5 6 7 Averages. S C S C S C S C I. 20.5 21 14.5 27 7.5 37.5 16.57 27.50 II. 31.5 32 50 45.5 49.5 39.5 37.64 34.50 III. 19.5 32.5 13 31 29 18 20.28 33.85 IV. 40.5 46.5 27 30.5 26 32 31.64 30.07 V. 47.5 47.5 50.5 48.5 38 38 46.35 46.07 VI. 14.5 29 14 33 21 28.5 19.64 29.14 VII. 25.5 43 42.5 30 28 41.5 30.35 40.28 VIII. 8 34 24 27 33 14.5 19.92 30.42 IX. 41.5 27 29.5 27.5 29.5 28 26.57 33.00 X. 10.5 36.5 17 27 18 25 18.42 26.57 XI. 21.5 53.5 40.5 43.5 30 45 30.64 49.42 281 402.5 322.5 370.5 309.5 347.5 27.10 34.62 _S:_ Outline simple. _C:_ Outline complex. In this and the following tables the numbers in the body of the columns represent, in each case, the combined result of two observations, in one of which the simpler figure was to the left, in the other the more complex. The figures were transposed in order to eliminate any possible space error. General average: _S_, 27.10 sec.; _C_, 34.62 sec. Can anything be said, based on the reports, by way of explanation of the advantage which complexity gives? In the first place, the attitude of the subject towards his image seems to have been much the same as his attitude towards an external object: to his observation the image became, in fact, an object. "When the image was gone," says one, "my eyes seemed to be in search of something." And occasionally the one ideated object was felt to exert an influence over the other. "The complex seemed to affect the form of the simpler figure." "It seemed that the complex actually had the effect of diminishing the size of the simpler figure." From time to time the images varied, too, in distinctness, just as the objects of perception vary, and the superior distinctness of the more complex was frequently noted by the subjects. Now the importance of the boundary line in perception is well understood. It seems to have a corresponding importance here. "What I notice more in the simple figure," says one observer, "is the mass; in the complex, the outline." "The simple seemed to lose its form," says another, "the complex did not; the jagged edge was very distinct." And it is not improbable, in view of the reports, that irregularities involving change of direction and increase in extent of outline contributed mainly to the greater persistence of the more complicated image, the 'mass' being in both figures approximately the same. Nor did the advantage of the broken line escape the notice of the subject.