1412 
Physiology. — “On inhibition proceeding from a false recognition.” 
By Dr. F. Rorrs. (Communicated by Prof. Dr. C. WiINKLER). 
J \ Di) 
(Communicated in the meeting of January 29, 1916). 
The present publication derives its origin from a series of researches 
concerning the phenomenology of remembrance. The experiments 
were conducted in the following way: various kinds of stimuli 
were presented to the subject, who was asked to recall later on 
what he had seen. Each single and individual experiment was 
divided into three periods: the fore-period, in which the stimulus 
was exhibited; the after-period for recollection, including the re- 
cognition of the stimulus; and the interval between them. In spite 
of the instruction given to the subject to avoid as much as possible 
any representation of the stimulus during the interval, it not in- 
frequently happened that images were evoked similar to the primary 
stimulus or differing from it in some way or other. In the latter 
case there was absence of recognition in the third period of the 
experiment; nay, the stimuli even aroused a sensation of novel 
experience, a ‘conscience de nouveau venu’. Absence of recognition, 
a fortiori the occurrence of a so-called ‘conscience de nouveau venu’, 
is under these circumstances, by no means to be considered as a 
matter of course, since from the fact that the experiencing person 
proves incompetent to faithfully call up the stimulus, it does not 
follow, that he will fail to identify it when it is presented again. 
The researches, bearing particularly on the analysis of these 
constantly recurring phenomena, were carried out in the psychological 
Laboratory of Louvain, Prof. Dr. A. Micnorre and Mr. G. Papers 
acting as subjects. 
The stimuli were meaningless, coloured figures of a somewhat 
complex pattern, painted on pieces of cardboard (10 em. by 10 em). 
Twelve of them were shown to the observer in succession in the 
first stage of the experiment. They appeared in a slit of a screen, 
behind which a cardboard dise, provided with two open sectors of 
90°, was made to rotate with constant speed. Every time when one 
of the sectors flitted past the slit, one of the stimuli became visible 
and was exposed to view for about 7605. Each set was exposed 
five times with intervals of 3 minutes. A number of control-tests 
showed us that after a fivefold impression the subject had got 
sufficiently familiar with the stimulus. 
At a second sitting, which took place exactly 24 hrs. after the 
first, five stimuli were applied just as before. They resembled more 
