TABLE VII.

SUBJECT _P._ SUBJECT _W._ SUBJECT _B._ SUBJECT _Hy._
(1)--(3) (3)--(4) (1)--(3) (3)--(5) (2)--(1) (6)--(2) (2)--(1)
First. + - + - - + -
Sec. + + - + + + +


The comparisons of (6) and (2), and (1) and (3) confirm the
provisional deduction from Table IV., that the introduction of a
_local change_ in an interval _lengthens_ it subjectively, but the
comparisons of (3) and (5), (3) and (4), and (2) and (1) show
apparently that while the _amount_ of the local change influences the
lengthening of the interval, it does not vary directly with this
latter in all cases, but inversely in the first interval and directly
in the second. This is in itself sufficient to demonstrate that the
chief factors of the influence of locality-change upon the time
interval are connected with the spatial localization of the areas
stimulated, but a further consideration strengthens the conclusion and
disposes of the apparent anomaly. It will be noticed that in general
the decrease in the comparative length of the first interval produced
by increasing the spatial change is less than the increase in the
comparative length of the second interval produced by a corresponding
change. In other words, the disparity between the results for the two
types of test is greater, the greater the spatial distance introduced.

The results seem to point to the existence of two distinct factors in
the so-called 'constant error' in these cases: first, what we may call
the _bare constant error_, or simply the constant error, which appears
when the conditions of stimulation are objectively the same as regards