Veridical perception

In parapsychology and near-death studies, veridical perception (also called apparently non-physical veridical perception (AVP) or veridical out-of-body perception) refers to the disputed claim that some people accurately perceive real events in their physical surroundings during a near-death experience (NDE) at a time when ordinary sensory perception is thought to be impossible, such as during cardiac arrest or deep general anaesthesia. Proponents argue that such reports, if genuine, would be difficult to reconcile with the view that consciousness is produced entirely by the brain; critics argue that the reported cases are anecdotal, retrospective and explicable by conventional means, and that controlled prospective tests have so far failed to confirm the phenomenon.

The topic is not accepted within mainstream neuroscience or medicine. Reviews by skeptics, and prospective hospital studies that placed hidden visual targets in resuscitation areas (which have so far not confirmed the phenomenon), are generally regarded as the strongest available evidence bearing on the question.

Terminology

The term veridical means "corresponding to reality" and is used to distinguish reports that can in principle be checked against external facts from the visionary or transcendental content of NDEs (such as encountering deceased relatives or a "being of light"), which cannot. Within near-death research the psychologist Janice Miner Holden proposed the label apparently non-physical veridical perception (AVP) for cases in which an experiencer reports accurate information about the physical environment that, it is claimed, could not have been obtained through the normal senses. The word apparently is part of the term because whether the perception was truly "non-physical" is precisely what is in dispute.

Claimed evidence

Anecdotal cases

Much of the literature consists of individual case reports collected after the fact.

• The "dentures" case. In the Dutch prospective study by cardiologist Pim van Lommel and colleagues, a nurse reported that a comatose cardiac-arrest patient later recognised her and stated that she had removed his dentures and placed them in a crash-cart drawer during resuscitation.
• Maria's shoe. A migrant worker known as "Maria" reportedly described, after a cardiac arrest in a Seattle hospital, a tennis shoe on an exterior third-floor window ledge that was said to be invisible from her room. The case was popularised by social worker Kimberly Clark.
• Pam Reynolds. During surgery for a brain aneurysm under deep hypothermic cardiac arrest, Reynolds reported observing aspects of the operation and overhearing remarks and music. The case was reported by cardiologist Michael Sabom.
• Reports by blind people. Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper collected accounts in which blind individuals, including some blind from birth, said they had visual-like impressions during NDEs or out-of-body experiences, a phenomenon they termed "mindsight."

Holden's review

In a 2009 review chapter, Holden examined 107 reports of AVP that had appeared in the near-death literature over several decades and classified them by accuracy. She reported that the large majority — which she put at roughly 92% — were "completely accurate," with a small remainder containing some error or being entirely mistaken. Holden herself, and later commentators, noted important limitations: the cases were assembled retrospectively from previously published accounts rather than collected under controlled conditions, corroboration often rested on the testimony of the experiencer or a single witness, and details may have been added or sharpened in the retelling.

Prospective studies

Because anecdotal reports cannot exclude conventional sources of information, several researchers attempted prospective tests, typically by placing visual targets (such as images on high shelves or on top of monitors) in resuscitation areas where they would be visible only to someone genuinely viewing the room from above.

• Sabom (1982). An early comparison asked cardiac patients to describe their resuscitations; Sabom argued that NDE accounts were more accurate than "control" descriptions by patients who had not had an NDE.
• van Lommel et al. (2001). This prospective Dutch study of 344 resuscitated patients, published in The Lancet, reported NDEs in a minority of survivors and recorded the "dentures" anecdote, but it did not include hidden visual targets and so could not test veridical perception under controlled conditions.
• AWARE (2014). The first Sam Parnia–led AWAreness during REsuscitation study installed images on high shelves in participating hospital wards. About 78% of the cardiac arrests, however, occurred in areas without an installed shelf, so the hidden-image test could be applied to only a minority of cases. None of the interviewed survivors identified a hidden image; the single patient whose account of resuscitation the authors regarded as verifiable had arrested in an area without a shelf, so no visual target could be tested against it.
• AWARE II (2023). A larger multi-centre follow-up brought a portable tablet that displayed an image above the patient's head, together with headphones, to resuscitations; the equipment was set up in 365 of 567 cardiac arrests (64%). Low survival nonetheless sharply limited testing: only 28 survivors could be interviewed, and none recalled or identified the hidden image. One survivor reported visual awareness, but described the resuscitation team around him rather than the upward-facing image, and the account could not be independently corroborated.

To date, no prospective study has reported a confirmed instance of a participant correctly identifying a concealed visual target. The evidential weight of this is limited, however, because the test could seldom actually be applied: in AWARE the targets were present for only about a fifth of arrests, while in AWARE II, although the equipment was set up in most arrests, very few survivors reported any visual awareness and the single such case did not involve the hidden image.

Skeptical analysis

Critics argue that the apparent strength of the anecdotal record does not survive close examination and that ordinary explanations are available for the best-known cases.

In a detailed critique in the Journal of Near-Death Studies, the philosopher Keith Augustine argued that veridical NDE reports are typically uncorroborated, collected long after the event, and vulnerable to memory reconstruction, and that the cases do not provide good evidence for perception independent of the body.

Investigators Hayden Ebbern, Sean Mulligan and Barry Beyerstein re-examined the Maria's shoe case and reported that a shoe placed on the ledge was in fact readily visible both from inside the room and from ground level outside, that they could not locate "Maria" or independent witnesses, and that Maria could plausibly have overheard remarks about the shoe while hospitalised. They concluded that the case did not support paranormal perception.

The Pam Reynolds case has been analysed by the anaesthesiologist Gerald Woerlee, who argued that her reported perceptions are consistent with anaesthesia awareness: that residual hearing during periods of lighter anaesthesia, together with normal recall and reconstruction, could account for her descriptions of the bone saw, surgical remarks and music, without invoking perception outside the body.

More generally, skeptics and many neuroscientists attribute NDE imagery and any accurate-seeming details to a combination of factors: partial or residual awareness during resuscitation or anaesthesia, expectation and prior knowledge of medical procedures, information acquired before or after the event, retrospective elaboration of memory, vague statements that are later judged "accurate," and selective reporting of hits over misses.

Scientific status

Veridical perception during NDEs is not an accepted phenomenon in mainstream science. Survival-oriented researchers regard the accumulated case reports as suggestive and call for further prospective testing, whereas the prevailing view in neuroscience and medicine is that the evidence is anecdotal and that controlled studies have so far been negative. The debate is conducted largely within specialist parapsychology journals and is treated by the broader scientific community as a fringe question rather than an established research finding.

See also

• Near-death experience
• Out-of-body experience
• Pam Reynolds case
• Consciousness after death
• Parapsychology

References

This article "Veridical perception" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Veridical perception. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.