It is brought up again by Lipps,[10] who assumes that the streak ought to dart with the eyes and calls therefore the oppositely moving streak the 'falsely localized image.' For sake of brevity we may call this the 'false image.' The explanation of Lipps can be pieced together as follows (_ibid._, S. 64): "The explanation presupposes that sensations of eye-movements have nothing to do with the projection of retinal impressions into the visual field, that is, with the perception of the mutual relations as to direction and distance, of objects which are viewed simultaneously.... Undoubtedly, however, sensations of eye-movements, and of head-and body-movements as well, afford us a scale for measuring the displacements which our entire visual field and every point in it undergo within the surrounding _totality of space_, which we conceive of as fixed. We estimate according to the length of such movements, or at least we deduce therefrom, the distance through fixed space which our view by virtue of these movements has traversed.... They themselves are nothing for our consciousness but a series of purely intensive states. But in experience they can come to _indicate_ distance traversed." Now in turning the eye from a luminous object, _O_, to some other fixation-point, _P_, the distance as simply contemplated is more or less subdivided or filled in by the objects which are seen to lie between _O_ and _P_, or if no such objects are visible the distance is still felt to consist of an infinity of points; whereas the muscular innervation which is to carry the eye over this very distance is an undivided unit. But it is this which gives us our estimate of the arc we move through, and being thus uninterrupted it will appear shorter than the contemplated, much subdivided distance _OP_, just as a continuous line appears shorter than a broken line. "After such analogies, now, the movement of the eye from _O_ to _P_, that is, the arc which I traverse, must be underestimated" (_ibid._, S. 67). There is thus a discrepancy between our two estimates of the distance _OP_. This discrepancy is felt during the movement, and can be harmonized only if we seem to see the two fixation-points move apart, until the arc between them, in terms of innervation-feeling, feels equal to the distance _OP_ in terms of its visual subdivisions. Now either _O_ and _P_ can both seem to move apart from each other, or else one can seem fixed while the other moves. But the eye has for its goal _P_, which ought therefore to have a definite position. "_P_ appears fixed because, as goal, I hold it fast in my thought" (_loc. citat._). It must be _O_, therefore, which appears to move; that is, _O_ must dart backward as the eye moves forward toward _P_. Thus Lipps explains the illusion. [10] Lipps, Th., _Zeitschrift f. Psychologie u. Physiologie der Sinnesorgane_, 1890, I., S. 60-74.