A, B, C, D, E, F, G are the different subjects, and 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., refer to the cards with the different patterns. It is seen at a glance that great differences exist between the rates with which the different subjects count. Subject G had much fewer tests than the others, and thus, not having as much training, his average is higher in comparison than it would be had he had the same training.
Now if we compare the counting of the first three or relatively simple patterns with that of the next three or comparatively complex ones, we notice at once that the simple figures are almost invariably counted in less time than the complex, there being only two exceptions. B counts 6 a little faster than 1, and G counts 6 faster than 1 and 3. Even these apparent exceptions are easily explained. As noted already, subjects are much more apt to lose their place in counting certain cards than others. This is especially true of Card 1 even after the line is broken. Now Card 6 is arranged on a different plan from the others, for it has many kinds of figures on it. This is a great help in keeping one's proper place in the counting of the series, and since wavering between two figures is avoided, the series is counted more rapidly. But B is the most rapid in counting, of all the subjects, and it is natural that any differences in the ease of keeping place should show themselves here, since the more rapid the counting the easier it is to lose the proper position. This cannot be said of G, who is a slow counter, but on the other hand it may be noted that he had only a few cases, and at first the ability to keep one's position is much less than after considerable experience. So in Cards 6 and 1 there are two conflicting principles, degree of complexity and tendency toward confusion of position. Of course both these principles are present in all the other cards, but they reach a maximum in 1 and 6, in 1 extreme simplicity with difficulty in keeping place, in 6 extreme complexity with ease in keeping place. Card 1, it will be seen, is with nearly all subjects a little slower than 2 and 3, while 6 is generally faster than 4 and 5.
Therefore it would seem that the apparently small exceptions are not real exceptions, but variations due to the presence of other factors than mere differences in complexity of the figures used. In observing the averages for 7, 8, and 9 we see that as a rule 7 is fastest, 8 next, and 9 the slowest. The tables are not quite so regular as for the cards just given. B and G count 8 faster than 7, and E counts 9 faster than 7. The most of these cards have on them 36, 37, 38, or 39 figures. Card 8 has 43 letters. The subjects report that the last three on this card are counted much faster. They know, as soon as they reach 40, just how many there are, and it is hard to keep from counting the rest in a group. Otherwise they do not feel any difference in counting Cards 8 and 9. Arranging the letters in words does not affect the speed of counting, so far as they can see, for in counting they do not notice the words at all.
When we average the records of all the subjects giving equal weight to each subject, though the number of tests may be different with the different men, we get the following table. Time given in thousandths of seconds.
(1) 261.38
(2) 253.49
(3) 254.54
(4) 267.46
(5) 273.08
(6) 267.22
(7) 248.19
(8) 256.01
(9) 261.15
It is seen, from looking at this table, that all divergences from the general rule have stopped. Cards 1, 2, and 3 each take less time than any of the 4, 5, 6 group, and 7 is faster than 8 and 9. So the evidence seems very strong that it takes longer to count complex than simple figures. Should one object that the difference is extremely small, a few thousandths of a second, and that thus a slight error in one test might invalidate the result, we reply that the time which is given is the time in which we count just one figure of the given pattern, and that thus of course the difference between counting two different figures must be very small. Moreover there has been a remarkable agreement of the tests taken at different times. It is not a case of finding 1, 2, and 3 counted faster one day and 4, 5, and 6 counted faster the next, but 1, 2, and 3 are counted faster nearly every time. Occasionally 1 will take longer than one of the 4, 5, 6 group. And extremely seldom is there a case where the average of 1, 2, and 3 is not less than that of 4, 5, and 6.
The experiment seems to have proven that it takes a longer time to count a row of complex figures than a similar row of simple figures. The complex figure exercises a retarding effect upon the eye as it sweeps along. There is a greater amount of sensory stimulation, consequently a greater amount of motor excitement. This motor excitement does not act in harmony with the motor activity which impels the eyes along, but has a somewhat antagonistic effect. The eye is held more by the complex figure; it is a greater effort to withdraw the gaze to look at the next figure. A certain interest, as we say, on the psychological side tends to hold one to the figure looked at. This interest is greater (other things being equal) the greater the complexity of the figure. The nervous processes involved in counting, though admittedly in very small degree, are thus inhibited by the complexity of the figure and act more slowly.
B. REACTIONS TO SIMPLE AND COMPLEX OPTICAL IMPRESSIONS
Since the preceding experiments seem to show that reactions on optical impressions are different according as the figures are more or less complex, it would seem that we ought to be able to measure by graphic methods the reactions to visual fields of varying grades of complexity and in this way to demonstrate their different motor powers.