discussion.

No, we are attempting to find an effect caused by Infrasound and as we have never stated the Sound Pressure Level that was used in our experiment your assumption that we have included sound that is audible is what makes no sense at all. For the record, our Infrasound generator was producing an SPL of between 60dB SPL and 90dB SPL within the experimental areas - thus in terms of 'normal' human hearing was below the auditory threshold.

I am not sure I agree with your idea that these energy levels would be inaudible....but i need to know more before I can comment. I look forward to the paper.

I don't define Infrasound as all sound below 20Hz - I am using the accepted terminology for sake of clarity. For Example:

"Physics considers sound to be elastic media oscillations propogating as sound waves in gaseous, liquid and solid media. Sound osscilations are theoretically in the frequency range of Zero to Infinity. Depending upon the oscillation frequency, the sound oscillations are subdivided into into Infrasound, accoustic oscillations and Ultrasound (from the Latin terms of 'Infra' {under}, 'Ultra' {further, above} and the Greek term 'Akustikos' {related to hearing}." State Research Centre - Institute of Biophysics, Russian Federation, Research Report of Project 2361p.

What you dont understand is this terminology does not work in the context of sensation and perception.

"According to the adopted classifications, Infrasound is defined as sound oscillations of frequencies below 20Hz (some researchers sometimes note an upper limit of 16Hz). The adopted subdivision is determined by the peculiarities of the human hearing apparatus perceptiveness of the specific frequency range only. Lower Infrasound frequency is not specified; at present it is investigated to 0.001Hz i.e. Infrasound range covers ~15 Octaves." USAF Research Laboratory Technical Report 20040625 090

Irrelevant and flawed for the reasons (and see the papers given as well) already given. You are still ignoring sensation and perception.

I'm suprised that as a Physicist you are allowing Dr.B to use such a nonspecific definition as 'IAV' This term does not provide any information about the Frequency or Amplitude of the sound wave being either measured or produced.

True - but the idea is you provide that information in additon. But what you are still failing to spot is IAV, by definition, is not audible as so, as a perceptual construct, it is useful. Your confused still over the fundamentals of this approach. True infrasound is better described as IAV. Steve - the term 'infrasound' gives no information, and none of your quotes above do either - so your argument falls down (again).

It is vague and unhelpful to any meaningful research.

Untrue - for all the reasons already given. Steve, what actually is your background in Psychology and Neurophysiology?

If he really wanted to find an abbreviation to avoid the use of the definition Infrasound then as a Physicist why didn't you suggest the already commonly used abbreviation 'LFAO' - Low Frequency Acoustic Oscillation as it least we would then know if he was referring to sound that has a Frequency of above or below 20Hz, which I am assuming he means.

Where is the perceptual element in these? You have just made my point for me.

The concept of 'audibility' is meaningless in the Infrasound region.

This is a new claim from you - and its totally wrong. It is crucial, in this context.

Sufficient evidence has accumulated to demonstrate that acoustic stimuli with frequencies as low as 1Hz can not only be heard but can also be described in terms of loudness refelcting differences in human hearing thresholds.

Not enitrely true - the studies i am aware of use high amplitudes so it defeats your argument. They also use non-competitive sound presentations - hardly ecologically valid.

Furthermore, it has been suggested that a very low frequencies human detection does not occur through hearing in the normal sense. Rather, detection results from non-linearities of conduction in the middle and inner ear which generate harmonic distortions in the higher, more easily audible frequency range.

Very true - but only at higher db and when the sound is audible. Some exceptions are with studies using deaf people - no audible sound - but vibration is felt (but again at high db only).

Detection raises the possibilty of subjective reactions and may also contribute in complex ways to effects - Physiological and Psychological.

But you have not made the case for detection at low, none audible, db?

[Parascience]

However, for our purposes here - Inaudiable air vibration is more accurate.

No it isn't as it fails to specify the Frequency or Amplitude of the signal source - you only prefer it because you made it up. Like your previous abbreviation EIF which also failed to contain information relating to the source signal frequency and amplitude. There is an accepted term that you could have used - LFAO which at least indicates that we are dealing with Low Frequency sound waves. You could even have argued for the use of LFIAV's which would have been much better.

[Dr B]

No it isn't as it fails to specify the Frequency or Amplitude of the signal source - you only prefer it because you made it up. Like your previous abbreviation EIF which also failed to contain information relating to the source signal frequency and amplitude. There is an accepted term that you could have used - LFAO which at least indicates that we are dealing with Low Frequency sound waves. You could even have argued for the use of LFIAV's which would have been much better.

Steve

aaahh now it all becomes clear I know the real reason you dont like this these terms and you have just shown why. It has nothing to do with the underlying science at all, does it?

IAV states clearly that the 'sound' must be inaudible to count as IAV. This still leaves a range of frequencies and amplitudes - but a very restricted one. Using "infrasound" and then claiming err well it can be heard and can be silent and can be this....that...or the other..." is where the real confusion is.

There are many terms you can use - i note you ignored LFN (low-frequenyc noise) and even LFIN (low-frequency inaudible noise) - which is one only coined this year in the field.

Just use terms properly in the right context - that is all.

[Dr. C]

I'd just like to add my 2 cents to this discussion and hopefully draw it to a close to enable equally constructive argument on other threads.

The argument concerning terms (it appears to be IF vs. IAF) to an outsider viewing the thread for the first time appears to be terms associated with individuals (i.e. IF with Steve & IAF with Jason). Certainly, some of the pointed responses to Steve have implied that he is in error. His PhD, and the experiment, do not exist in a vacuum without supervision, advice, or appropriate literature review. There has also been participation in prior projects (in order to perfect the generating and detection system) that have included leading physicists specialising in acoustics from the National Physical Laboratory, sound recordists and acoustic engineers. In addition, advice and input has come from independent sources, including psychologists who worked with Vic Tandy whilst he conducted his studies. It is as a result of ALL of this advice, input and an extensive literature review that Steve has reached the point he's at now, initially conducting field-based lab work to test a theory and to (in the detection side) disprove or prove the association between IF and haunting experiences.

The issue with definition and term as you point out, Dr. B., may be appropriate once a paper reaches publication and you read, in more detail, the whys and wherefores of testing and use of particular terms. To start to get personal ("Go back to Psych 101, Steve") is a reflection on the supervision and, therefore, I take it personally.

It would be more appropriate to keep your comments to a more academic level. In this instance, though, I get the impression that yourself and Steve will never reach a consensus.

Dr. C.