Is presentiment a real physiological effect?

Presentiment has a stronger meta-analytic base than many other psi claims (d = 0.21 across 26 studies), and the effect has been reported across multiple physiological measures (EDA, EEG, heart rate, fMRI). However, critics argue the effect is an artifact of how baseline periods are defined, how stimuli are randomized, and how physiological signals are filtered. The 2014 Mossbridge et al. paper attempted to address these critiques directly, and the 2015 response to Schwarzkopf provided a detailed simulation showing expectation bias cannot account for most findings. Skeptics remain unconvinced. Notably, presentiment has attracted fewer high-profile direct rebuttals than Bem's work, possibly because the physiological methodology is more specialized. Recent pre-registered forced-choice precognition studies (Alibalaei et al. 2025) have reported null primary results but intriguing post hoc psi-missing, keeping the debate about unconscious anomalous cognition active.