Methods
Nobody has answered this yet. It gets answered faster with more first hand accounts, recorded carefully, by people who were not told in advance what they were supposed to see. Describe what you saw before you look at anyone else's, read what has already been collected, come to an event, and join a trial when one opens.
The observation protocol is built around a 650 nm laser passed through a diffraction grating. Where possible, contributors record what they saw before viewing the existing catalogue, so a match is earned by independent recognition rather than by suggestion.
Recognition counts are public per symbol, and they count readers who responded after seeing the form here rather than independent observers. The dataset is downloadable so external analysts can inspect the methodology and re-run their own aggregations.
A note on what follows: it is a draft study design, not the original protocol and not a validated result. Anyone running it with human participants needs qualified laser safety review and ethics approval first.
Common questions
How do you design a blinded experiment for the 650 nm laser protocol?
Double-blind experimental design requires three critical components to eliminate expectation effects and observer bias: Sham laser device: Construct device with identical appearance, weight, and operation (button press, indicator LED) but no 650 nm coherent light output. Use a blocked aperture or another control that is not distinguishable by appearance, see the control device requirements below. Independent randomization: Third-party experimenter (not present during experience) randomizes real/sham assignment using sealed envelopes or electronic randomization. Maintains allocation concealment until data analysis. Blinded symbol recording: Both participant and symbol recorder remain unaware of real/sham condition. Post-experience drawing occurs before unblinding. Control for optical variables: wavelength (650 nm ± 5 nm), intensity (fixed in advance and recorded, see equipment specifications below), diffraction grating line density (500-1000 lines/mm). Control for pharmacological variables: N,N-DMT dose (route-matched baseline dose), set/setting standardization. Timmermann et al. (2019) Neural correlates of the DMT experience assessed with multivariate EEG. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-51974-4
What control conditions are necessary?
Rigorous replication requires four experimental conditions to isolate laser effect from DMT effects, expectation, and optical artifacts: Condition 1: Sham laser + N,N-DMT. Controls for expectation effects. If symbols appear with sham device, suggests placebo/expectation mechanism. Condition 2: Real laser + placebo substance. Controls for optical artifacts. If symbols appear without DMT, suggests retinal phosphenes or afterimages. Condition 3: No laser + N,N-DMT. Baseline DMT visual phenomena without laser stimulus. Establishes whether symbols occur spontaneously. Condition 4: Diffraction grating alone (no laser) + N,N-DMT. Controls for grating visual effects. Tests whether coherent light (vs. ambient light through grating) is necessary. Sample size cannot be given as a single number until the primary outcome is fixed. The primary outcome declared below is binary, whether a participant reports a discrete bounded symbol, and a binary outcome is sized from the two rates being compared, not from Cohen's d. As a worked illustration at 5 percent significance and 80 percent power, two sided: comparing 20 percent against 50 percent needs about 38 participants per condition, comparing 30 percent against 50 percent needs about 93, and comparing 20 percent against 35 percent needs about 137. If a continuous outcome is used instead, a medium effect of Cohen's d equal to 0.5 needs about 64 per condition. An earlier version of this page said 20 per condition. That was wrong. Twenty per condition against d equal to 0.5 delivers roughly 34 percent power, meaning the study would more likely than not miss a real effect even if one existed. The expected rates must be declared in advance and the calculation published before recruitment begins. Use a validated symbol classification schema and blinded raters for drawing analysis.
How do you quantify visual symbol consistency?
Objective symbol classification requires: Pre-registered symbol taxonomy: Define categories before data collection (geometric shapes, alphabetic-like characters, abstract patterns) rather than assigning them post hoc. Blinded rater analysis: Two independent raters (unaware of experimental condition) classify drawings using a standardized rubric. Calculate inter-rater reliability (Cohen's κ ≥ 0.70 required). Computational similarity metrics: Image similarity algorithms such as SSIM and perceptual hashing can support classification but are not sufficient on their own. Symbol frequency analysis: Track how often identical symbols appear across participants. High-consistency symbols (≥3 independent observers) warrant focused analysis. SSIM and perceptual hashing are sensitive to rotation, scale, position, stroke thickness, mirroring and drawing skill. Two drawings of the same remembered form will often score as different, and two unrelated scribbles can score as similar. A credible matching pipeline needs standardised preprocessing, a predeclared list of permitted transformations, feature based similarity rather than pixel similarity alone, blinded human raters, negative control drawings from people who were never exposed, a matching threshold fixed in advance, inter rater reliability, and a chance match baseline computed from those negative controls.
What statistical tests are appropriate?
Primary outcome: Symbol appearance rate (binary: yes/no discrete bounded symbols). Chi-square test: Compare symbol appearance frequency across real laser vs. sham laser conditions. Logistic regression: Model symbol appearance probability with predictors (laser condition, DMT dose, prior experience, expectation). Bayesian analysis: Calculate Bayes factor (BF₁₀) comparing laser-effect hypothesis vs. null hypothesis. BF₁₀ > 3 considered moderate evidence, >10 strong evidence. Secondary outcomes: Symbol complexity (quantified via fractal dimension, perimeter-to-area ratio), inter-subject similarity (average pairwise SSIM scores), consistency with pre-registered symbol taxonomy.
What equipment specifications are required?
Standardized equipment ensures replicability: Laser: 650 nm plus or minus 5 nm, continuous wave, beam diameter 1 to 2 mm at aperture. Power and safety class are deliberately left open. The published report we have been able to verify describes a collimated 650 nm laser but does not state output power or safety class in the publicly accessible record, so any specific figure here would be invented rather than sourced. A replication should use the lowest output that produces a usable diffraction pattern at the intended viewing distance, that figure should be set by a qualified laser safety officer, recorded in the protocol, and verified with a calibrated power meter. For context, consumer pointers sold as Class 2 are limited to 1 mW, while Class 3R, labelled Class IIIa under older United States classification, spans 1 to 5 mW. Those are materially different exposure classes and they are not interchangeable. Diffraction grating: 500-1000 lines/mm transmission grating, mounted 2-5 cm from laser aperture. Holographic gratings preferred for uniform diffraction pattern. Control device: a credible optical control has to match everything the participant can perceive. Same housing, weight, button, indicator, apparent colour, apparent brightness, projected geometry, surface coverage and viewing distance. What it manipulates has to be something the participant cannot perceive directly, such as coherence, speckle structure or diffraction order. A 520 nm green LED fails this test, because green is visibly not red and the participant is unblinded the moment the device is switched on. Measurement tools: spectrometer to verify output wavelength, calibrated power meter to verify output power against the figure set in the protocol, beam profiler for spatial characterisation, and a photometer to confirm the control device matches the active device on apparent brightness.
How do you handle ethical considerations?
Psychedelic research requires stringent ethical protocols: Institutional approval: IRB/ethics committee approval required before any human subjects research. Submit detailed protocol including risk mitigation, informed consent procedures, participant screening. Medical screening: Exclude participants with personal/family history of psychosis, cardiovascular conditions, medications contraindicated with DMT (MAOIs, SSRIs). Harm reduction: Trained medical personnel on-site, blood pressure/heart rate monitoring, integration support sessions post-experience. Data protection: Anonymous data collection, secure storage (HIPAA/GDPR compliant), no identifiable information linked to drawings or reports. Follow guidelines from Psychedelic Science Group, MAPS, and Beckley Foundation for conducting responsible psychedelic research. Prioritize participant safety over data collection.