aroused were of two sharply different kinds. There were, on the one hand, images of recognized and particular things, figuring in a particular spatial context, on a particular occasion, and with definite personal reference; and there were, on the other hand, images with no determination of context, occasion, or personal reference,—images of things recognized, to be sure, but not recognized as this or that particular and individual object. The former were evidently 'images of memory;' the latter, both by positive and by negative character, were 'images of imagination.' In other words, we have in our results a rough and ready criterion of the two types of image: memory being distinguished by particularity and personal reference, and imagination contrasting with it by lack of particularity (in the sense of a particular sample, placed and dated) and absence of personal reference. There were, naturally, a fairly large number of intermediate forms (images with personal and place references, but unfixed in time; images with personal reference, but neither temporal nor spatial context; images with context but no personal reference). The classification of these under the one or the other of the two main rubrics would have been possible, from the records, although it would have left a margin of uncertainty, aside from that due to the possibility of an incomplete introspective account. Fortunately, however, we had no need to attempt it, as the clear-cut cases were sufficiently numerous for our purpose.
One of the first things noticed, as we sought to analyze the images, was the presence of certain kinæsthetic factors in the image of memory which were not traceable in that of imagination. Sensations of eye-movement were by far the most obvious; memory appeared to imply roving movement of the eyes, while imagination implied steady fixation. The indications were that other and more general kinæsthetic differences obtained, but this, of eye-movement and fixation, was the most noticeable. In view of the important part played in theory by the kinæsthetic factor, we decided to put this discovery to the test of experiment.[1]
The observer sat in a dark room, his head supported in a
- ↑ We naturally think of the seer and dreamer as rigid, in a fixed stare; and we know that the effort to remember sends our eyes wandering over walls and ceiling, as if we hoped somewhere to find a cue to memory. Cf. F. Meakin: Mutual Inhibition of Memory Images, Harvard Psychological Studies, i, 1903, 244; C. S. Moore: Control of the Memory Image, ibid., 296; J. W. Slaughter: Behavior of Mental Images, this Journal, xiii, 1902, 548; F. Kuhlmann: Analysis of the Memory Consciousness, Psychological Review, xiii, 1906, 338 f.; E. Murray: Peripheral and Central Factors in Memory Images, this Journal, xvii, 1906, 241; Külpe: Outlines, 1909, 187; etc.
