ST= 2.0 SECS.

  Subject W.

(1) CT=2.0           (3) CT=2.2           (5) CT=2.0
113  133           RRL     RLL          RRL       RLL
S   3    3             9      20            5        21
E  18   19            25      16           18        14
L  24   28            16      14           17        15

Subject P.

(1) CT=2.0          (3)CT={1.6            (5) CT={1.6
{2.4                   {2.4
113  133         RRL(1.6)  RLL(2.4)    RRL(1.6)  RLL(2.4)
S   2   16           12       16           15        10
E  38   32           32       21           26        19
L  10    2            6       15           14        21

Subject B.

(1) CT=2.0          (2) CT=2.0           (6) CT=2.0
113  133          112      122          aab        abb
S   4   21            5       20            7         6
E  23   19           22       24           40        38
L  23   10           23        6            3         6

  Subject Hy.

(1) CT=2.0          (2) CT=2.4          (1a) CT=2.0
113  133          112       122         113       133
S  12   46           17        40          17        31
E   9    2           14         8           9         7
L  29    2           19         2          14         2

In the series designated as (1a) the conditions were the same as in (1), except that the subject abstracted as much as possible from the tactual nature of the stimulations and the position of the fingers.  This was undertaken upon the suggestion of the subject that it would be possible to perform the abstraction, and was not repeated on any other subject.

The results are given in Table VI., where the numerals in the headings indicate the localities and changes of stimulation, in accordance with the preceding scheme, and ’S’, ’E’ and ’L’ designate the number of judgments of shorter, equal and longer respectively.

It will be observed that in several cases a CT was introduced in one class which was different from the CT used in the other classes with the same subject.  This was not entirely arbitrary.  It was found with subject W, for example, that the use of CT = 2.0 in (3) produced judgments of shorter almost entirely in both types.  Therefore a CT was found, by trial, which produced a diversity of judgments.  The comparison of the different classes is not so obvious under these conditions as it otherwise would be, but is still possible.

The comparison gives results which at first appear quite irregular.  These are shown in Table VII. below, where the headings (1)—­(3), etc., indicate the classes compared, and in the lines beneath them ‘+’ indicates that the interval under consideration is estimated as relatively greater (more overestimated or less underestimated) in the second of the two classes than in the first,—­indicating the opposite effect.  Results for the first interval are given in the line denoted ‘first,’ and for the second interval in the line denoted ‘second.’  Thus, the plus sign under (1)—­(3) in the first line for subject P indicates that the variation RLL caused the first interval to be overestimated to a greater extent than did the variation 133.