Harvard Psychological Studies Part 1

Harvard Psychological Studies.

by Various.

Volume 1.

PREFACE.

The appearance of the HARVARD PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES does not indicate an internal change in the work of the Harvard Psychological Laboratory. But while up to this time the results of our investigations have been scattered in various places, and have often remained unpublished through lack of s.p.a.ce, henceforth, we hope to have in these STUDIES the opportunity to publish the researches of the Harvard Laboratory more fully and in one place. Only contributions from members of the Harvard Psychological Laboratory will be printed in these volumes, which will appear at irregular intervals, and the contributions will represent only our experimental work; non-experimental papers will form an exception, as with the present volume, wherein only the last one of the sixteen papers belongs to theoretical psychology.

This first volume does not give account of all sides of our laboratory work. An essential part of the investigations every year has been the study of the active processes, such as attention, apperception, and volition. During the last year several papers from these fields have been completed, but we were unable to include them in this volume on account of the s.p.a.ce limits; they are kept back for the second volume, in which accordingly the essays on the active functions will prevail, as those on perception, memory, and feeling prevail in this volume. It is thus clear that we aim to extend our experimental work over the whole field of psychology and to avoid one-sideness. Nevertheless there is no absence of unity in our work; it is not scattered work as might appear at a first glance; for while the choice of subjects is always made with relation to the special interests of the students, there is after all one central interest which unifies the work and has influenced the development of the whole laboratory during the years of my direction.

I have always believed--a view I have fully discussed in my 'Grundzuge der Psychologie'--that of the two great contending theories of modern psychology, neither the a.s.sociation theory nor the apperception theory is a satisfactory expression of facts, and that a synthesis of both which combines the advantages without the defects of either can be attained as soon as a psychophysical theory is developed which shall consider the central process in its dependence, not only upon the sensory, but also upon the motor excitement. This I call the _action theory_. In the service of this theory it is essential to study more fully the role of the centrifugal processes in mental life, and, although perhaps no single paper of this first volume appears to offer a direct discussion of this motor problem, it was my interest in this most general question which controlled the selection of all the particular problems.

This relation to the central problem of the role of centrifugal processes involves hardly any limitation as to the subject matter; plenty of problems offer themselves in almost every chapter of psychology, since no mental function is without relation to the centrifugal actions. Yet, it is unavoidable that certain groups of questions should predominate for a while. This volume indicates, for instance, that the aesthetic processes have attracted our attention in an especially high degree. But even if we abstract from their important relation to the motor functions, we have good reasons for turning to them, as the aesthetic feelings are of all feeling processes decidedly those which can be produced in the laboratory most purely; their disinterested character makes them more satisfactory for experimental study than any other feelings.

Another group of researches which predominates in our laboratory is that on comparative psychology. Three rooms of the laboratory are reserved for psychological experiments on animals, under the special charge of Dr. Yerkes. The work is strictly psychological, not vivisectional; and it is our special purpose to bring animal psychology more in contact with those methods which have found their development in the laboratories for human psychology. The use of the reaction-time method for the study of the frog, as described in the fifteenth paper, may stand as a typical ill.u.s.tration of our aim.

All the work of this volume has been done by well-trained post-graduate students, and, above all, such advanced students were not only the experimenters but also the only subjects. It is the rule of the laboratory that everyone who carries on a special research has to be a subject in several other investigations. The reporting experimenters take the responsibility for the theoretical views which they express. While I have proposed the subjects and methods for all the investigations, and while I can take the responsibility for the experiments which were carried on under my daily supervision, I have left fullest freedom to the authors in the expression of their views.

My own views and my own conclusions from the experiments would not seldom be in contradiction with theirs, as the authors are sometimes also in contradiction with one another; but while I, of course, have taken part in frequent discussions during the work, in the completed papers my role has been merely that of editor, and I have nowhere added further comments.

In this work of editing I am under great obligation to Dr. Holt, the a.s.sistant of the laboratory, for his helpful cooperation.

EYE-MOVEMENT AND CENTRAL ANaeSTHESIA.

BY EDWIN B. HOLT.

I. THE PROBLEM OF ANaeSTHESIA DURING EYE-MOVEMENT.

A first suggestion of the possible presence of anaesthesia during eye-movement is given by a very simple observation. All near objects seen from a fairly rapidly moving car appear fused. No further suggestion of their various contour is distinguishable than blurred streaks of color arranged parallel, in a hazy stream which flows rapidly past toward the rear of the train. Whereas if the eye is kept constantly moving from object to object scarcely a suggestion of this blurred appearance can be detected. The phenomenon is striking, since, if the eye moves in the same direction as the train, it is certain that the images on the retina succeed one another even more rapidly than when the eye is at rest. A supposition which occurs to one at once as a possible explanation is that perchance during eye-movement the retinal stimulations do not affect consciousness.

