Chapter III: Front Matter (3)

Two parallel strips of wood are so attached to the "head-rest" end of the plank--one below and the other above it--that they can be rotated laterally upon the plank, with the bolt which secures them to it for a centre of rotation. Opposite this centre, and attached to the anterior surface of the upper parallel strip is a wire needle 25 centimetres long. By means of a quadricircular piece of cardboard attached to the plank at the end of the needle, the extent of rotation to the right or left can be read off in degrees. (The point midway between the two corneal tips when they are aligned with the wires is in the same axis of rotation as the head-rest.)

A vertical iron rod 50 centimetres long extends upwards from either end of the parallel strips, and upon these rods the frame of the head-rest can be moved up or down by means of thumb-screws upon which it rests.

(3) At the opposite end of the plank there is attached a flat board, 35 centimetres long and 30 centimetres wide. Attached to the edge of the board which faces the head-rest is a piece of black cardboard 40 centimetres long by 35 centimetres broad. In the centre of the cardboard is a rectangular aperture, 7 centimetres by 14 centimetres. On the upper surface of the board are two slots, one at either side. Sliding within each of these slots is a block of wood to which is attached an upright sheet of black-painted tin, 15 centimetres wide and 20 centimetres high. The surfaces of these tins lie in planes parallel to the plane of the four wires in the head-rest, when the latter is at right angles to the plank. When their surfaces are equidistant from the wires, the inner vertical edges of the tins are separated from each other by 3 centimetres. The sides of the slots, in which the blocks with their tins slide, are fitted with millimetre scales, thus enabling the experimenter to determine the distance of the edges from the corneæ. The point on the scale at which an edge was exactly 2 metres from the vertical plane of the wires was chosen as the "zero" point, and if this distance was decreased by moving an edge forward, the latter was said to stand at "minus" one, two, or more millimetres, as the case might be. Likewise, an edge was said to stand at "plus" the number of millimetres' distance beyond the zero point if it had been moved at a greater distance than 2 metres from the wires. A piece of ground glass attached to the distal end of apparatus enabled the experimenter to secure a uniform illumination, the room being darkened and the light coming from a 32-candle-power electric lamp set about a metre and a half behind and on a slightly lower level than the glass.

It was found that by shading the lamp itself and admitting a dim light to the room by means of drawing down only the ordinary thin window-shades, the edges could be made to seem almost isolated in space and to stand out in clear relief.

The subjects of the experiment were Messrs. Bell, Flexner, and Tait. Each subject determined the equality-point and the threshold for the normal primary position of the eyes, for the eyes in a lateral position of 15° and in a lateral position of 30°, both to the left and to the right.

Eyes at 0° means the following: that the most anterior part of the two corneæ lies in a plane parallel to and two metres' distance from the plane in which the two parallel edges lie at 0. Eyes at 30° to the left means that a line drawn in front of the two corneæ intersects such a line at an angle of 30°, the left eye being at the distal end of the line. In calculating the visual angles 7.4 mm. are added in order to compensate for the distance from the extreme anterior portion of the cornea to the nodal point of the eye.

The results for Mr. Tait are as follows:

The position of eyes 0°. The right edge was moved, at first from an evident + position to equality, then from equality to the - threshold, then from an evident - position to equality, then from equality to the + threshold. These four points were determined each fifteen times and the average taken. Then exactly the same fifteen sets of four determinations with the left edge moved. The averages of these 120 experiments are these: When the left edge is moved from + to =:-2.77, from = to -:-6.97, from - to =:+0.77, from = to +5.93. When the right edge is moved from + to =: +2.83, from = to -:-1.6, from - to =:+5.9, from = to +:+10.53. The first equality-point appears thus when the left edge is moved at -0.76, when the right edge is moved at +4.41, with a threshold of about 5 in either case. With the normal eye-position the edges must thus not be exactly in the same plane to appear equally distant; at a distance of 2000 mm. the left must be about 2 mm. nearer than the right to appear in the same plane, vertical to the line of regard.

If the position of the eyes is 15° to the left, we have the following results: When the left edge is moved from + to =:-4.17, from = to -:-8.5, from - to =:-1.33, from = to +:+1; when the right edge is moved from + to =:+4.17, from = to -:+1.17, from - to =:+4.5, from = to +:+8.67.

If the position of the eyes is 30° to the left, we find when the left edge is moved from + to =:-2.67, from = to -:-6.67, from - to =:+0.5, from = to +:+3.33. When the right edge is moved from + to =:+2.33, from = to -:-0.02, from - to =:+9., from = to +:+12.33.

If we take again the general averages, we have for the eye-position of 15° to the left an equality-point of -3.25 if the left edge is moved and judged and +4.63 if the right edge is moved and judged. That is, if the right edge stands at 2000 mm. the left edge must be moved to 1996.75, and if the left stands at 2000, the right must be moved to 2004.63. For the eye-position of 30° to the left, the equality-point lies at -1.49 if the left edge is moved and judged, and at +5.91 if the right edge is the variable. The threshold lies in all three cases, for eyes at 0°, at 15°, and at 30°, at about ±5 mm.; the position of the eyes has thus no influence on the threshold for the perception of distance in the direction of regard.

