230 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XXII. No. 560 



high chair he used to occupy. In other cases intensity of 

 the impression produced by its novelty, oddity, or some 

 emotional accompaniment, seems to be the principal 

 cause. 



It may be asked. Is it not entirely uncertain what kind 

 of a mental image an individual will form when a word is 

 spoken V May it not be of one kind at one time and of 

 another the next hour or day ? Galton tested himself 

 several times under entirely different circumstances and 

 was astonished to find in what a large proportion of cases 

 the same thing was called up by the same word. In order 

 to test this matter I reijeated the experiment upon the 

 senior class after an interval of a month, during which 

 there had been a ten days' vacation. Twenty-three papers 

 were obtained of those who had been tested before, and 

 the answers were classified. The results were very much 

 the same as in the first test. In the case of distinct 

 images, not particular, the results were almost identical, 

 thirty-five such images being called up in the mind of the 

 boys the first time and thirty-three the second, and twen- 

 ty-four both times in the minds of the girls. Upon 

 comparing the two sets of papers individually, I found 

 that forty per cent of the answers were identical and ten 

 per cent were nearly so. The greatest variation was in 

 the case of particular images, especially where recency 

 was the principal factor in producing them. Yet I found 

 that where one formed particular images in one case he 

 did in the other, though often of a different thing. Those 

 who formed distinct images in the first case did in the 

 second, and those who formed none, or vague ones, in the 

 first case, did the same the second time. I was surprised 

 at this result and my confidence in my experiments very 

 much strengthened by it. It shows that the mind works 

 according to fixed laws, and justifies one in believing that 

 the kind of mental images one forms are just as charac- 

 teristic of his mental organization as his features and 

 gestures are of his bodily. Were we accurate observers 

 of mental phenomena we could recognize the language 

 and thought of a friend as readily as we can his hand- 

 writing. 



The individual differences in the tendencv to visualize 

 vary greatly and form an interesting study. They play 

 an important part in the mental processes of some, while 

 others do not use them at all. For convenience, we may 

 divide people into two classes — the non-visualizers and 

 the visualizers. So far as could be determined there is 

 no more reason to expect one to be intelligent than the 

 other. The following answers from two seniors illus- 

 trate two types of the first class. The first is from a 

 rather dull student who forms concepts instead of images, 

 the second from one of the keenest reasoners in the class 

 — a "relational" thinker who thinks not of the thing named, 

 but of some related thing: 



Church, a religious organization. 



Book, an object which contains printed matter. 



Drum, a large musical instrument (round). 



Tree 



Horse, a large quadriiped. 



Dog, a very friendly animal. 



Chair, an object generally composed of wood, used for 

 comfort. 



Stove, an iron — 



Man, a being made in the image of God. 



Lamp, 1 glass object containing a wick and oil, which 

 is used in giving light. 



Church, pews, pulpit. 



Book, leaves, intelligence. 



Drum, a noise. 



Tree, a symmetrical body. 



Horse, a beast of burden. 



Dog, household pet, fights the cat. 



Chair, a comfortable lounging place. 



Stove, a cooking apparatus. 



Man, the crown of creation, the complement of woman. 



Lamp, gives light unto all that are in the house. 



Of the visualizers some nearly always form distinct vis- 

 ual images, either general or particular, others do not al- 

 ways do so spontaneously when a general term is heard, 

 but can at will. The following answers show that the 

 writer thinks in visual images, but the images are not gen- 

 erally very distinct. 



"Church — A particular building in another town where 

 a certain event took place. Book — General image. Drum 

 — An image of a drum. Tree — The image of a general 

 tree, not any particular one. Horse — An image of a former 

 horse of my own. Dog — Image of the general form of a 

 dog. Chair — Image of the general form of a chair. 

 Stove — An image of a hard-coal burner with a fire. Man 

 — General image." 



The following are the answers of a young ladj- who al- 

 ways thinks in visual terms and who generally uses the 

 same images for the same notion. 



"Church — White wooden building with spire rising 

 from the front. Book — Image of a book, always of a 

 dark gray color. Drum — Probably image of the first one 

 I ever saw. Tree — Very similar to the toy tree that came 

 with Noah's Ark. Horse — A white or dappled gray 

 horse, always prancing. Dog — A black Newfoundland. 

 Chair — Common cane-seated oak chair. Stove — Image 

 not well defined. Man — Not particular, idea. Lamp — 

 Greasy little lamp with glass globe." 



The extent to which visual images predominate in most 

 minds is quite surjsrising. Only about three per cent of 

 the distinct images called up by the ten words in the 

 list were other than visual. In a subsequent experiment 

 upon 227 normal students 2.4 per cent of the images 

 were auditory and 1.2 per cent tactile and motor. This 

 does not mean that 96 per cent of these people are eye- 

 minded to such an extent that they cannot form anything 

 but visual images, but it shows the proportionate strength 

 of the tendency to represent everything in visual terms. 



The power to visualize (not the spontaneous tendency 

 to do so) and the power to form auditory images were 

 studied in another way. The normal students mentioned 

 above were asked to think of the breakfast table at which 

 they had sat that morning, then they answered questions 

 as follows: (1) Have you a distinct image of if? Yes, 

 211; No, 10. (2) Is each object well defined? Yes, 183; 

 No, 20; Part, 15. Do they appear in their true color and 

 brightness? Yes, 167, No, 36; Part, 13. (4) Do they 

 seem at a definite distance ? Yes, 173; No, 43; Part, 3. 

 (5) Can you mentally hear the voices of your companions 

 as distinctly as you can see their faces ? Yes, 84; No, 108; 

 Part or almost, 22. These answers are very interesting, 

 but too much importance must not be attached to them, 

 especially the first. Paradoxical as it may seem, a person 

 is a very poor judge as to the distinctness of his own 

 mental images. I am convinced that persons who usually 

 form very distinct images are as likely to say of any par- 

 ticular image that it is not distinct as one who has the 

 power to form only the vaguest images. Each answers 

 according to his own experience and standard of judg- 

 ment, and the "vague image" of one may really be much 

 more definite and vivid than the "distinct" image of an- 

 other. An objective test and standard of judgment 

 applied by some one else will give more accurate compar- 

 ative results. 



, The relation of mental images to all psychical processes 

 and to pedagogical problems is very interesting and im- 

 portant. Their relation to memory is peculiarly close, 

 and a number of experiments to determine it were made 

 but cannot be reported in this article. 



