Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse

Source study found

Story checked

Out-of-body experience study yields unexpected results behind closed doors (opens in a new tab)

news-medical.net · 2026-09-10

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mixed

Mixed.

The claims we could check match the study, but some claims were not covered by the evidence reviewed.

  • 3 supported
  • 2 not covered

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1
2

NewsLink checks it

Mixed

Every claim we could check holds up. Three of five claims match the study. This overall rating is based only on the claims we could check. Two claims the study doesn't address.

  • 3 supported
  • 2 not covered
Open claim evidence
3
Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

5 claims in this story

Showing all 5 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 5Not coveredThe team suggested the findings may help researchers design better future trials, including using more memorable or distinctive hidden targets and other unseen details.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports the broad idea that the spontaneous reports may have methodological value and warrant systematic follow-up. However, the specific proposed design changes—such as using more memorable or distinctive hidden targets and other unseen details—are not present in the supplied abstract-depth profile, so they cannot be verified at this depth.

1

Study evidence

No individual trial showed statistically significant above-chance correspondence between participant descriptions and the concealed visual target.

“Twenty-one individuals affiliated with an institute specializing in OBE training attempted to perceive a randomly selected target displayed in a separate, inaccessible room.”
2

Study evidence

Two participants spontaneously reported accurate details about experimenters' locations and activities in an adjacent room.

“Two participants spontaneously reported accurate details about experimenters' locations and activities in an adjacent room.”
Claim 2 of 5Not coveredThe paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal Explore, and the researchers named were Marina Weiler, Damon Abraham, David J.P. Acunzo, and Niffe Hermansson.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The supplied paper profile does not include journal name, peer-review status, or author list. This bibliographic claim may be true, but it is not verifiable from the supplied abstract-depth profile.

Claim 3 of 5SupportedA test of whether people who report out-of-body experiences could identify objects in another room produced results no better than chance.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedno better than chance

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports the lead claim: the paper’s primary concealed-target analyses found no statistically significant above-chance correspondence in individual trials and no evidence of above-chance performance in the combined rank-based test across 13 usable trials.

1

Study evidence

No individual trial showed statistically significant above-chance correspondence between participant descriptions and the concealed visual target.

“Twenty-one individuals affiliated with an institute specializing in OBE training attempted to perceive a randomly selected target displayed in a separate, inaccessible room.”
Claim 4 of 5SupportedAfter the test, two participants described, without prompting, researchers' locations and activities behind closed doors.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedtwo participants

Why this verdict

The profile states that two participants spontaneously reported accurate details about experimenters’ locations and activities in an adjacent room. The story’s wording ‘without prompting’ is consistent with ‘spontaneously.’ The profile does not supply much detail on the verification method, but the core event is supported.

1

Study evidence

Two participants spontaneously reported accurate details about experimenters' locations and activities in an adjacent room.

“Two participants spontaneously reported accurate details about experimenters' locations and activities in an adjacent room.”
Claim 5 of 5SupportedThe researchers said the unexpected observations were not part of the predefined outcome measures and therefore cannot be considered evidence for out-of-body experiences.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile describes these reports as incidental, anecdotal, and not part of a prespecified controlled outcome, and says they may warrant systematic investigation rather than serving as evidence from the target-identification endpoint. The story’s caveat is directionally consistent, though the abstract profile frames the point more specifically around the study’s target-identification/anomalous-cognition outcomes.

1

Study evidence

Two participants spontaneously reported accurate details about experimenters' locations and activities in an adjacent room.

“Two participants spontaneously reported accurate details about experimenters' locations and activities in an adjacent room.”
Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

  • Sample and usable-data limitation: 21 participants attempted the task, but only 13 trials produced usable target descriptions for primary analysis.

    The story does not report the sample size or the smaller number of usable trials, which is material for interpreting the strength of the null result.

    From concealed-target attempted-OBE experiment with computational semantic similarity

  • Participant population limitation: participants were affiliated with an institute specializing in OBE training, limiting generalizability.

    The story refers generally to people who report or attempt OBEs but does not mention the specialized recruitment source, a limitation noted in the profile.

    From concealed-target attempted-OBE experiment with computational semantic similarity

  • Analysis-method limitation: the null result depends on the chosen computational semantic-similarity and rank-based pipeline.

    The story summarizes the outcome but does not explain that participant descriptions and target captions were compared using language-model embeddings, cosine similarity, and rank-based tests.

