1420 
of a false recognition following upon the presentation of the altered 
figures. This hypothesis is based not only upon the agreement of 
the quantitative data, but also upon the arrangement of our experi- 
ments, the instruction being given to the observer at the exhibition 
of the altered figures to prevent, if possible, any association, including 
those with figures previously impressed, in order not to exert any 
influence upon the appearance of a true or a false recognition. However 
this may be, our experiments do not throw light on the question, 
whether a false recognition of the objectively altered stimulus affects 
the later recognition of the primary stimulus in the same way and 
in the same measure as it is influenced by the false recognition of 
the reproduction. Before long we hope to decide this point in a 
new group of experiments specially suited to the purpose. 
The following times have been calculated for the recognition of 
the original stimuli after impression of the objectively altered figures 
in the interval. They are taken from the experiments that led to a 
complete or partial recognition of the primary figures. 
TABLE VII. (time, seconds) 
Ee M 
| | . | lean 
| mean | Median | deviation 
| 
M | 156200 15 0,41 
P 3,5 SANA ESS 
From a comparison of these results with the data communicated 
in Tables IV and III it appears, that, with M the recognition time 
shows an increase of 0,2 sec. only; likewise that the effect of the 
second impression upon the recognition is very similar in intensity 
and direction, to that of an inaccurate image of imagination. In P’s 
case a shortening of the recognizing process is out of the question ; 
on the contrary we note a slight quickening of the recognition of 
the original figures after a second impression. 
The relatively short time needed for recognition again points to 
absence of a distinct inhibition of the second impression. Moreover, 
the striking accordance, in M’s case, of the times obtained here, 
with those obtained with inaccurate images of imagination in the 
interval, corroborates our view that the absence of a distinet inhi- 
bition of the second impression is owing to the absence of a false 
recognition at the impression of the objectively altered stimuli, which 
absence is due again to the arrangement of our experiments. 
