The interspaces were 150 mm. in every case, but 1 was 150 mm. wide; 2 = 110 mm.; 3 = 70 mm. All the spatial subjects found Fig. 22 worse than Fig. 21. The irregularity and general disorder was more pronounced. Although the rhythm had never consciously given them pleasure, and, when not violated, was never noticed, still the threefold difference in size violates some feeling which they can only express in rhythmic terms. Some tried to group the three units into a larger group, but this being unsymmetrical displeased them. Others picked out the most satisfactorily proportioned unit and ignored the others, but any possible apperception was irritating. The temporal subjects found it equally poor. They felt the continual dissatisfaction of having their expectation, that the adjacent unit should be the same, disappointed. They all said that they could carry the feeling of repetition over _one_ dissimilar unit (_i. e._, in an alternating series of two different units), but that the third difference completely upset the scheme. When only the filling varied as in Fig. 21, it could be partially ignored, but difference in size could not be ignored, and only the equal distances apart kept them from being a heap. They could not _feel_ the evenness of the empty interspaces, however. They were not consciously present in the experience at all, they merely _knew_ they must be even. There was no feeling-tone whatever to the empty alternates. Only one subject preferred Fig. 22 to Fig. 21, and the reason was obvious. 1, 2, and 3 appeared as the same unit where variation in size was apperceived as due to perspective. Thus, instead of appearing as three units repeated, they were one set which progressed by means of "pulsations" or regular intervals of perspective. This gave an added richness to the rhythm, and was very pleasant. As three separate units of different size, there was no meaning in the series whatever. It is evident from these introspections that, although the likes and dislikes may vary, the principles on which they are based have much in common. The points on which they agreed unanimously were the following: (1) There is no feeling of repetition for three separate units. The series may be enjoyed by means of subjective grouping of one kind or another, but as separate elements, the feeling of repetition is broken by adding the third. (2) There is a distinction between perceiving or _knowing_ a repetition, and _feeling_ it. Even though a subject is equally conscious that elements are repeated according to some scheme in two different cases, he may feel it in one case and not in the other.