But the point essential for our investigation is of course not the threshold but the equality-point. To take the extremes of the eye-positions 0° and 30° we find the equality when the left edge is judged, at -0.76 for 0° and -1.49 for 30°, and when the right edge is moved, at +4.41 at 0° and +5.91 at 30°; the middle is thus +1.82 for 0° and +2.21 for 30°, that is a difference of less than 0.4 mm.

To understand this figure we must enter into the calculation of the angles. We have an eye-distance of 60 mm., a distance of the edges from the cornea 2000 mm., from the nodal points 2007.4 mm., the distance of each edge from the median line 15 mm., the distance of the two edges from each other thus 30 mm. as long as they are in the same plane. We have to determine the angle under which each eye sees the distance of the two edges. A simple trigonometric calculation gives the following figures: If both eyes are in normal position, at 0°, and both edges are in the same plane, 2000 mm. from the corneæ, the angle for each eye is 51' 22". If the left edge is now moved to +5, the left eye sees the distance of the edges at an angle of 51' 25", the right eye under 51' 10", the difference is thus 15"; if the left edge is at +10 mm., the left eye's angle is 51' 29", the right eye's angle 50' 59", the difference 30". If the left edge is moved to -5 mm., the left eye's angle is 51' 18", the right eye's angle 51' 33", the difference 15"; if the left edge is moved to -10 mm., the left eye's angle is 51' 14", the right eye's angle 51' 45", the difference 31". Now we saw that with normal eye-position when the left edge was moved the threshold was +5.93 and -6.97; a difference of 15" to 20" between the visual angles of the two eyes was thus amply sufficient to give a distinct experience of different distance. When the left eye's angle was about 15" smaller than the angle of the right eye, the difference of the retinal images gave a sure impression of the greater nearness of the left edge.

If we now bring the eyes into the position of 30°, the angles are of course different when both edges are in the same plane vertical to the direction of regard. If the two edges are in the same plane, the left eye's angle is 50' 59" and the right eye's angle 51' 45", the difference thus 46". If we move the left edge to +5, the left angle becomes 51' 1", the right angle 51' 34", the difference 33". If we move the left to +10, the left angle becomes 51' 4", the right 51' 24"; the difference is thus still 20", and we must move the left edge to +17 mm. to get an equal angle for the left and the right eye. If we move the left to -5, the difference becomes of course larger, the left eye sees under 50' 56", the right eye 51' 55", the difference 59"; and at -10, the left eye has the angle 50' 53", the right eye 52' 6", difference 1' 13". It is hardly necessary to state here the angles for the changes of the right edge or for an eye-position of 15°, inasmuch as the maximum differences bring out our case most clearly. With an eye-position of 15°, the edges at the same plane give angles of 51' 10" and 51'34", that is, a difference of 24"; if the left edge is moved to -5 mm. the difference becomes 38"; if it is moved to -10 mm. the difference is 54"; if the left edge is moved to +5 the difference decreases to 10" and at +10 mm. to 6".

We have thus the following fundamental result: If the eyes are in normal primary position, a movement of the left edge to ±6 mm. is constantly apperceived at threshold of distance and this corresponds to retinal images whose visual angles differ by about 17". A difference of 17" in the visual angles of the two eyes produces thus under the conditions of this experiment for this subject a strong stereoscopic effect when the eyes are in primary position. If the eyes are in the position of the head 30° to the left, the left eye thus much further from the edges than the right eye, the visual angle of the left image thus much smaller than that of the right image, we find the same equality-point with the same threshold. We saw that in this position the two visual angles would be equal if the left edge were moved to +17 mm.; instead of at +17, the equality-point--when the left edge is judged--lies at -1.49, that is, at a point at which the visual angle of the left eye is more than 46" smaller than the angle of the right eye. While in normal position a difference of the two retinal images of 17" constitutes a distinct threshold value; at a lateral position of the eyes of 30° the great difference of 46" becomes necessary to give the impression of equal plane, while a decrease of that difference to 30" gives a distinct feeling of greater distance. Equal retinal images produce for the lateral eyes thus the same effect which for the normal position very different images produce; and to get for the lateral eyes the effect which equal images produce for the normal position, the angles of the images must differ by 46".

