Volltext: Discrimination of Shades of Gray for Different Intervals of Time (19)

Frank Angel]. 
g. 
of doubt. Ke stated on the third day of experimentation (5 sec.) 
that he tried to reproduce the first impression or effect »which is 
hardly an idea of the image«. This, together with a remark (4th day 
5 sec.) that movements of the eyes during the interval destroyed the 
visual image, may mean that these tension sensations served as a basis 
of comparison. This, however, is noted only for short periods. 
With reagent Kl, reproduction is confined almost wholly to verbal 
imagery. At the beginning he notes an indistinct image which »does 
not assist in the comparison.« After a months experimentation he 
remarks that the words »hell« and »dunkel« call up an image of the 
disc. »No visual image but by means of a word«, »Always by means 
of words ‘ziemlich hell'.« If he forgets the term used at the exposure 
of the first disc, he cannot make the comparison. His notes indicate 
a scale of but three values — »ziemlich hell«, »hell«, »dunkel«. It 
is, however, to be remarked that for many reagents verbal terms are 
by no means the only marks which may be carried over from the 
norm, to the comparison; in marking the first disc the quickness or 
briskness or even degree of ease or satisfaction with which it is re¬ 
cognized as light or dark, may all serve as marks for carrying over 
the first impression to the second. 
The protocol notes indicate therefore that most of Ke’s judgments 
and about all of Kl’s are based on contiguous association, more 
especially on verbal reproduction. If this is the case, the numerical 
results of the experiments are easily explained. For judgments of 
this kind it is obvious that the time intervals used would make no 
great difference. After an impression has been classified as bright 
either verbally or through the rapidity and ease with which it is 
apprehended as »light«, it is evident that the comparison can be 
classified with respect to the norm so long as the »reading«, so to 
speak, of the norm remains in mind. For such judgments too it is 
obvious that closed or open eyes — fixed or free attention, or arti¬ 
ficial distraction would make no essential difference. Some accidental 
variation might well arise through the confusing or changing of the 
memory of the reading, but in the main the results would be about 
what we have found in these experiments. This explanation too is 
in accordance with Lehmann’s results referred to at the beginning 
of this paper. Lehmann also introduced a distraction judgment
	        
Waiting...

Nutzerhinweis

Sehr geehrte Benutzerin, sehr geehrter Benutzer,

aufgrund der aktuellen Entwicklungen in der Webtechnologie, die im Goobi viewer verwendet wird, unterstützt die Software den von Ihnen verwendeten Browser nicht mehr.

Bitte benutzen Sie einen der folgenden Browser, um diese Seite korrekt darstellen zu können.

Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis.