It would tend to bear out this view, that when it was suggested to those of the temporal type (always excepting L.) that according to their description the other groups remaining in the field, after having performed their part in a temporal series, _ought_ to have no further influence in the repetition, whereas they did in reality, they admitted the fact, but could not account for it. Moreover, those of the spatial type admitted that their enjoyment in having spaces equal, and in having repeated objects exactly like one another, had a certain character which no other experience possessed. This did not seem accounted for by any description they could give of its effect on them, although they could not detect what this other elusive factor might be. These introspections, therefore, and the confessions on the part of both that there was a feeling of something _more_ which they could not hold long enough to describe, suggested that both types were but opposite ends of a series of possible apperceptive types, and that in both cases certain essential features were emphasized at the expense of the others. After these experiments, the next step was to find how a series of groups was apperceived when the lines in each group were arranged symmetrically about a centre, as distinguished from their arrangement at invariable distances apart. The same number and size of groups were taken, but the arrangement of lines in each varied as stated above. [Illustration: Fig. 20] _Spatial subjects:_ J. felt a different kind of pleasure from that felt with Fig. 19. Here the enjoyment was in each unit for itself, a certain repose in its symmetry. Although he fixated on the centre of the groups, and in going across the field moved from centre to centre, there was no feeling of rhythm whatever, merely enjoyment of the unit itself. Moreover, although he had _detected_ no rhythm in the previous experience, this one seemed distinctly different in having lost a feature that the other had. He felt by comparison that the other had had a temporal character, some movement in the groups, which was wholly lacking in this. This was more beautiful and restful, the other more exciting and rich. H. and S. both enjoyed this series better on account of possibility of greater repose in the unit-groups. The pleasure was solely in each unit for itself, not in their repetition, so the group which offered most balance and equilibrium in itself was pleasantest. S. also found enjoyment in slight variations in the groups (trifling difference in distance, different light effect, etc.). It is noticeable that when repetition alone was the main feature of the series, any variation was either ignored or found unpleasant. But when the unit for itself is the object of enjoyment, variation if slight is another element of pleasure.