( 225 ) 

 we obtain from these immediately for | and x the two relations : 



Dh 



2 r 







and 



Dh 



= '-v-J' 



6 ' «' dt. 







We find therefore that the way of dealing with the true, dubious 

 and false cases as proposed by me, allows us to use Fechner's well- 

 known tables. 



I wish to lay some stress here on the fact, that G. E. Müller's 

 formulae give the same result, saving only the well-known dif- 

 ference in the integral-limits: these latter being and {Su^D) hu- 



I need scarcely add that my remarks do not touch in the least 

 the question about "threshold value" between Fechner and G. E. 

 Muller. 



It is evident, that the result of the calculation of a sufiiciently 

 extensive series of experiments according to the principles, given in 

 my remarks should give numbers, closely related to those either of 

 Fechner or of G. E. Muller — depending on the limits of inte- 

 gration. Still I wish to draw special attention to the fact that the 

 formulae of G. E. Muller about the true, false and dubious cases 

 are rather the statistical representation of a series of nearly identical 

 psychological processes, whilst the opinion professed by me on the 

 method of the false and true cases, represents a pure physiological 

 view. 



Finally my remarks show, that Cattell and Fullerton's way of 

 applying the method of the true and false cases is less arbitrary 

 than it seems to be at first sight. They take for the thresholdvalue the 

 difference of stimuli with which the corrected number of true cases 

 attains 75 "/„. Such being the case, § and -/ are both = 50 V^. They 

 consider therefore the thresholdvalue to be a difference between two 

 stimuli such, that there is an equal chance of this difference being 

 perceived or not. 



