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