We likewise found, as in the earlier work, that different forms of movement suddenly made their appearance and are scattered through the series at random. We have been able to connect these with variations in attention. This being the case, it is manifestly in order to take graphic records of all reactions before anything of importance can be inferred from the times themselves; and as we have shown, even if the introspective evidence is perfectly clear and valid, many radical changes in movement go entirely unnoticed by the reactor. This is specially true in the sensory reactions where the attention is turned away from the movement.

Our results give little help to the experimenter who asks for some easy way of determining the type of attention or the form of the movement by a study of the mere reaction times. The mere fact that a reaction time is longer than the average does not prove that it is caused by an antagonistic movement; neither does the fact that it is shorter show the absence of an antagonistic movement.

Such results as ours' show, finally, very clearly the need of subjects carefully trained in introspection with which to supplement the graphic records. If it is answered that psychology is as much interested in the untrained and unpracticed subject as in the trained subject, we agree, but in order definitely to settle this question of the correlation of forms of movement with conscious attitudes or with types of reactors, will it not be necessary first to use trained subjects, so that we can be sure that the form of movement studied really did occur under the conditions imposed? Such a preliminary study would make much easier the study of the untrained subject.

Future work should be, therefore, first, along the line of perfecting apparatus; and secondly, experimentation with subjects thoroughly trained in introspection and possessing definite characteristics.

REFERENCES

I. BLISS, C. B. Investigations in reaction-time and attention. Stud. from Yale Psychol. Lab., 1893, 1, 1-55.

2. FRANZ, S. I. Anomalous reaction-times in a case of manicdepressive depression. Psychol. Bull., 1905, 2, 225-232.

3. JUDD, C. H., MCALLISTER, C. N., and STEELE, W. M. Analysis of reaction movements. Psychol. Monog., 1905, 7, No. 29, 141-184.

4. SHERRINGTON, C. S. The Integrative Action of the Nervous System. New York: Scribner, 1906.

5. SMITH, W. G. Antagonistic reactions. Mind, 1903, 12, 47-58.

6. TITCHENER, E. B. Experimental Psychology. New York: Macmillan, 1905, Vol. II, Pt. II.