Since the strings were not removed in any regular fashion, and because the subject could not find any possible consecutive way to group them with the double strings, this variation was partially overlooked, and although confusing the series somewhat, repetition of the double strings could still be felt. Thus a mere gap where the scheme remained the same was not so disturbing as an extra feature inserted, or one noticeably changed. Something could be supplied by the subject, but not altered so easily. In these cases, however, the change was only tolerated because it was ignored. They felt it as a mistake and so overlooked it, but, accepted as a component part of the series, it was impossible to feel it as a repetition or get pleasure from it.
The next variation was in the position of alternate figures. With a three-group as the major element of the repetition and a pair of strings in the alternate space, the size of the two minor spaces was altered, thus making the distance between the three-group and adjacent pair shorter than between that and the next three-group. This immediately threw out the feeling for the old series and made a new one. The new series thus formed varied with the different subjects, although no particular difference was noticed between spatial and temporal types. They all disliked the new arrangement, in whichever of a variety of ways it was apperceived. (It will be noted the actual distance between the three-groups was not varied, but the size of the spaces each side of the minor figure, i. e., the minor figure was shifted from its central position.) One typical spatial subject took it in either of three ways: (1) He grouped the three-group and pair nearest together, into the repeated element of the new series; (2) he ignored the pair and regarded it as a repetition of three-groups; or (3) ignored the difference in the division of the alternates, and regarded them as alike. The artificiality of the latter methods of taking the series is evident. What pleasure survived after such a strain was very slight, and was moreover not of the series as given, but as imagined differently, which was not a valid judgment. Most of the subjects grouped both figures into one, and, finding the unity thus made ugly and unsymmetrical, derived no pleasure from it. One tried to keep both elements in separate series and have them go along together, equally distant from those of their own kind, although not from each other. This was, however, very fatiguing and unsatisfactory. Those who grouped the different figures said they did so because they could not help it, not because they liked it, and said it was impossible to regard the alternate figure as such, if varied from its central position. If they were all varied together, they were grouped, with the major unit, into a new one. If varied irregularly the series was spoiled—no rhythm whatever remained. It became a heap.
Next, I tried varying the size of the alternate spaces, keeping the filling in its central position.
Here also it was universally regrouped. They found it more difficult to feel the rhythm of the three-groups as separate elements than when the minor spaces had remained uniform in size, but different in the position of the filling. The alternate space, then, which had at first seemed the unimportant part of the rhythm and for which no subject could assign any conscious value whatever, was evidently a potent factor of the experience, and when varied either in size or filling (especially the former) it not only changed the feeling-tone, but shifted the entire scheme of the rhythm, or broke it up altogether.