    From concealed-target attempted-OBE experiment with computational semantic similarity; in_silico positive-control analyses

  • Control analyses showed the computational pipeline can recover targets when semantic correspondence is present, but they do not establish sensitivity to naturalistic human language.

    This is a material interpretive caveat for the null target-identification finding and is not included in the story’s caveats.

    From in_silico positive-control analyses

5 things the story did carry across
  • Primary concealed-target result: participants’ descriptions did not identify hidden visual targets above chance in either individual-trial or combined rank-based analyses.
  • Study design: attempted-OBE participants tried to perceive randomly selected concealed targets displayed in a separate inaccessible room, with targets unknown to participants and researchers.
  • Spontaneous environmental reports: two participants reported accurate details about experimenters’ locations and activities in an adjacent room.
  • Limitations of the spontaneous reports: they were anecdotal, incidental, from only two participants, not prespecified, and lacked a standardized or blinded verification protocol in the abstract-level profile.
  • Authors’ forward-looking interpretation: spontaneous environmental reports may have methodological value and warrant systematic future investigation.
Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

3

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

human in vivo

1Lead resulthuman in vivoTest whether participants’ post-session descriptions after attempted out-of-body experiences (OBEs) match concealed visual targets beyond chance using a preregisterable-style computational semantic similarity/ranking pipeline.concealed-target attempted-OBE experiment with computational semantic similarityExpand

In plain English

Prospective concealed-target experiment testing whether free-text descriptions after attempted out-of-body experiences (OBEs) correspond to randomized visual targets beyond chance using pretrained language-model embeddings and rank-based within-trial comparisons. Twenty-one participants attempted to perceive targets displayed in a separate inaccessible room; 13 trials yielded usable descriptions. No individual trial or the pooled rank-based test across trials showed evidence of above-chance correspondence. Two participants spontaneously reported accurate details about experimenters in an adjacent room.

Key findings

  • No individual trial showed statistically significant above-chance correspondence between participant descriptions and the concealed visual target.
  • A combined rank-based test across all 13 trials showed no evidence of above-chance performance.
“Twenty-one individuals affiliated with an institute specializing in OBE training attempted to perceive a randomly selected target displayed in a separate, inaccessible room.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Only 13 trials produced usable target descriptions for the primary analyses.
  • Participants were affiliated with an institute specializing in OBE training (sample not randomly drawn from a general population).
  • Control analyses do not establish the computational pipeline's sensitivity to naturalistic human language, limiting interpretation of null results.
2in silicoValidate/verify the computational semantic-similarity pipeline using control analyses where semantic correspondence is present (as a positive control for the analytic workflow).in silico positive-control analysesExpand

In plain English

The authors ran in‑silico positive-control analyses showing that the embedding + cosine similarity + rank-based workflow can recover correct targets when semantic correspondence is present; the abstract notes these controls validate the analytic pipeline but do not establish sensitivity to naturalistic human language and are distinct from the human-subject tests.

Key findings

  • Control analyses confirmed that the computational pipeline identified correct targets when semantic correspondence was present.
“Control analyses confirmed that the pipeline identified correct targets when semantic correspondence was present, though these controls do not establish sensitivity to naturalistic human language.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Abstract lacks detail on the specific construction, number, and quantitative performance of the positive-control cases.
  • Unclear whether control cases capture the variability and ambiguity of naturalistic human descriptions.
  • Controls assess analytic validity rather than participant-level phenomena and thus cannot substitute for sensitivity analyses on human-generated text.
3human in vivoDescribe spontaneous reports of accurate details about experimenters’ locations/activities in an adjacent room during/around attempted OBEs as potentially methodologically informative observations.case reportExpand

In plain English

Within an attempted-OBE study, two participants spontaneously reported accurate details about experimenters' locations and activities in an adjacent room; the authors note these anecdotal environmental reports may have methodological value and warrant systematic investigation.

Key findings

  • Two participants spontaneously reported accurate details about experimenters' locations and activities in an adjacent room.
“Two participants spontaneously reported accurate details about experimenters' locations and activities in an adjacent room.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Observation is anecdotal and arises from a small number of participants (N=2), limiting generalizability.
  • Reports were incidental and not obtained via a preplanned, standardized assessment or blinded verification procedure.
  • Abstract provides no details on timing, content specificity, or methods of corroboration for these spontaneous reports.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa takes you deeper.

NewsLink checks the story. Tessa is where you inspect the paper, authors, evidence, and research context.

Papers considered

The selected paper, plus nearby candidates.

PubMed, Crossref, Europe PMC · 33 candidate papers

And 27 more candidates considered.