In the matrix(ing): Pareidolia and beyond

When reviewing evidence post-investigation, staring at photographs and listening to hours of audio can play tricks with your mind. It’s totally normal. But understanding and recognizing these tendencies of the human subconscious is essential in order to avoid mistakenly classifying examples of matrixing or pareidolia as evidence.

Our minds naturally seek patterns in our surroundings and in external stimuli. From the time we are small children, we look for familiarity and try to find order amidst what otherwise seems to be chaos. Our seeking of communication and making sense of the environment can be manifested in a natural psychological phenomenon called apophenia. More specifically, pareidolia occurs when an image can be perceived and interpreted as having meaning or significance, while anthropomorphizing is a similar term for perceiving human forms or attributes to non-human things or images.

According to Martinez-Conde (2012), “our aptitude to identify structure and order around us, combined with our superior talent for face detection, can lead to spectacular cases of pareidolia, with significant effects in society.” Prime examples of this have made their way into our culture, including seeing faces in celestial objects like the moon, identifying familiar shapes in clouds or medical imaging, or even spotting religious figures in toast.

Even Google has recently been utilized to further look into pareidolia. A German design firm has begun scanning the globe utilizing satellite imagery provided by Google maps (Dickey, 2013) in hopes of finding familiar images. This process has been slow-going at best, only scanning about 5% of the Earth’s surface thus far, but has been able to identify some examples of the phenomenon in images of our planet’s terrain.

The term “matrixing” has come into vogue and common use among some in the paranormal field as another word for pareidolia, but there is some debate as to whether these two terms are really interchangeable. While the difference is subtle, there is some consensus that pareidolia refers more to illusions that may be misperceived within untouched audio or photos, while matrixing refers to perceiving familiar shapes within media that has been enlarged, compressed to the point of diminishing quality, or otherwise distorted.

When evaluating evidence, a critical eye is your best defense against mistaking instances of pareidolia or matrixing as ghostly evidence. Drowsiness, darkness, and peripheral vision can multiply the effects of pareidolia, so ensuring that you are focused, rested, and in good lighting may help you scrutinize potential evidence more effectively. Refraining from enlarging or compressing evidence is helpful as well. If you find an image that you feel may be paranormal, but could also be a case of pareidolia or matrixing, keep in mind that an honest, critical analysis is key. It’s better for you and your team to constructively question and debunk your evidence than waiting for others to do so. When in doubt, go back to the location where the evidence was gathered (always seek permission first, of course!) and see if you can recreate or debunk the image. By carefully examining your own photos and audio, you can help ensure that your evidence stands up.

 

References

Dickey, C. (2013, June 5). Virgin Mary grilled cheese? Newsweek Global, 161(21).

Martinez-Conde, S. (2012). A Faithful Resemblance. Scientific American Mind, 19.

 

Originally published here

A Bit About EVP

After an investigation, reviewing audio is crucial. It’s a long process, but one that more than pays off when you come across a voice that wasn’t heard by investigators at the time of the investigation, which is known as an EVP or Electronic Voice Phenomenon.

I’m currently using a small Sony digital recorder to capture audio during investigations. I love its small size and that it allows for multiple folders in which to store audio. Also, it has a port on the side that allows it to be connected to a computer USB port for easy download. I’m a Mac user, which is generally fabulous, but unfortunately this particular device doesn’t allow direct export to Mac. However, I can connect to a PC, download the files to Dropbox, and I’m ready to review from my MacBook. Also, I always make a copy of the original audio and listen to the copy. This leaves an original intact, allowing me to use the copy to isolate individual sections of audio that may contain EVPs and not worry about impacting the initial file.

Listening to hours of digitally recorded audio takes a great deal of concentration. I personally find it useful to catch up on sleep post-investigation before delving into review, and make sure to take breaks at least once an hour to keep myself from falling into the grips of listening fatigue. While different investigators may have different preferences regarding types of headphones for reviewing audio, I think we can all agree that they’re necessary. Computer speakers, even good ones, don’t allow you to fully immerse yourself in the audio, so they just plain don’t cut it. I find that earbud-style headphones are the best for me to pick up on subtleties in the audio and better decipher whether they are EVP or something in the physical environment that can be explained. Others may prefer an over-the-ear style, but these don’t quite meet my needs. I haven’t tried noise-canceling headphones, but some online reviews claim these can cause distortion due to the technology used to cancel outside noise, so you may end up missing subtle elements of the audio.

Recently, I’ve been using a free trial version of Wave Pad by NCH Software to review audio from an investigation. I really like the simple layout and navigation of the program, and find it really user-friendly, especially since I’m not very experienced with computer sound editing programs. The full version of Wave Pad is enticing, but I’m not quite ready to drop $70+ for the Standard or Master’s edition. I’ve also had some success using Audacity, which is a free download. However, I find its interface a bit clunky, though I would probably enjoy it more if I experimented with it further.

If I hear something within the audio file that sounds like it may be an EVP, I like to briefly pause the playback, quickly jot down the timestamp and what I think I heard, as well as the location we were in at the time of the recording. Next, I select a bit of the file that includes the potential voice in question, and copy it to a new file, then rename the file. I like to include the location information, date, and a brief description of the sound in the file name. After I’ve reviewed all the audio and pulled out any potential EVPs, I like to revisit each clip I copied to a new file in greater depth afterward, to see if I can distinguish any clear words, or if I can reasonably dismiss any of them as caused by a team member or another aspect of the environment. It can be tough to distinguish between paranormal and possibly explainable, so when in doubt, I know I can email clips to my team members for another opinion!

Have any tips for reviewing audio evidence? Or recommendations of fabulous equipment you like to use? Let me know in the comments, on Facebook or on Twitter!