49.  Fairly clear, but not equal to the scene.  Defined, but not sharply; not all seen with equal clearness.

50.  Fairly clear.  Brightness probably at least one-half to two-thirds of original. [The writer is a physiologist.] Definition varies very much, one or two objects being much more distinct than the others, but the latter come out clearly if attention be paid to them.

51.  Image of my breakfast-table fairly clear, but not quite so bright as the reality.  Altogether it is pretty well defined; the part where I sit and its surroundings are pretty well so.

52.  Fairly clear, but brightness not comparable to that of the actual scene.  The objects are sharply defined; some of them are salient, and others insignificant and dim, but by separate efforts I can take a visualised inventory of the whole table.

53.  Details of breakfast-table when the scene is reflected on are fairly defined and complete, but I have had a familiarity of many years with my own breakfast-table, and the above would not be the case with a table seen casually unless there were some striking peculiarity in it,

54.  I can recall any single object or group of objects, but not the whole table at once.  The things recalled are generally clearly defined.  Our table is a long one; I can in my mind pass my eyes all down the table and see the different things distinctly, but not the whole table at once.

Cases where the faculty is at the lowest.

89.  Dim and indistinct, yet I can give an account of this morning’s breakfast-table; split herrings, broiled chickens, bacon, rolls, rather light-coloured marmalade, faint green plates with stiff pink flowers, the girls’ dresses, etc. etc.  I can also tell where all the dishes were, and where the people sat (I was on a visit).  But my imagination is seldom pictorial except between sleeping and waking, when I sometimes see rather vivid forms.

90.  Dim and not comparable in brightness to the real scene.  Badly defined with blotches of light; very incomplete.

91.  Dim, poor definition; could not sketch from it.  I have a difficulty in seeing two images together.

92.  Usually very dim.  I cannot speak of its brightness, but only of its faintness.  Not well defined and very incomplete.

93.  Dim, imperfect.

94.  I am very rarely able to recall any object whatever with any sort of distinctness.  Very occasionally an object or image will recall itself, but even then it is more like a generalised image than an individual image.  I seem to be almost destitute of visualising power, as under control.

95.  No power of visualising.  Between sleeping and waking, in illness and in health, with eyes closed, some remarkable scenes have occasionally presented themselves, but I cannot recall them when awake with eyes open, and by daylight, or under any circumstances whatever when a copy could be made of them on paper.  I have drawn both men and places many days or weeks after seeing them, but it was by an effort of memory acting on study at the time, and assisted by trial and error on the paper or canvas, whether in black, yellow, or colour, afterwards.