before the end of the movement. Thus the retina was not stimulated
during the latter part of its movement, just when Cornelius assumed
the rebound to take place. This arrangement, however, did not in the
least modify the appearance of the false streak.

[12] Lamansky, S., _Pflüger's Archiv f. d. gesammte
Physiologie_, 1869, II., S. 418.

[13] Guillery, _ibid._, 1898, LXXI., S. 607; and 1898, LXXIII.,
S. 87.

[14] Huey, Edmund B., _American Journal of Psychology_, 1900,
XI., p. 283.

[15] Dodge, Raymond, and Cline, T.S., PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW,
1901, VIII., PP. 145-157.

[16] Schwarz, Otto, _Zeitschrift J. Psychologie u. Physiologie
der Sinnesorgane_, 1892, III., S. 398-404.

This work of Schwarz certainly proves that the explanation of
Cornelius is not correct. Schwarz found that the phenomenon takes
place as well when the head moves and the eyes are fixed relatively to
the head, as when the eyes alone move. He furthermore made this
observation. Meaning by _a_ the point of departure and by _b_ the goal
of either the eye-or the head-movement, movement, he says (_ibid._,
S. 400-2): "While oftentimes the streak of the after-image extended
uninterruptedly to the point _b_, or better seemed to proceed from
this point,--as Lipps also reported--yet generally, under the
experimental conditions which I have indicated, _two streaks_ could be