Notes on random target selection: The PRL autoganzfeld target and target set distributions revisited

We distinguish between a random target selection procedure which, in princi ple, excludes sequential dependencies, and a resulting random target sequen ce that may contain pecullarities-especially in terms of target frequency d istribution, which may correspond to a subject's response biases. Post-hoc corrections that adjust the hit probability are available. A correction is not needed in case of a balanced (closed-deck) situation. The distinction is illustrated for the random target selection procedure an d the resulting target sequence in the PRL autoganzfeld studies. A conserva tive correction results in a slight reduction of the overall significance a nd a reduction in differences in scoring rates on static and dynamic target s, thus weakening. the firm conclusion drawn in the original paper that dyn amic targets are superior to static targets. A peculiar target frequency di stribution is found which cannot be explained on the basis of the target se lection procedure. Most notably, the targets 77, 78, 79, and 80 are over-re presented, which results in a strong over-representation of Set 20 which co ntains these 4 targets. However, the reported deviations from a well-balanc ed target frequency distribution cannot explain the excess of hits reported for the PRL autoganzfeld study.