TABLE II.
ST = 5.0 SECS.
| Subject. | Average ET. | No. of Series. |
|---|---|---|
| A. | 5.75 | 50 |
| B. | 5.13 | 40 |
| Hs. | 5.26 | 100 |
| P. | 5.77 | 38 |
| Mn. | 6.19 | 50 |
| Mr. | 5.25 | 60 |
| R. | 5.63 | 24 |
| Sh. | 5.34 | 100 |
| Sn. | 5.57 | 50 |
This overestimation of the 5.0 sec. standard agrees with the results of some of the experimenters on auditory time and apparently conflicts with the results of others. Mach[4] found no constant error. Höring[5] found that intervals over 0.5 sec. were overestimated. Vierordt,[6] Kollert,[7] Estel[8] and Glass,[9] found small intervals overestimated and long ones underestimated, the indifference point being placed at about 3.0 by Vierordt, 0.7 by Kollert and Estel and 0.8 by Glass. Mehner[10] found underestimation from 0.7 to 5.0 and overestimation above 5.0. Schumann[11] found in one set of experiments overestimation from 0.64 to 2.75 and from 3.5 to 5.0, and underestimation from 2.75 to 3.5. Stevens[12] found underestimation of small intervals and overestimation of longer ones, placing the indifference point between 0.53 and 0.87.
The overestimation, however, is of no great significance, for data will be introduced a little later which show definitely that the underestimation or overestimation of a given standard is determined, among other factors, by the intensity of the stimulation employed. The apparently anomalous results obtained in the early investigations are in part probably explicable on this basis.
As regards the results of practice, the data obtained from the two subjects on whom the greatest number of tests was made (Hs and Sh) is sufficiently explicit. The errors for each successive group of 25 series for these two subjects are given in Table III.
TABLE III.
ST = 5.0 SECONDS.
| SUBJECT Hs. | SUBJECT Sh. | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
| 4. | 2.5 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 0.0 | .5 | 0.0 | .5 |
| 4.5 | 6.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 3.5 | 2.0 | .5 |
| 5. | 14.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 8.5 | 11.5 | 4.0 | 7.0 |
| 5.5 | 11.5 | 11.5 | 6.0 | 12.5 | 11.0 | 16.0 | 14.0 | 15.0 |
| 6. | 12.0 | 9.0 | 6.5 | 6.0 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.0 |
| 6.5 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | .5 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
No influence arising from practice is discoverable from this table, and we may safely conclude that this hypothetical factor may be disregarded, although among the experimenters on auditory time Mehner[13] thought results gotten without a maximum of practice are worthless, while Meumann[14] thinks that unpracticed and hence unsophisticated subjects are most apt to give unbiased results, as with more experience they tend to fall into ruts and exaggerate their mistakes. The only stipulation we feel it necessary to make in this connection is that the subject be given enough preliminary tests to make him thoroughly familiar with the conditions of the experiment.