Although she was at times approximately oriented, she would say, “I don’t know where I am,” or “I can’t realize where I am,” or more pointedly, “I can’t take in my surroundings.” She often did not answer and sometimes seemed bewildered by the questions. Henrietta H. (Case 8) again showed some defect of orientation and mistakes in calculation, and above all, marked mistakes in writing (for Manhattan State Hospital--Manhaton Hotspal). A special feature here is that this occurred immediately after she had been quite talkative, but suddenly had relapsed into a dull state. Anna G. (Case 1), during the third phase of her psychosis, showed the following: Although she was approximately oriented and answered promptly simple questions; e.g., about orientation or simple calculation, she, like these other patients, simply remained silent when more difficult intellectual tasks were required of her (more difficult calculations); or when she was asked how long she had been here (which involved data that could not be available to her, owing to her amnesia); or when questions were put to her regarding her feelings or the condition she had passed through. On the other hand, she sometimes gave appropriate replies in the words “yes” or “no,” but it was difficult to say whether these answers did not also represent the path of least resistance. We will finally take up the last phase of Margaret C. (Case 10). Although she was entirely oriented, there was a certain vagueness about her answers which is difficult to formulate. She was telling about the onset of her sickness and said that at that time her mind was taken up with prayers about the salvation of her relatives. She was asked exactly when it was that she thought of this and she answered “Now?” (What period are we talking about?) “The present.” (What did I ask you?) “About this period of my sickness.” (Which one?) “What sickness?” She said herself at this point, “I am rather stupid.” Again when asked how her mind worked, she said, “Pretty quickly sometimes--I don’t know.” (As good as it used to?) “No, I don’t think so.” (What is the difference?) “There is no difference.” (What did I ask you?) “The difference.” (The difference between what?) “You did not say.” In this the shallowness of her comprehension and thinking is well shown, and it seems here again perhaps justifiable to formulate the main defect as one of attention, which prevents completion of a complicated process of comprehension. A feature of further interest in this case is that automatic intellectual processes, such as those necessary for the writing of a long poem from memory, were not interfered with. Summary