of visualization. It is evident, therefore, that the tactual illusion
is influenced rather in a negative direction by visualization.

In the second group of experiments, where the judgments were obtained
through the localization of the points, it would seem, at first sight,
that the judgments must have been very largely influenced by the
direct vision used in localizing the points. The subject, as will be
remembered, looked down at a card of numbered points and named those
which were directly over the contacts beneath. Here it should seem
that the optical illusion of the overestimation of filled spaces,
filled with points on the card, would be directly transmitted to the
sensation on the skin underneath. Such criticism on this method of
getting at the illusion has already been made orally to me. But this
is obviously a mistaken objection. The points on the card make a
filled space, which of course appears larger, but as the points
expand, the numbers which are attached to them expand likewise, and
the optical illusion has plainly no influence whatever upon the
tactual illusion.

A really serious objection to this indirect method of approaching the
illusion is, that the character of the cutaneous sensation is never so
distinctly perceived when the eyes are open as when they are closed.
Several subjects often found it necessary to close their eyes first,
in order to get a clear perception of the locality of the points;
they then opened their eyes, to name the visual points directly above.
Some subjects even complained that when they opened their eyes they
lost track of the exact location of the touch points, which they
seemed to have when their eyes were closed. The tactual impression
seems to be lost in the presence of active vision.