HI V LO INTENTIONS

 A

Based on the charts and text provided from the Yantra experiment, here are three key points regarding the results of "anomalous performance":

1. Statistical Significance of Pooled Results

In Figure II-12(a), the cumulative plot for pooled intentions shows a steady upward trend as the number of segments increases. The result crosses the $p = .05$ threshold and eventually reaches a significance level of $p = .02$, suggesting that when all data is combined, there is a statistically measurable "anomalous yield" that deviates from chance.

2. Divergence of HI and LO Intentions

Figure II-12(b) demonstrates a sharp disparity when segments are distinguished by operator intent:

• HI Intentions: These show a strong positive correlation, achieving a highly significant $p = .001$.

• LO Intentions: These resulted in no anomalous yield, ending with a non-significant $p = .81$.

  This indicates that the "anomalous performance" was specifically driven by certain operator-environment interactions rather than a uniform effect across all trials.

3. Lack of Correlation with Aesthetic Preference

The text notes a "wide disparity" across different feedback options. Crucially, many of the most "popular" or aesthetically pleasing pattern combinations chosen by operators produced little to no anomalous yield. This confirms findings from previous studies (PEAR200 and ArtREG) that an operator's aesthetic preference for a specific pattern does not guarantee or facilitate better anomalous performance.