100 VINNIE ('. HICKS AND II. A. CARE 



used. The human maze presents a true path of 78 feet with 

 72 feet of blind alleys as opposed to 40 feet and 32 feet respec- 

 tively for the Hampton maze. The human maze is thus approx- 

 imately twice the size of the rat maze, a ratio which is too small 

 according to the length of body or to the length of stride. The 

 mazes are more nearly comparable from the standpoint of the 

 rate of movement. Both human and animal subjects present 

 marked individual differences as to rate of movement. The 

 rats increase their rate of movement during successive trials 

 more than do the humans. In the final trials an average speed 

 of 64, 105, and 79 feet per minute was attained by the adults, 

 children, and rats respectively. Our proportions thus fulfil the 

 conditions of none of these three criteria exactly. 



The human maze was constructed in an enclosed yard with 

 a door which was kept locked. The subjects were kept blind- 

 folded during the time they were inside of the yard. Their 

 knowledge of the maze was thus confined to that derived from 

 their experiences in traversing it. To those subjects who pos- 

 sessed no idea of a maze, only the necessary information was 

 vouchsafed, viz., that there was a winding path bounded by 

 wires with only one outlet, and that they were expected to keep 

 moving until this egress was found. They were instructed that 

 success would be evidenced by finding themselves in the open 

 untrammeled by wires, and that the experimenter would call 

 to them if necessary when success was attained. No directions 

 as to method of learning were given, each subject being allowed 

 to learn the maze by his own natural method. Our purpose 

 here was to avoid all constraint; freedom and ease are essential 

 in order to maintain conditions comparable to those obtaining 

 for the animals. The novelty and puzzle character of the task, 

 and the knowledge that other subjects were learning the maze 

 furnished sufficient motives for good records. Introspective 

 analysis was neither demanded nor encouraged. The object 

 was to eliminate as much as possible all memory and study of 

 the maze between trials, so as to approximate conditions which 

 may be legitimately ascribed to the rats. Introspection would 

 tend to fix certain details more firmly in mind and encourage 

 recall between trials. Some introspective knowledge was gained 

 from the subjects' spontaneous remarks. The subjects were 

 introspectively quizzed after the maze was learned. This mode 



