Having given, then, these relatively fixed temperamental conditions of reactions to different stimuli, which remain after practice (training in the control of attention) has reduced the reactions to their lowest terms, and has secured the conditions which are favorable for the best balancing of the attention, there is yet one other question very germane to the subject. It will have occurred already to any one reading the above, that while the response to one stimulus is being made, the other may be held in abeyance in the fringe region of the attention-field, and that it is only brought up to clear perception when the first has been disposed of. In other words, it may well be that the first of two simultaneous but disparate stimuli, which gets a start at setting-off its appropriate response in its sense-organ, will bring out this response and be perceived before the other one gets started,--that we do only one thing at a time,--that even in such minute processes as this there is no possibility of division of attention. It is hardly probable on the basis of the experimentation already reported, that this is the case. There is some division of attention. Otherwise there would be an equal certainty of judgment in every case, no matter how small the separating interval. But still the question as to how two mental processes, starting at the same moment of time, do proceed, as compared to the progress of each of the same processes when it holds the field alone, is very vital to the understanding of the psychology of interval-discrimination. And thus the question of objective time-relations is necessarily involved in that of making judgments of the time-relations of simple mental processes (subjective time-relations). The question is, Do these processes, starting simultaneously, proceed just as freely as if they were the sole occupants of the field of attention and so had the whole energy of attention concentrated upon the single process, or do they _interfere_ with each other?