On the other hand, if one fixates a fly which happens to be crawling across the window-pane and follows its movements continuously, the objects outside swim past as confusedly as ever, and the image of the fly remains always distinct. Here the eye is moving, and it may be rapidly, yet both the fly and the blurred landscape testify to a thorough awareness of the retinal stimulations. There seems to be no anaesthesia here. It may be, however, that the eye-movement which follows a moving object is different from that which strikes out independently across the visual field; and while in the former case there is no anaesthesia, perhaps in the latter case there is anaesthesia.

Cattell,[1] in considering a similar experience, gives his opinion that not the absence of fusion for the moving eye, but its presence for the resting eye, needs explanation. "More than a thousand interruptions per second," he believes, "give a series of sharply defined retinal processes." But as for the fusion of moving objects seen when the eyes are at rest, Cattell says, "It is not necessary and would probably be disadvantageous for us to see the separate phases."

Even where distinct vision would be 'disadvantageous' he half doubts if fusion comes to the rescue, or if even the color-wheel ever produces complete fusion. "I have never been able," he writes, "to make gray in a color-wheel from red and green (with the necessary correction of blue), but when it is as nearly gray as it can be got I see both red and green with an appearance of translucence."

[1] Cattell, J. McK., PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1900, VII., p. 325.

That the retina can hold apart more than one thousand stimulations per second, that there is, in fact, no such thing as fusion, is a supposition which is in such striking contrast to all previous explanations of optical phenomena, that it should be accepted only if no other theory can do justice to them. It is hoped that the following pages will show that the facts do not demand such a theory.

Another simple observation is interesting in this connection. If at any time, except when the eyes are quite fresh, one closes one's eyes and attends to the after-images, some will be found which are so faint as to be just barely distinguishable from the idioretinal light. If the attention is then fixed on one such after-image, and the eyes are moved, the image will suddenly disappear and slowly emerge again after the eyes have come to rest. This disappearance during eye-movements can be observed also on after-images of considerable intensity; these, however, flash back instantly into view, so that the observation is somewhat more difficult. Exner,[2] in speaking of this phenomenon, adds that in general "subjective visual phenomena whose origin lies in the retina, as for instance after-images, Purkinje's vessel-figure, or the phenomena of circulation under discussion, are almost exclusively to be seen when the eye is rigidly fixed on a certain spot: as soon as a movement of the eye is made, the subjective phenomena disappear."

[2] Exner, Sigmund, _Zeitschrift f. Psychologie u. Physiologie der Sinnesorgane_, 1890, I., S. 46.

The facts here mentioned in no wise contradict a phenomenon recently discussed by McDougall,[3] wherein eye-movements revive sensations which had already faded. Thus an eye-movement will bring back an after-image which was no longer visible. This return to vividness takes place after the movement has been completed, and there is no contention that the image is seen just during the movement.

[3] McDougall, W., _Mind_, N.S., X., 1901, p. 52.

The disappearance of after-images during eye-movements is mentioned by Fick and Gurber,[4] who seek to explain the phenomenon by ascribing it to a momentary period of recovery which the retina perhaps undergoes, and which would for the moment prevent further stimulations from being transmitted to the optic nerve. Exner observes that this explanation would not, however, apply to the disappearance of the vessel-figure, the circulation phenomenon, the foveal figure, the polarization-sheaf of Haidinger, Maxwell's spot, or the ring of Lowe; for these phenomena disappear in a similar manner during movement. Exner offers another and a highly suggestive explanation. He says of the phenomenon (_op.

citat._, S. 47), "This is obviously related to the following fact, that objective and subjective impressions are not to be distinguished as such, so long as the eye is at rest, but that they are immediately distinguished if an eye-movement is executed; for then the subjective phenomena move with the eye, whereas the objective phenomena are not displaced.... This neglect of the subjective phenomena is effected, however, not by means of an act of will, but rather by some central mechanism which, perhaps in the manner of a reflex inhibition, withholds the stimulation in question from consciousness, without our a.s.sistance and indeed without our knowledge." The suggestion of a central mechanism which brings about a reflex inhibition is the significant point.

[4] Fick, Eug., and Gurber, A., _Berichte d. ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft in Heidelberg_, 1889.

It is furthermore worth noting that movements of the eyelid and changes in the accommodation also cause the after-images to disappear (Fick and Gurber), whereas artificial displacement of the eye, as by means of pressure from the finger, does not interfere with the images (Exner).

