I am persuaded that the difference in sensitivity to intervals between auditory and visual impressions is due, in part, to a difference in the power of "cocking the ear" to hear, as one fixates the eye to see. The observers who got the smallest ranges between upper and lower thresholds had the most distinct kinæsthetic sensations in the moment of preparation, in the middle ear and about the external meatus. All had some sensations from the side of the head in question. The less accurate had a general feeling in the neck-muscles. Accuracy of discrimination was in no wise connected with voluntary control of the musculature moving the pinna. This was subject of careful enquiry with all observers. If this introspective evidence leads me aright, it seems that the non-discriminable interval between auditory and visual impressions is due principally to two things, (1) the impossibility of perfect balance in the preparation of the attention for two expected stimuli, and (2) the possible difference in time it takes to react to the different impressions. The various complicating conditions which are added to the simple interval discrimination in the cases of a complication experiment, such as we started with in this investigation, are chiefly interferences with the first-named factor. They disturb the nice balances of attention. In this simple discrimination experiment, under favorable conditions, a close approximation to a balance can be attained. Any difference in the reaction-times to different stimuli will remain as a constant error of displacement. It is well known that reaction-times to visual stimuli are longer than those to auditory. There is a retinal inertia which delays the perception of the visual impression, in comparison with the auditory, coming from exactly simultaneous stimuli. Having this physiological basis, it will be relatively constant, as compared with the ever-varying attention-differences. THE COEXISTENCE OF MENTAL PROCESSES