In Section II. I told of my attempt to reproduce the optical illusion upon the skin in the same form in which we find it for sight, namely, by presenting the open and filled spaces simultaneously, so that they might be held in a unitary grasp of consciousness and the judgment pronounced on the relative length of these parts of a whole. However, as I have already said, the filled space appears longer, not only when given simultaneously, but also when given successively with the open space. In the case of the optical illusion I am not so sure that the illusion does not exist if the two spaces are not presented simultaneously and adjacent, as Münsterberg asserts. Although, to be sure, for me the illusion is not so strong when an interval is allowed between the two spaces, I was interested to know whether this was true also in the case of a touch illusion. My previous tables did not enable me to compare the quantitative extent of the illusion for successive and simultaneous presentation. But I found in two series which had this point directly in view, one with the subject _F_ and one in which _G_ served as subject, that the illusion was emphatically stronger when the open and filled spaces were presented simultaneously and adjacent. In this instance, the illusion was doubtless a combination of two illusions--a shrinking of the open space, on the one hand, and a lengthening of the filled space on the other hand. Binet says, in his studies on the well-known Müller-Lyer illusion, that he believes the illusion, in its highest effects at any rate, to be due to a double contrast illusion. This distortion of contrasted distances I have found in more than one case in this investigation--not only in the case of distances in which there is a qualitative difference, but also in the case of two open distances. In one experiment, in which open distances on the skin were compared with optical point distances, a distance of 10 cm. was given fifty times in connection with a distance of 15 cm., and fifty times in connection with a distance of 5 cm. In the former instance the distance of 10 cm. was underestimated, and in the other it was overestimated. The general conclusion of the entire investigation thus far may be summed up in the statement: _Wherever the objective conditions are the same in the two senses, the illusion exists in the same direction for both sight and touch._ VI.