651 
The- primary figures, the alteration of which was neither recog- 
nized, nor was followed by a sensation of novel experience, but the 
altered aspect of which, as a whole, was not recognized or produced a 
sensation of novel experience, were recognized in the vast mojority of 
the cases‘ at a later presentation. In comparatively few cases did 
they evoke a partial or complete sensation of novel experience. We 
record in Table IV the percentages of the cases of recognition and of 
partial or complete sensation of novel experience. It clearly shows 
that the fading of the memory-image of the primary figure during the 
interval cannot be made responsible for the sensation of novel experience 
that almost always occurs at a false recognition of the stimulus 
that has been altered objectively at the 2nd sitting. (See Table I). 
PA SEE iV: 
| Recognition of | Partial sensation Complete sensation 
| of novel dn 
| primary figure | experience pe novel experience 
| | | 
M 60 | 23.3 16.7 
W 72.5 | 15 | 12.5 
D 65.5 | 23 | 11.5 
A safer criterion is found in the frequency of the recognition of 
primary figures, which had not been inhibited in the interval by a 
false recognition and had not been influenced favourably by a 
repeated impression. (See Table I 3" Column). Table V illustrates 
the percentage of the cases in which these figures produced at the 
third sitting a recognition either complete or partial or a sensation 
of novel experience: 
ABLE: V, 
8 | Sensation of 
Partial ib vel 
| me 
| 
_ Complete 
| 2 
experience 
recognition _— recognition 
BEAP 88.6 8.6 | 2.8 
0 AN 2.9 2.9 
D 7 OA 8.6 zn 
The foregoing data appear to us to warrant the following con- 
clusion: A false recognition of an objectively altered stimulus exerts 
upon the subsequent recognition of the primary stimulus an inhibi- 
tion that reveals itself in a sensation of novel experience for the 
