through that distance, it is inconceivable that _i_, if it represent
any distance at all, should represent any other distance than just
_OP_.

Cornelius[11] brought up the matter a year later than Lipps. Cornelius
criticises the unwarranted presuppositions of Lipps, and himself
suggests that the falsely localized streak is due to a slight rebound
which the eye, having overshot its intended goal, may make in the
opposite direction to regain the mark. This would undoubtedly explain
the phenomenon if such movements of rebound actually took place.
Cornelius himself does not adduce any experiments to corroborate this
account.

[11] Cornelius, C.S., _Zeitschrift f. Psychologie u.
Physiologie der Sinnesorgane_, 1891, II., S. 164-179.

The writer, therefore, undertook to find out if such movements
actually are made. The observations were made by watching the eyes of
several subjects, who looked repeatedly from one fixation-point to
another. Although sometimes such backward movements seemed indeed to
be made, they were very rare and always very slight. Inasmuch as the
'false' streak is often one third as long as the distance moved
through, a movement of rebound, such as Cornelius means, would have to
be one third of the arc intended, and could therefore easily have been
noticed. Furthermore, the researches of Lamansky,[12] Guillery,[13]
Huey,[14] Dodge and Cline,[15] which are particularly concerned with
the movements of the eyes, make no mention of such rebounds.
Schwarz[16] above all has made careful investigations on this very
point, in which a screen was so placed between the observer and the
luminous spot that it intervened between the pupil and the light, just