( 387 ) 
TABLE VI, 
A. WaAtter. Brain 1900. Pag. 26. 
(li, ec fiz. 23). 
0.00856403 
a Ww bP 
| 
== Tat 
R. E calc. E meas. Q 
29 | 4.883 4 | — 0.583 
so} 20.563 | 22 | + 1.437 
180| 34.247 | 34 | — 0.247 | 
320 | 4.302 | 40 | — 1.302 
‘boo 43.696 | 45 | + 1.304 
Tables IV and V give still rise to another remark, because in 
these tables we obtain a negative value of C. This might be explained 
in the first place by supposing that with every illumination of the 
eye — in this case the applying of the stimulus — the real illu- 
mination has been stronger than is stated by the numbers for the 
intensity of light. I believe however that this supposition may be 
directly excluded or at least may be considered highly improbable, 
as with Mr. Warrer’s well known accuracy in experimenting, 
sufficient precautions will have been taken against the occurring of 
such inaccuracies. 
We ought therefore to consider another possibility, viz. the fact 
that addition of stimulus may have been caused by the rather long 
duration of each illumination. In that case the effects caused by 
small stimuli probably have undergone this influence in a larger 
measure than those caused by more intensive ones. The effect, 
both in the case of smaller or greater magnitudes of stimulus, 
will consequently always be augmented with an amount, dependent 
chiefly on the Jength of time during which a stimulus has acted. 
As the time for each stimulation experiment of the series has been 
the same, each effect is augmented with a constant amount, or in 
other words: the x-axis is pushed downward a little, or, what 
