TABLE VII

	A		B		C		D		E
	Baldwin 46 experiments Hutchinson 78 experiments Equal strain (minimum)		52 experiments with each subject Equal strain (minimum)		52 experiments Equal strain (maximum) Eyes Turned		104 experiments with each subject Head and eyes turned		52 experiments
	Right	Left	Lower	Upper	Right	Left	Ease	Strain	Ease	Strain
Subjects	Baldwin	Hutchison		2		Baldwin		2	Baldwin
Av.% of
difference
in favor of	30.4	28.2		68.3		71.2		52.4	80.8

Here are the facts of chief interest: (1) The following tabulation gives us a ready view of the character of the results in Table VII; and shows the extent to which they are consistent:

	A	B	C	D	E
Baldwin favors	right	{upper	left	{farther	{nearer
		{strain		{strain	{no-strain
				left	left
Hutchison favors	left	{upper		{farther
		{strain		{strain
				left

(2) The only inconsistency in the strain-distance complex is with Baldwin in E. He reported that the more distant group appeared rather as an undifferentiated mass whose number was not so well obtained, while in the near the individuals were significant. He seemed to be in the midst of these. The case seems analogous to that of the observer whose introspection was reported under Table I, and who at first accepted what we may call the objective analysis, by which the scattered group gave up more distinct objects than the compact; but later attempting voluntarily to disintegrate the compact, found a bewildering confusion in the task that made this group seem very numerous, and brought about in the end an exact reversal of tendency. (3) Can we now separate in the results between the influences of strain and of distance? So far we have regarded them as one complex. But the introspections speak merely of the space-characters of the objects, Hutchison agreeing with Baldwin that the more remote group is judged as an area rather than as a collection of definite objects. (4) The almost entire absence of correct judgments in these experiments adds new evidence to that of the immediately preceding experiments in proof of the insignificance of the actual numerical relation for the judgment of relative number.

IV. THE INFLUENCE OF FACTORS OUTSIDE OF THE OBJECTS AND IN OTHER SENSE-FIELDS

The One-Group Apparatus was employed, and cards in general corresponding to those where area was not in question,—white-circle groups equal in size and irregular in inner distribution, which was not duplicated on the same card, though the resulting distribution-error was formally eliminated in the usual way. The usual care was taken to fill the group-area homogeneously. The small-difference cards were retained at first; but on later discovering the possibility of duplication a few supplementary experiments were added.

1. The Influence of Touch.

The apparatus employed to give the touch-stimulus consisted in a long lever attached to the armature of a small electro-magnet. In the end of the lever was inserted at right angles a wooden peg, cork-tipped. In view of the other conditions of the experiment a convenient spot for the application of the stimulus was found to be the forehead where it curves backward above the right eye. The apparatus was supported by rods and clamps upon a long upright steel rod set in an iron base and placed behind the chairs of the observers. The same rod carried a head-rest, designed not as a support but merely to show the observer that he had returned to the original position after he had bent forward to record judgment. Where two observers were used at once two sets of this apparatus were employed, with the magnets in a single circuit governed by a floor-button. The touch-stimulus was made to coincide as closely as possible with the appearance of a given group.

In view of the practical remoteness of this factor from the object of judgment the experimentation here took two forms,—one in which the observer was passive toward the touch-stimulus; the other in which the effort was made closely to associate the touch with the visual group by imagining the group to be responsible for the touch. For the passive method the touch was given irregularly now on the first and now on the last, but as many times on one as on the other.

For the active method, it was given always on the last group. This constancy was held to favor the active association of touch and particular group. The constant time-error was guarded against by experiments in which no modifying factor was introduced. A and B of Table VIII present the results of the passive and active methods respectively. C and D repeat A with duplication of groups,—C with the usual (1/25 sec.), D with a longer, exposure. These last sets were taken that the factor of touch might be studied when the objective conditions of the strong distribution influence should have been removed. It might prove that a factor swamped in the former situation might emerge into effectiveness.

The following summary gathers the chief facts of Table VIII: (1) Touch appears practically without effect in A. (2) In B, the results for touch seem again insignificant; but comparison with the control-results, to isolate touch from time-order, while it shows no marked change for Angier, does show for the others that touch was effective in determining the direction of error by difference-values, in the two cases of 10.2 and 14 per cent. The active method seems to be slightly more favorable to the influence of touch. (3) The duplication of the groups in C gives a large increase to the apparent effectiveness of touch, which is considerably diminished but not destroyed by the lengthening of the exposure in D. (4) The introspection for A indicates that touch under these experimental conditions has little subjective importance for the judgment of number. It is sometimes quite unnoticed. Angier made a possible exception in its favor in cases of great hesitancy where it added "importance" to the group with which it occurred. Usually he felt little doubt. With Shaw the touch was at first distracting but later indifferent. Johnston's notes indicate rather more effect. The touch prevented strict attention to the figure impression whereby the space-intervals in that group lost in value. Later it lost its confusing effect. Here seems to be subjective tendency, but not enough to predominate in results.