Study 1 compared success rates of ‘live’ receivers and an RNG analogue. During a ‘standard’ autoganzfeld sending period, a ‘virtual’ receiver (an RNG) selected from among 768 statements that described all clips in a pool of 96 videos (8 for each clip). The 8 most frequently selected were given to an independent judge as a ‘virtual mentation’. The ‘live’ receiver correctly identified the target on 14 trials (35% hit rate; MCE = 25%), significantly better than chance (sum of ranks Z = 1.77, p = .038). Virtual mentations gave an encouraging 13 hits (32.5%; SOR Z = 1.48, p = .069). Study 2 compared sender and no-sender trials. Receivers scored at chance, slightly better in sender trials than no sender trials (26.1% versus 23.5%). Two independent judges using the virtual mentation produced hit rates of 30.6% and 16.7%; both gave non-significantly higher hit rates for the sender trials than for the no sender trials (42.1% versus 17.6%; 26.3% versus 5.9%), indicative of a sender effect. Study 3 manipulated target lability, comparing a true RNG, the PC’s pseudorandom function
and a pre-generated set of random numbers. We did not recruit ‘live’ receivers, but accurately briefed participants about the study and gave immediate feedback. Significant psi hitting was not obtained in any single condition, but there was a predicted interaction effect between target and sender lability, (F4, 74 = 4.959, p = .001); ‘stable’ senders gave highest psi hitting with the most labile target system, while labile senders showed the reverse. This effect was replicated in Study 4 (F4,74 = 2.747, p = .034), which also found a trend supporting a predicted interaction between feedback and sending strategy (F = (1,36) = 3.061, p = .053).