thousand subjects in response to that stimulus word, and the frequency
with which each reaction has occurred. [1] These tables will be found
at the end of this paper.

[Footnote 1: A similar method of treating associations has been used
by Cattell (Mind, Vol. XII, p. 68; Vol. XIV, p. 230), and more
recently by Reinhold (Zeitschr. f. Psychol., Vol. LIV, p. 183), but
for other purposes.]

With the exception of a few distinctive proper names, which are
indicated by initials, we have followed the plan of introducing each
word into the table exactly as it was found in the record. In the
arrangement of the words in each table, we have placed together all
the derivatives of a single root, regardless of the strict
alphabetical order.[1]

[Footnote 1: It should be mentioned that we have discovered a few
errors in these tables. Some of these were made in compiling them from
the records, and were evidently due to the assistant's difficulty of
reading a strange handwriting. Other errors have been found in the
records themselves. Each of the stimulus words _butter_, _tobacco_ and
_king_ appears from the tables to have been repeated by a subject as a
reaction; such a reaction, had it occurred, would not have been
accepted, and it is plain that the experimenter wrote the stimulus
word in the space where the reaction word should have been written.
Still other errors were due to the experimenter's failure to speak
with sufficient distinctness when reading off the stimulus words;
thus, the reaction _barks_ in response to _dark_ indicates that the
stimulus word was probably understood as _dog_; and the reactions
_blue_ and _color_ in response to _bread_ indicate that the stimulus