Another motive for suspecting anaesthesia during eye-movement is found by Dodge,[5] in the fact that, "One may watch one's eyes as closely as possible, even with the aid of a concave reflector, whether one looks from one eye to the other, or from some more distant object to one's own eyes, the eyes may be seen now in one position and now in another, but never in motion." This phenomenon was described by Graefe,[6] who believed it was to be explained in the same way as the illusion which one experiences in a railway coach when another train is moving parallel with the coach in which one sits, in the same direction and at the same speed. The second train, of course, appears motionless.

[5] Dodge, Raymond, PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1900, VII., p. 456.

[6] Graefe, A., _Archiv f. Ophthalmologie_, 1895, XLI., 3, S.

136.

This explanation of Graefe is not to be admitted, however, since in the case of eye-movement there are muscular sensations of one's own activity, which are not present when one merely sits in a coach. These sensations of eye-movement are in all cases so intimately connected with our perception of the movement of objects, that they may not be in this case simply neglected. The case of the eye trying to watch its own movement in a mirror is more nearly comparable with the case in which the eye follows the movement of some independent object, as a race-horse or a shooting-star. In both cases the image remains on virtually the same point of the retina, and in both cases muscular sensations afford the knowledge that the eye is moving. The shooting-star, however, is perceived to move, and the question remains, why is not the eye in the mirror also seen to move?

F. Ostwald[7] refutes the explanation of Graefe from quite different considerations, and gives one of his own, which depends on the geometrical relations subsisting between the axes of vision of the real eye and its reflected image. His explanation is too long to be here considered, an undertaking which indeed the following circ.u.mstance renders unnecessary. While it is true that the eye cannot observe the full sweep of its own movement, yet nothing is easier than to observe its movement through the very last part of the arc. If one eye is closed, and the other is brought to within about six inches of an ordinary mirror, and made to describe little movements from some adjacent part of the mirror to its own reflected image, this image can almost without exception be observed as just coming to rest. That is, the very last part of the movement _can_ be seen. The explanation of Ostwald can therefore not be correct, for according to it not alone some parts of the movement, but absolutely all parts alike must remain invisible. It still remains, therefore, to ask why the greater part of the movement eludes observation. The correct explanation will account not only for the impossibility of seeing the first part of the movement but also for the possibility of seeing the remainder.

[7] Ostwald, F., _Revue Scientifique_, 1896, 4e Serie, V., p.

466.

Apart from the experience of the eye watching itself in a gla.s.s, Dodge (_loc. citat._) found another fact which strongly suggested anaesthesia. In the course of some experiments on reading, conducted by Erdmann and Dodge, the question came up, how "to explain the meaning of those strangely rhythmic pauses of the eye in reading every page of printed matter." It was demonstrated (_ibid._, p. 457) "that the rhythmic pauses in reading are the moments of significant stimulation.... If a simple letter or figure is placed between two fixation-points so as to be irrecognizable from both, no eye-movement is found to make it clear, which does not show a full stop between them."

With these facts in view Dodge made an experiment to test the hypothesis of anaesthesia. He proceeded as follows (_ibid._, p. 458): "A disc of black cardboard thirteen inches in diameter, in which a circle of one-eighth inch round holes, one half inch apart, had been punched close to the periphery all around, was made to revolve at such a velocity that, while the light from the holes fused to a bright circle when the eye was at rest, when the eye moved in the direction of the disc's rotation from one fixation point, seen through the fused circle of light, to another one inch distant, three clear-cut round holes were seen much brighter than the band of light out of which they seemed to emerge. This was only possible when the velocity of the holes was sufficient to keep their images at exactly the same spot on the retina during the movement of the eye. The significant thing is that the individual round spots of light thus seen were much more intense than the fused line of light seen while the eyes were at rest.

Neither my a.s.sistant nor I was able to detect any difference in brightness between them and the background when altogether un.o.bstructed." Dodge finds that this experiment 'disproves' the hypothesis of anaesthesia.

If by 'anaesthesia' is meant a condition of the retinal end-organs in which they should be momentarily indifferent to excitation by light-waves, the hypothesis is indeed disproved, for obviously the 'three clear-cut round holes' which appeared as bright as the un.o.bstructed background were due to a summation of the light which reached the retina during the movement, through three holes of the disc, and which fell on the same three spots of the retina as long as the disc and the eyeball were moving at the same angular rate. But such a momentary anaesthesia of the retina itself would in any case, from our knowledge of its physiological and chemical structure, be utterly inconceivable.

On the other hand, there seems to be nothing in the experiment which shows that the images of the three holes were present to consciousness just during the movement, rather than immediately thereafter. A central mechanism of inhibition, such as Exner mentions, might condition a central anaesthesia during movement, although the functioning of the retina should remain unaltered. Such a central anaesthesia would just as well account for the phenomena which have been enumerated. The three luminous images could be supposed to remain unmodified for a finite interval as positive after-images, and as such first to appear in consciousness. Inasmuch as 'the arc of eye movements was 4.7' only, the time would be too brief to make possible any reliable judgment as to whether the three holes were seen during or just after the eye-movement. With this point in view, the writer repeated the experiment of Dodge, and found indeed nothing which gave a hint as to the exact time when the images emerged in consciousness.

