RECORD.^ OF MEETINGS 359 



Dr. Poff enberger 's paper is based on a comparison of tlie results of 

 two recent studies, namely, "The Influence of Caffeine on Mental and 

 Motor Efficiency," by H. L. Hollingworth, and "The Effects of Strychnine 

 on Mental and Motor Efficiency," by A. T. Poffcnberger, Jr. Striking 

 differences appear in the action of the two drugs upon certain mental 

 and motor processes. The two tests were conducted on the same general 

 plan, and comparison of the two is both permissible and easy. The tests 

 were those well known in every psychological laboratory. Motor ability 

 was tested by the tapping test, coordination test, and the steadiness test, 

 while the mental ability was tested by the color-naming test, opposites 

 test, cancellation test, and calculation tests. 



Caffeine caused an increased efficiency in most of the tests, the amount 

 of increase varying with the size of the dose. Exceptions to this state- 

 ment were few, the principal one being the decrease in steadiness with 

 the increase in the size of the dose of caffeine. No after effects were 

 noted during the course of the test which extended over a period of about 

 forty days. 



The strychnine test, covering about the same period of time, showed 

 none of these effects, except in the case of the steadiness test where there 

 was a suggestion of decreased steadiness after a dose. There was neither 

 an increase in efficiency nor a retardation measurable during the period 

 of the test. 



The explanation of the difference is to l)e looked for in the seat of the 

 action of the two drugs in the nervous system, the latter acting primarily 

 on the cord and medulla and the former affecting the higher centers of 

 the cerebrum. 



Dr. Hollingworth said: During a prolonged series of tests both stylus 

 and telegraph key were used in the tapping test by the same persons. 

 The paper presented some comparison of the results secured by the two 

 methods. Data secured by the two methods cannot be treated as even 

 qualitatively comparable, — the two methods not only do not yield the 

 same results, but they do not seem even to test the same function. The 

 key is much slower than the stylus, the difference increasing with prac- 

 tise. The best individual by one method is not the best by the other. 

 There is 30 per cent, gain as the result of practise, when using the stylus, 

 but no gain at all in the use of the key. The variability of the records 

 is greater with the key than with the stylus. With respect to amount of 

 improvement through practise, individuals stand in the same relative 

 order by the two methods, but the individual variabilities are quite differ- 

 ent in the two cases. 



Mr. Brigham said : The Binet-Simon scale was applied to 294 children 



