12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Time to sense biofield (Prana) experiences between hands: A preliminary single blinded randomized placebo controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims

          There is minimal research on the duration of biofield experiences. This preliminary study used the experiential learning practice of Master Choa Kok Sui's hands sensitisation to determine the duration to experience biofield sensations in between hands and to find the relationship between learning style preferences and biofield sensations.

          Methods

          This randomized placebo controlled, single blinded trial included 88 male and female pre-service teachers, aged 22.8±1.2 years. Participants completed a ruler drop test for reaction time, and Six Letter Cancellation test for measuring attention, learning style questionnaire for preferred method of learning, before randomization. The experimental (hands facing each other as introduced by Master Choa Kok Sui) and sham (hands facing opposite) groups practiced hands sensitisation. A semi-structured questionnaire was provided to gather information about biofield sensations and the time it took to experience these sensations between the hands.

          Results

          All (N=44) the participants in the experimental group and 13 participants in the sham group reported experiencing biofield sensations. A significant difference was noticed in experiencing magnetic (X 2 = 38.247, p ≤ .001), physical sensations of energy (X 2 = 12.02, p ≤ .001) and pain (X 2 = 62.259, p ≤ .001) among the experimental and sham group . In the experimental group, the average time taken to first experience magnetic sensation, other biofield sensations and temperature variation was 34.84±12.97seconds, 40.28±20.96 seconds and 42.50±19.79 seconds, respectively. Minimum time taken to first experience biofield sensation was 5 seconds and lasted up to study duration of 120 seconds. There was no correlation found between reaction time, sustained attention, and the time needed to experience biofield sensations.

          Conclusions

          This study highlights importance of Master Choa Kok Sui hand sensitization in controlled setting revealing differences in experiences of various biofield sensations, showing valuable time-related insights and variability of sensation based on preferred learning.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable

          Sample size justification is an important consideration when planning a clinical trial, not only for the main trial but also for any preliminary pilot trial. When the outcome is a continuous variable, the sample size calculation requires an accurate estimate of the standard deviation of the outcome measure. A pilot trial can be used to get an estimate of the standard deviation, which could then be used to anticipate what may be observed in the main trial. However, an important consideration is that pilot trials often estimate the standard deviation parameter imprecisely. This paper looks at how we can choose an external pilot trial sample size in order to minimise the sample size of the overall clinical trial programme, that is, the pilot and the main trial together. We produce a method of calculating the optimal solution to the required pilot trial sample size when the standardised effect size for the main trial is known. However, as it may not be possible to know the standardised effect size to be used prior to the pilot trial, approximate rules are also presented. For a main trial designed with 90% power and two-sided 5% significance, we recommend pilot trial sample sizes per treatment arm of 75, 25, 15 and 10 for standardised effect sizes that are extra small (≤0.1), small (0.2), medium (0.5) or large (0.8), respectively.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A selective review of selective attention research from the past century.

            Jon Driver (2001)
            Research on attention is concerned with selective processing of incoming sensory information. To some extent, our awareness of the world depends on what we choose to attend, not merely on the stimulation entering our senses. British psychologists have made substantial contributions to this topic in the past century. Celebrated examples include Donald Broadbent's filter theory of attention, which set the agenda for most subsequent work; and Anne Treisman's revisions of this account, and her later feature-integration theory. More recent contributions include Alan Allport's prescient emphasis on the relevance of neuroscience data, and John Duncan's integration of such data with psychological theory. An idiosyncratic but roughly chronological review of developments is presented, some practical and clinical implications are briefly sketched, and future directions suggested. One of the biggest changes in the field has been the increasing interplay between psychology and neuroscience, which promises much for the future. A related change has been the realization that selection attention is best thought of as a broad topic, encompassing a range of selective issues, rather than as a single explanatory process.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Consciousness and Attention: On Sufficiency and Necessity

              Recent research has slowly corroded a belief that selective attention and consciousness are so tightly entangled that they cannot be individually examined. In this review, we summarize psychophysical and neurophysiological evidence for a dissociation between top-down attention and consciousness. The evidence includes recent findings that show subjects can attend to perceptually invisible objects. More contentious is the finding that subjects can become conscious of an isolated object, or the gist of the scene in the near absence of top-down attention; we critically re-examine the possibility of “complete” absence of top-down attention. We also cover the recent flurry of studies that utilized independent manipulation of attention and consciousness. These studies have shown paradoxical effects of attention, including examples where top-down attention and consciousness have opposing effects, leading us to strengthen and revise our previous views. Neuroimaging studies with EEG, MEG, and fMRI are uncovering the distinct neuronal correlates of selective attention and consciousness in dissociative paradigms. These findings point to a functional dissociation: attention as analyzer and consciousness as synthesizer. Separating the effects of selective visual attention from those of visual consciousness is of paramount importance to untangle the neural substrates of consciousness from those for attention.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – Original Draft Preparation
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: Methodology
                Role: Formal AnalysisRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Formal AnalysisRole: Project AdministrationRole: Resources
                Journal
                F1000Res
                F1000Res
                F1000Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2046-1402
                6 June 2024
                2023
                : 12
                : 1536
                Affiliations
                [1 ]World Pranic Healing Foundation India Research Centre, Mysore, India
                [2 ]Mysore Medical College and Research Institute, Mysore, India
                [1 ]Shoolini University, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India
                [1 ]Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur,, Rajasthan,, India
                [1 ]The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
                [1 ]The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
                Author notes

                Competing interests: Authors and funding are from the World Pranic Healing Foundation, India.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0069-2265
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8324-8997
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4254-7093
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3556-4378
                https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5278-2141
                Article
                10.12688/f1000research.139737.2
                11208854
                38939830
                0b3df541-00b6-49c1-acf3-8a6da6903044
                Copyright: © 2024 Vijayakumar V et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 31 May 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: World Pranic Healing Foundation India
                This study was supported by the World Pranic Healing Foundation, India.
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Articles

                cognition,complementary therapy,pranic healing,yoga.
                cognition, complementary therapy, pranic healing, yoga.

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content93

                Most referenced authors251