The results from these two methods were practically the same. But the second method, although it obviously permitted the determination of the displacements in one dimension only, was in the end regarded as the more reliable method. With this apparatus I could be more certain that the contacts were made simultaneously, which was soon seen to be of the utmost importance for these particular experiments. Then, too, by means of this æsthesiometer, all movement of the points after the contact was made was prevented. This also was an advantage in the use of this apparatus, here and elsewhere, which can hardly be overestimated. With any æsthesiometer that is operated directly by the hand, it is impossible to avoid imparting a slight motion to the points and thus changing altogether the character of the impression. The importance of this consideration for my work was brought forcibly to my attention in this way. One of the results of these tests was that when two simultaneous contacts are made differing in weight, if only one is recognized it is invariably located in the region of the contact with the heavier point. But now if, while the points were in contact with the skin and before the judgment was pronounced, I gave the lighter point a slight jar, its presence and location were thereby revealed to the subject. Then, too, it was found to be an advantage that the judgments were thus confined to the longitudinal displacement only; for, as I have before insisted, it was the relative, not the absolute position that I wished to determine, since my object in all these experiments in localization was to determine what connection, if any, exists between judgments upon cutaneous distances made indirectly by means of localization, and judgments that are pronounced directly upon the subjective experience of the distance.