If thus the stereoscopic vision under normal conditions is ultimately dependent upon the central motor impulses, it is not surprising that a change in the psycho-physical conditions of movement produces a change in the resulting impulses. Such a change in the conditions is given indeed whenever the eyes are in a lateral position. Just as the same stimulus produces a different response when the arm or leg is in a flexed or an extended position, so the retinal double images stimulate different responses according to the particular position of the eyeballs. That pair of unequal retinal images that in primary eye-position produce in going from one end of the object to the other a strong increase of convergence and thus a feeling of greater nearness, may produce with the lateral eye-position no increase of convergence and thus a feeling of equal distance or even a decrease of convergence and thus a feeling of removal. The psycho-physical system upon which our three-dimensional visual perception depends is then much more complex than the usual theory teaches; it is not the retinal image of the double eye, but this image together with the whole distribution of contractions in the eye-muscles, which determines the stereoscopic vision: the same retinal images may give very different plastic perceptions for different positions of the eyeballs. The experiments point thus to the same complex connection which Professor Münsterberg emphasized in his studies of the "Perception of distance."[1] I may quote the closing part of his article to bring out the intimate connection of the two problems. He reports his observations on the so-called verant and insists that the monocular verant almost as little as the ordinary binocular stereoscope can give the impression of normal distance of nature. Professor Münsterberg writes: "Whoever is able to separate seeing in three dimensions from seeing in natural distance cannot doubt that in both cases alike we reach the first end, the plastic interpretation, but are just as far removed from the other, the feeling of natural distance, as in the ordinary vision of pictures. The new instrument is thus in no way a real 'verant.' "The question arises, Why is that so? If I bring my landscape picture on a transparent glass plate into such a distance from my one eye that every point of this transparent photograph covers for my resting eye exactly the corresponding point of the real landscape and yet accommodation is excluded, as, for instance, in the case of the short-sighted eye, or in the case of the normal eye with the verant lenses, then we have exactly the retinal images of the real view of nature and the same repose of the lens. Why are we, nevertheless, absolutely unable to substitute the near object for the far one? This problem exists in spite of all the theoretical assurances that the one ought to appear exactly like the other, and I think that it is not impossible to furnish an answer to it.