L. (the most extreme of the temporal type) agreed with R. that the lines inside the group were perceived and enjoyed _temporally_, as well as the groups as a whole. There was no experiencing the groups _at once_. He felt that he moved regularly across the field encountering five lines, one after the other, then an empty space, then five lines more. The only meaning which the group as such had for him was the five accents which came near one another in time. He could feel no unity whatever apart from this. He was even certain that his pleasure would be identical if in some mechanical way the same figure could be pushed forward, so that the same amount of time and movement would be necessary to reach it that was required to move from one figure to the next on the field. The experience was in every way analogous to auditory rhythm with him, and he was unable to express himself in other than temporal terms. Immediate perception, repose on the object, or groupings, had no significance for him. The other two subjects were links between the extremes already described. They could feel each group, and sometimes even the whole series _at once_ apparently, and yet were all the time conscious of a certain rhythm in going from one to the next. The whole experience seemed immediate at first, but on reflection a certain alternate rhythm was felt to be present, which was too rapid to take any considerable time, but yet had to be included as a factor in the experience. These introspections I believe to throw light on the nature of the whole experience of repetition. Since there are two methods of apperception so extreme, but moreover certain subjects partake of the characteristics of both, it might seem that both types represent but _one_ side of the experience. Since both are enjoying the same objective series, but in their description of their feeling in face of it emphasize such different sides (leaving at the same time the other side unaccounted for), and since certain subjects share the experience of both, it might be that the sum of both methods of apperception was necessary to the fullest appreciation of the repetition in question, only in certain subjects one aspect of it was so much stronger that the other possible factors in the experience were overlooked.