Now, we have here a remarkable series of phenomena, and as it is a series which never fails to occur under the conditions named, I append tracings to give a better idea of the very marked and striking character of the results. The first tracing (Fig. 2) is a record of the successive increments of the responses to successive induction shocks of the same intensity, thrown in at three seconds' intervals—the cylinder being stationary during each response, and rotated a short distance with the hand during each interval of repose.
Fig. 2.
The second tracing (Figs. 3 and 4) is a record of the difference between the lengths of the latent period, and also between the strengths of the contraction, in the case (a) of the first of such a series of responses (Fig. 3), and (b) of the last of such a series (Fig. 4). From these tracings it will be manifest, without further comment, how surprising is the effect of a series of stimuli; first, in arousing the tissue, as it were, to increased activity, and, second, in developing a state of expectancy.
In accordance with the now customary terminology, I shall call such a series of responses as are given in Fig. 2 a "staircase." Such a staircase has a greater number of steps in it if caused by a weak current (compare Figs. 2 and 5); and if the strength of the current be suddenly increased after the maximum level of a staircase has been reached by using a feeble current, this level admits of being slightly raised (see Fig. 5). Moreover, I find that a stimulus, which at the bottom of a staircase is of less than minimal intensity, is able, at the top of a staircase, to give rise to a contraction of very nearly maximum intensity. That is to say, by employing an induction stimulus of slightly less than minimal intensity in relation to the original irritability of the tissue, no response is given to the first two or three shocks of a series; but at the third or fourth shock a slight response is given, and from that point onward the staircase is built up as usual. This was the case in the experiment of which Fig. 2 is a record, no response having been given to the first two shocks.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
