(1) CT=2.0 (3) CT=2.2 (5) CT=2.0 113 133 RRL RLL RRL RLL S 3 3 9 20 5 21 E 18 19 25 16 18 14 L 24 28 16 14 17 15 _Subject P._ (1) CT=2.0 (3)CT={1.6 (5) CT={1.6 {2.4 {2.4 113 133 RRL(1.6) RLL(2.4) RRL(1.6) RLL(2.4) S 2 16 12 16 15 10 E 38 32 32 21 26 19 L 10 2 6 15 14 21 _Subject B._ (1) CT=2.0 (2) CT=2.0 (6) CT=2.0 113 133 112 122 aab abb S 4 21 5 20 7 6 E 23 19 22 24 40 38 L 23 10 23 6 3 6 _Subject Hy._ (1) CT=2.0 (2) CT=2.4 (1a) CT=2.0 113 133 112 122 113 133 S 12 46 17 40 17 31 E 9 2 14 8 9 7 L 29 2 19 2 14 2 In the series designated as (1a) the conditions were the same as in (1), except that the subject abstracted as much as possible from the tactual nature of the stimulations and the position of the fingers. This was undertaken upon the suggestion of the subject that it would be possible to perform the abstraction, and was not repeated on any other subject. The results are given in Table VI., where the numerals in the headings indicate the localities and changes of stimulation, in accordance with the preceding scheme, and _'S'_, _'E'_ and _'L'_ designate the number of judgments of _shorter_, _equal_ and _longer_ respectively. It will be observed that in several cases a _CT_ was introduced in one class which was different from the _CT_ used in the other classes with the same subject. This was not entirely arbitrary. It was found with subject _W_, for example, that the use of _CT_ = 2.0 in (3) produced judgments of shorter almost entirely in both types. Therefore a _CT_ was found, by trial, which produced a diversity of judgments. The comparison of the different classes is not so obvious under these conditions as it otherwise would be, but is still possible.