I then tried him with the black and buff diamonds, the black being in front (October 25-29). The reaction to the ‘yes’ signal was perfect from the start. The progress with the ‘no’ signal is shown in [Fig. 30], d.
I then tried him with an apparatus externally of different size, shape and color from that so far used, showing as the ‘yes’ signal a brown card and as the ‘no’ signal a white and gold card one half inch farther back in the apparatus. The ‘yes’ signal was practically perfect from the start. His progress with the ‘no’ signal is shown in [Fig. 30], e.
I then tried a still different arrangement for exposure, to which, however, he did not give uniform attention.
I then tried cards 1 and 101, 101 being in front and 1 in back. 1 was the ‘yes’ signal. ‘Yes’ responses were perfect from the start. For ‘no’ responses see [Fig. 30], f. I then put the ‘yes’ signal in front and the ‘no’ signal behind. ‘Yes’ responses perfect; for ‘no’ responses see [Fig. 30], f, a.
From now on I arranged the exposures in such a way that there was no difference between the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ signals in distance or surroundings.
The following list shows the dates, signals used, and the figures on [page 199] presenting the results. Where there is only one figure drawn, it refers to progress with the ‘no’ signal, the ‘yes’ signal being practically perfect from the start.
Table 10
| ‘Yes’ Signal | ‘No’ Signal | Figure | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov. 13-15, 1900. | 2 | 102 | g g₁ |
| Nov. 14-16, 1900. | 3 | 103 | i i₁ |
| Nov. 16-19, 1900. | 4 | 104 | h |
| Nov. 19, 1900. | 5 | 105 | j |
| Nov. 20, 1900. | 6 | 106 | k |
| Nov. 21, 1900. | 7 | 107 | l |
| Nov. 23(?), 1900. | 8 | 108 | m |
| Nov. 27-29, 1900. | 9 | 109 | n |
| Nov. 30, 1900. | 10 | 110 | o |