Angell and Pierce[112] found the same progressive change from negative to positive displacements. They explained it as a change in the focus of attention. The visual series is focal at first, and the sound becomes focal in later experiments. Negative displacements result from fixing the last possible point in the visual series before the sound is heard, while positive displacements result from getting the first letter possible after the sound. The method of my observers, with the large numbers of trials at their disposal, was to "let the sound announce the letter" on the first trial, and then to "lie in wait for the letter" so announced, and to "see whether it was too late or too early." It was found to be too late usually, for this was the second method of Angell and Pierce, which gave positive displacements.
So at the next trial the preceding letter would be waited for, and tested in the same way. The first trial was thus auditory-visual attention and the second was visual-auditory, and there was a striving after a balance where neither auditory nor visual impression had the preference.
As soon as adjustment to the conditions of a given combination had been secured, it was a simple matter to anticipate, with a fair degree of accuracy, both a given letter and the recurrence of the sound. The attention could thus be pretty accurately divided between the two, and a very small time-displacement was the result. When I was acting as observer, a change of the auditory interval upset the whole plan of procedure for a short time. I had to accustom myself to the new rhythm. But as soon as this adjustment was made, it was just as easy to make the judgment at one rate as at another, barring variations which might be called fortuitous, since they were so small. This experience with the conditions here under consideration, as well as the introspections of the other observers, convinces me that the conception of an apperception-ripening time has been overworked.
It is true that I find here, just as Pflaum[113] found, displacements in both directions with every observer. It seems very doubtful to me, however, whether these are in any sense due to what may be considered a fixed apperception-time for a given observer, under fixed objective conditions. The facility with which adaptation is made to the changed conditions of a new combination of intervals, so that just as small displacements are made under one as another, indicates to my mind that one can control the conditions so that the apperception shall ripen quickly or slowly, depending upon the warmth of the interest, and the concentration or division of the attention,—that there is a capacity in the ordinary individual so to adapt himself to the conditions as to do equally good work in coördinating two sense-impressions anywhere within a wide range of intervals. The influence of the length of the interval separating succeeding clicks, in determining displacements, has been considerably overestimated. I should state here that no one of the three observers had any specific training to reduce the displacement. The results were not discussed with them. They had no means of knowing what displacements they were making. This certainly adds strength to the inference, from these results, that there are adaptable apperceptive conditions for coördinating sense-impressions.
THE INFLUENCE OF THE LENGTH OF THE SERIES OF VISUAL IMPRESSIONS
The next step in the analysis of the complication experiment, bringing it into relation with the simple coördination of two disparate stimuli, is to show, if possible, the influence of the series of visual impressions. This naturally divides into two lines, namely, (1) the length of the series as such, and (2) the relative influence, in case of a given kind of displacement, of the part of the series coming after the auditory stimulus, and the part preceding it. For the first, I used in comparison, a series of twelve letters, a series of three, and a single letter. For the second, the letter, whose coördination with the click was set as the task of the observer, was made successively the first, the last, and the middle member of a series of five letters.
During each hour of experimentation, the observer was tested as to his accuracy of localization of the click, (1) in a series of twelve letters at intervals of .083 sec., (2) in a series of three at the same interval, and (3) with reference to a single letter. The method for the first two was exactly as in the preceding experiments. In the case of the single letter, he was asked to localize as accurately as possible in terms of the intervals as he remembered them from the series. This introduced an element of uncertainty. One observer, St, would not give any judgments as to time-differences in the case of the single letter. Another method had to be adopted in order to obtain more comparable results. These results (Table III) are presented as showing, by comparison with the following table, the transition from one method to the other. Clicks were at 2-sec. intervals. Each number in the table is the average result of fifty or more experiments. They are in thousandths of seconds, and the plus and minus signs indicate positive and negative displacements.