impressions were given was screened from the subject's view, and he
made a record of his judgments on a drawing of the arm. The criticism
made by Pillsbury[6] upon this method of recording the judgments in
the localization of touch sensations will not apply to my experiments,
for I was concerned only with the relative, not with the absolute
position of the points. In the case of the other experiments, a card
with a single line of numbered points was placed as nearly as possible
over the line along which the contacts had been made on the arm. The
subject then named those points on the card which seemed directly over
the points which had been touched.

[6] Pillsbury, W.B.: Amer. Journ. of Psy., 1895, Vol. VII., p.
42.

The results from these two methods were practically the same. But the
second method, although it obviously permitted the determination of
the displacements in one dimension only, was in the end regarded as
the more reliable method. With this apparatus I could be more certain
that the contacts were made simultaneously, which was soon seen to be
of the utmost importance for these particular experiments. Then, too,
by means of this æsthesiometer, all movement of the points after the
contact was made was prevented. This also was an advantage in the use
of this apparatus, here and elsewhere, which can hardly be
overestimated. With any æsthesiometer that is operated directly by the
hand, it is impossible to avoid imparting a slight motion to the
points and thus changing altogether the character of the impression.
The importance of this consideration for my work was brought forcibly
to my attention in this way. One of the results of these tests was
that when two simultaneous contacts are made differing in weight, if
only one is recognized it is invariably located in the region of the