Rose Sch. (Case 6) was remarkable, in connection with the present problem, in her unusually poor answers. She either merely repeated the questions, or made irrelevant superficial replies, or said she did not know, this even with very simple questions. When better, too, though not quite well, she showed striking discrepancies in time relations and incapacity to correct them. It would seem that in this case there was something more than an acute interference with the intellectual processes, such as we are here discussing. As a matter of fact, we have the statement in the history that the patient herself said she was slow at learning in school and had not much of an education. A congenital intellectual defect and the attitude which it creates may, however, as my experience has repeatedly shown me, very greatly exaggerate an acute thinking disorder. The case, therefore, while it shows us an unquestionably acute interference with the intellectual processes, does not give us useful information about its nature. More information can be gathered from Mary D. (Case 4). Even toward the end of her marked stupor some replies were obtained chiefly by making her write. When asked to write Manhattan State Hospital, she wrote Manhatt Hhospshosh, and for Ward’s Island, Ww. Iland. Again, instead of writing 90th Street, she wrote 90theath Street. These are plainly reactions of the path of least resistance or, in these instances, of perseveration. Of the same nature are some of her other replies in writing or speaking. After she had been asked to write her name, she was requested to add her address, or the name of the hospital; she merely repeated the name. Similarly, when asked whether she knew the examiner, she said “Yes,” but when urged to give his name, she gave her own. In the partial stupor at a time when she knew where she was, knew the names of some people about her, the year and approximately the date, she made mistakes in calculation and could not get the point of a test story. Moreover, she failed in retention tests without there being any evidence of anything like a marked fundamental retention disorder, such as we find in Korsakoff psychosis. It seems that these results are best termed defects in attention, which chiefly interfere with the apprehension of more difficult tasks. As we shall see later, this seems to be rather characteristic of these cases. Another point which should be mentioned is the fact that her reaction to questions which she was unable to answer (such as matters which referred to her amnesic periods) was peculiar, inasmuch as she did not only not try to think them out, but seemed indifferent to her incapacity, simply leaving the question unanswered. This too, as we shall see later, is characteristic. Laura A., at a time when she could be made to reply, merely repeated the question, again a reaction of least resistance. The same patient sometimes asked, “Where am I?” Mary C. (Case 7) made similar queries.