The results of Dodge were otherwise entirely confirmed.

II. THE PHENOMENON OF 'FALSELY LOCALIZED AFTER-IMAGES.'

A further fact suggestive of anaesthesia during movement comes from an unexpected source. While walking in the street of an evening, if one fixates for a moment some bright light and then quickly turns the eye away, one will observe that a luminous streak seems to dart out from the light and to shoot away in either of two directions, either in the same direction as that in which the eye moved, or in just the opposite. If the eye makes only a slight movement, say of 5, the streak jumps with the eye; but if the eye sweeps through a rather large arc, say of 40, the luminous streak darts away in the opposite direction. In the latter case, moreover, a faint streak of light appears later, lying in the direction of the eye-movement.

This phenomenon was probably first described by Mach, in 1886.[8] His view is essentially as follows: It is clear that in whatever direction the eye moves, away from its luminous fixation point, the streak described on the retina by the luminous image will lie on the same part of the retina as it would have lain on had the eye remained at rest but the object moved in the opposite direction. Thus, if the eye moves to the right, we should expect the streak to appear to dart to the left. If, however, the streak has not faded by the time the eye has come to rest on a new fixation point (by supposition to the right of the old), we should expect the streak to be localized to the left of this, that is, to the right of the former fixation-point. In order to be projected, a retinal image has to be localized with reference to some point, generally the fixation-point of the eyes; and it is therefore clear that when two such fixation-points are involved, the localization will be ambiguous if for any reason the central apparatus does not clearly determine which shall be the point of reference. With regard to the oppositely moving streak Mach says:[9] "The streak is, of course, an after-image, which comes to consciousness only on, or shortly before, the completion of the eye-movement, nevertheless with positional values which correspond, remarkably enough, not to the later but to the earlier position and innervation of the eyes." Mach does not further attempt to explain the phenomenon.

[8] Mach, Ernst, 'Beitrage zur a.n.a.lyze der Empfindungen,' Jena, 1886.

[9] Mach, _op. citat._, 2te Aufl., Jena, 1900, S. 96.

It is brought up again by Lipps,[10] who a.s.sumes that the streak ought to dart with the eyes and calls therefore the oppositely moving streak the 'falsely localized image.' For sake of brevity we may call this the 'false image.' The explanation of Lipps can be pieced together as follows (_ibid._, S. 64): "The explanation presupposes that sensations of eye-movements have nothing to do with the projection of retinal impressions into the visual field, that is, with the perception of the mutual relations as to direction and distance, of objects which are viewed simultaneously.... Undoubtedly, however, sensations of eye-movements, and of head-and body-movements as well, afford us a scale for measuring the displacements which our entire visual field and every point in it undergo within the surrounding _totality of s.p.a.ce_, which we conceive of as fixed. We estimate according to the length of such movements, or at least we deduce therefrom, the distance through fixed s.p.a.ce which our view by virtue of these movements has traversed.... They themselves are nothing for our consciousness but a series of purely intensive states. But in experience they can come to _indicate_ distance traversed." Now in turning the eye from a luminous object, _O_, to some other fixation-point, _P_, the distance as simply contemplated is more or less subdivided or filled in by the objects which are seen to lie between _O_ and _P_, or if no such objects are visible the distance is still felt to consist of an infinity of points; whereas the muscular innervation which is to carry the eye over this very distance is an undivided unit. But it is this which gives us our estimate of the arc we move through, and being thus uninterrupted it will appear shorter than the contemplated, much subdivided distance _OP_, just as a continuous line appears shorter than a broken line. "After such a.n.a.logies, now, the movement of the eye from _O_ to _P_, that is, the arc which I traverse, must be underestimated" (_ibid._, S. 67). There is thus a discrepancy between our two estimates of the distance _OP_.

This discrepancy is felt during the movement, and can be harmonized only if we seem to see the two fixation-points move apart, until the arc between them, in terms of innervation-feeling, feels equal to the distance _OP_ in terms of its visual subdivisions. Now either _O_ and _P_ can both seem to move apart from each other, or else one can seem fixed while the other moves. But the eye has for its goal _P_, which ought therefore to have a definite position. "_P_ appears fixed because, as goal, I hold it fast in my thought" (_loc. citat._). It must be _O_, therefore, which appears to move; that is, _O_ must dart backward as the eye moves forward toward _P_. Thus Lipps explains the illusion.