Hemi-Sync® Journal 1993-2 (Spring)

to consider what constitutes the beginning and the end of that behavior. Another useful tool is the “Dead Body Test” for deter- mining whether or not one has appropriately defined a behavior. Since the physical body of a dead person cannot “behave,” one can apply this test to any “behavior,” asking, “Could a dead body do this?” If the answer is “yes,” then one must redefine the behavior appropriately. For example, con- sider “lying on a bed” as a possible behavior. Could a dead body do it? Yes, so this phrase would be classified as non- behavior. This nonbehavior can be changed to a behavior by clarifying the cycle—the beginning and ending. The result, including the initial action of lying down, then lying on the bed, then getting up—now constitutes a cycle and a behav- ior. A dead body could not perform the entire cycle. How Does One Measure Behavior? We have found in Standard Celeration Charting that attempts to measure behavior need to be sensitive to several characteristics of measurement. Measures should preferably be universal, standard, direct, counted, and visual. Following are brief descriptions of these terms: Universal. A measure that exists in any behavior can be considered universal and can be used as a compare-all with- in and across behaviors. Standard. A tool that incorporates a set of standard fea- tures for measurement within and across behaviors. This tool avoids developing a different measure for every behavior under investigation, or which produces problems in compar- ison and interpretation. Direct. A direct measure represents original data. It can replace the use of a derived measure, such as an average or percentage, which requires creating something different and usually doesn’t allow reconstruction of the original information. Counted. If a behavior can be counted it can be repre- sented by that count. This method contrasts with an inferred measure, such as a rating-scale response, in which an arbi- trary value is assigned to a behavior. Visual. In Standard Celeration Charting, a measure which can be visually represented is needed. Through visual pattern recognition one can see a behavior’s current posi- tion and whether it increases or decreases, or improves or worsens. Such a visual representation, if chosen carefully, reflects changes in the behavior measure that correspond to changes in the behavior itself. Frequency, Celeration, and Bounce as Behavior Measures The three behavior measures of frequency, celeration, and bounce meet the above characteristics of measurement criteria. Frequency is the number of times a behavior occurred divided by the amount of time within which the behaviors occurred. Frequency equals count over time. Examples are: count per second, count per minute, count per day, count ner week, count per month, count per year, etc. ***** (Fig. Count per time Time Figure 1. Frequencies Celeration represents the trend in frequencies of behav- ior across time and appears as a straight, sloped line through the frequencies ***** (Fig. 2). The example shows acceleration since the slope is up from left to right. Bounce represents the variability in behavior. With no bounce, all the frequencies would fall on the celeration line. With bounce, the celeration line has frequencies that fall above it, on it, and below it ***** (Fig. 3). The vertical dis- tance from the celeration line to a parallel line running through the frequency farthest above the celeration line rep- resents the up-bounce. The vertical distance from the celer- ation line to a parallel line running through the frequency farthest below the celeration line represents the down- bounce. The total bounce consists of the vertical distance from the up-bounce to the down-bounce line. ‘The Standard Celeration Chart A tool incorporating all the behavior measures described above, the Standard Celeration Chart (SCC), was developed iii --- PAGE 4 (OCR) --- HEMI-SYNC™ JOURNAL Count per time Time Figure 2. Celeration line through frequencies by Ogden Lindsley at the University of Kansas around 1965. Lindsley (1992) used a slope of thirty-four degrees to repre- sent a doubling every celeration period on all SCCs. This standard slope parallels a line from the lower left- to the upper right-hand corner of each chart. Frequencies are dots on the chart, from 1 at the bottom to 1,000,000 at the top of a multiply scale up the left. Time goes across the bottom on an add scale as seconds, minutes, days, weeks, months, or years. This produces a standard graphical system on a multi- ply scale. Behavior frequencies accelerate and decelerate by straight lines on the SCC. This allows one to project the course of a behavior visually with accuracy. Also, the up- Count per time Time Figure 3. Bounce lines around celeration bounce tends to equal the down-bounce and the total bounce remains the same as the frequency changes. This allows one to see the difference between abrupt frequency changes and gradual celeration changes. Thus one can visu- ally discriminate the occurrence of abrupt Jump-ups, No- jumps, and Jump-downs, and gradual Turn-ups, No-turns, and Turn-downs. Such jumps and turns have been found to be independent and therefore occur in any combination. Applications to Hemi-Sync Research A brief review of past reports from the HEMI-SYNC™ JOURNAL illustrates the potential utility of application of a standard measurement system incorporating the above fea- tures. The power of reporting effects of Hemi-Sync through SCC is that it can quantify the “something of value” which takes place across so many different behaviors and behavers. From reduced fears of cancer patients (inner), decreased drug use in cocaine-addicted individuals (outer), positive thinking in individuals recovering from surgery (inner), and T-cell production in AIDS patients (outer), to learning new material in military training programs (outer) with less per- ceived stress (inner), and improving golf scores (outer) with increased feelings of confidence (inner) and fewer fear emo- tions (inner)—all these behaviors involve counts over time that can be charted for feedback and substantiation of behavior change (Schachter, 1992; Maliszewski, 1991; Cord, 1992; Greene, 1991; Waldkoetter, 1991; Batchelor, 1991). fe) THE MONROE INSTITUTE J HEMI-SYNC™ | BOARD OF ADVISORS mM James Beal OU a Wilson Bullard, PhD Thomas Campbell, MS Gregory D. Carroll, PhD Albert Dahlberg, MD, PhD Arthur Ellison, DSc (Eng) Eleanor Friede Arthur Gladman, MD William H. Herrmann Fowler Jones, EdD Paul F. King Mary Jane Ledyard, PhD James MacMahon ‘Suzanne Evans Morris, PhD Joseph Chilton Pearce Jill Russell, LCSP Ronald Russell, MA Bill D. Schul, PhD David Stanley, MD Charles Tart, PhD. Constance M. Townsend, MD Stanley J. Townsend, PhD Stuart Twemiow, MD Raymond O. Waldkoetter, EdD David J. Wallis The HEMI-SYNC™ JOURNAL, a publication of The Monroe Institute, offers current reporting on resgarch and application of the Hemi-Sync’" technol- ogy in a variety of professional fields. ‘The Monroe Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit research and educational organization dedicated to exploring and developing the uses and understanding of human consciousness. The HEMI-SYNC” JOURNAL is published four times annually by The Monroe Institute, Route 1, Box 175, Faber, Virginia 22998-9749, Telephone (804) '361-9132. Membership/subscrip. tion rates from $50 to $150 per year. ‘Managing Editor: F. Holmes Atwater. Assistant Editor: Shirley Bile © 1983 The Monroe Institute. All fights reserved. No part may be rapro- duced without permission. POSTMAS- TER: Send address changes to Route Marguerite Q. Warren, PhD 1, Box 175, Faber, Virginia 22938-9749. iv