Up to this time, the repeated element had always been a single string. This was varied and the strings hung in pairs (50 mm. wide, 100 mm. between pairs). When the strings had hung at equal distances from each other, six out of the nine subjects had seen them in pairs while enjoying them, and had found such grouping more or less essential to enjoyment. In seven cases the pleasure was increased by this grouping. They expressed their preference in various ways: "Easier to keep track of where we are going." "Can go quicker over field, for repetitions are more well-marked." "Single line is too thin to rest on, this gives broader space for repose." All these introspections instanced the necessity of the rhythm being marked and made plain, so that there should be no confusion of point with point. The two who disliked this grouping were of the spatial type, who found no pleasure in traversing the field, hence too little content in it, in this arrangement, at any one time. Grouping of some kind would seem to faciliate the apperception to a certain class of subjects, while with others the amount and quality of the content of the field is of more consequence. Since accents are such an important factor of auditory rhythm, the next experiment was to see if the apperception of a series of repeated elements would be facilitated by accenting every other one. [Illustration: Fig. 1] Another string was hung in every other pair thus making it more striking, but here came a difference between the feeling of accent in auditory and visual rhythms. The subjects declared the pairs in which a third line was hung were not intensified alone, as when a greater stress is put on a tone in auditory rhythm, but the pairs were changed qualitatively. The group of three became the repeated element, while the pair was only an alternating figure different from the principal unit. This unanimous testimony brought up a variety of questions. 1. Is any purely _intensive_ accent, without involving qualitative changes, possible in visual repetition? 2. What factor makes us choose one object rather than another as the repeated element? 3. What is the value of the alternating figure in such a series? 4. What is the value of the empty space between repeated figures, and does it have as distinct a value as an alternating figure? 5. Are all the recurring objects and spaces felt as separate repetitions; if so, how many can be carried on at once? These questions were put to the subjects in regard to the series just described with considerable uniformity of answer.