The results for the second subject, Mr. Flexner, are practically the same. With the position of the eyes at 0°, when the left edge is judged and moved, we find the following averages: from + to =: +0.03, from = to -:-3.8, from - to =:-0.7, from = to +:+3.93; when the right edge is moved from + to =:-0.08, from = to -:-4.29, from - to =:+1.21, from = to +:+4.08. It is evident that the difference between right and left which existed for Mr. Tait does not enter into Mr. Flexner's results. The equality-point as average of 120 experiments lies for normal eye-position practically at zero, and the threshold is ±4 mm.; his sensibility for differences of retinal images is thus still finer than for Mr. Tait, as we saw that the threshold of ±4 mm. means a difference of visual angles of less than 15". If Mr. Flexner's head is turned 15° to the left, his left eye thus considerably farther away from the edges than the right eye, the results are these: If the left edge is moved and judged, we find from + to =:-0.02, from = to -:-3.17, from - to =:0, from = to +:+4.67; if the right edge is moved from + to =:-0.01, from = to -:-2.5, from - to =:-0.8, from = to +:+3.33. Experiments with lateral movement of 30° were not carried through, as the subject, accustomed to eye-glasses, became less accurate in the judgments; but the experiments with the position of 0° and of 15° are unequivocal. They show that the equality-point and the thresholds are exactly the same for 15´ as for 0°. For the lateral position of 15° again the average equality-point is exactly at 0° and the threshold at less than ±4 mm. We saw that for a lateral movement of 15° the difference of the angles at the equality-point is 24". We find thus for Mr. Flexner that with primary eye-position a difference of angles of less than 15" gives a distinct stereoscopic effect, while with a lateral position of the eyes a plane effect demands a difference of 24" for the two visual angles.

Experiments with Dr. Bell finally showed a rather strong fluctuation of judgments and the determination of the equality-point for normal eye-position has not only too large a middle variation to be a reliable basis, but is influenced by a constant tendency to underestimate the distance of the edge moved. Yet the general result is the same as with the other two subjects, that is, the equality-point is with him, too, practically the same for the eyes in normal and in lateral position.

The general conclusion from the results of all three subjects is thus evidently that the traditional physiological theory is untenable, the stereoscopic effect cannot be simply a function of the difference of the two retinal images. The same pair of unequal retinal images which gives a most striking stereoscopic effect for eyes in primary position, has no stereoscopic effect for eyes in lateral position and _vice versa_. The stereoscopic interpretation is thus the function of both the difference of the retinal images and the position of the eyeballs. Of course the two retinal images are in any case never felt as two pictures if they are not different enough to produce a double image. With the primary position of the eyes as long as the two different retinal views are sufficiently similar to allow a synthesis in a three-dimensional impression of our object, we perceive every point of the object not as double image but as one point of a given distance. The distance feeling of the normal stereoscopic vision demands thus itself more than the reference to the different retinal images, and the only factor which can explain the phenomena is the response of the eye-muscles which react on the double images by increase or decrease of convergence. The distance of a point in a stereoscopic image is determined by the impulse necessary for that particular act of convergence of the eyeballs by which the two retinal images on non-cor-responding points would be changed into images on corresponding points. The different retinal images are thus ever for the normal eye-position merely the stimuli for the production of that process which really determines the experience of distance, that is, the motor impulse to a change in convergence.

If thus the stereoscopic vision under normal conditions is ultimately dependent upon the central motor impulses, it is not surprising that a change in the psycho-physical conditions of movement produces a change in the resulting impulses. Such a change in the conditions is given indeed whenever the eyes are in a lateral position. Just as the same stimulus produces a different response when the arm or leg is in a flexed or an extended position, so the retinal double images stimulate different responses according to the particular position of the eyeballs. That pair of unequal retinal images that in primary eye-position produce in going from one end of the object to the other a strong increase of convergence and thus a feeling of greater nearness, may produce with the lateral eye-position no increase of convergence and thus a feeling of equal distance or even a decrease of convergence and thus a feeling of removal. The psycho-physical system upon which our three-dimensional visual perception depends is then much more complex than the usual theory teaches; it is not the retinal image of the double eye, but this image together with the whole distribution of contractions in the eye-muscles, which determines the stereoscopic vision: the same retinal images may give very different plastic perceptions for different positions of the eyeballs.

The experiments point thus to the same complex connection which Professor Münsterberg emphasized in his studies of the "Perception of distance."[1] I may quote the closing part of his article to bring out the intimate connection of the two problems. He reports his observations on the so-called verant and insists that the monocular verant almost as little as the ordinary binocular stereoscope can give the impression of normal distance of nature. Professor Münsterberg writes: "Whoever is able to separate seeing in three dimensions from seeing in natural distance cannot doubt that in both cases alike we reach the first end, the plastic interpretation, but are just as far removed from the other, the feeling of natural distance, as in the ordinary vision of pictures. The new instrument is thus in no way a real 'verant.'

"The question arises, Why is that so? If I bring my landscape picture on a transparent glass plate into such a distance from my one eye that every point of this transparent photograph covers for my resting eye exactly the corresponding point of the real landscape and yet accommodation is excluded, as, for instance, in the case of the short-sighted eye, or in the case of the normal eye with the verant lenses, then we have exactly the retinal images of the real view of nature and the same repose of the lens. Why are we, nevertheless, absolutely unable to substitute the near object for the far one? This problem exists in spite of all the theoretical assurances that the one ought to appear exactly like the other, and I think that it is not impossible to furnish an answer to it.

"If I am not mistaken, there is one point of difference between seeing the mere picture and seeing the far landscape, which has been neglected in the usual discussions. Every one knows, of course, that we see the picture and the landscape normally with the help of eye-movements. The eye moves from point to point; but psychologists have neglected the consideration that the relation between eye-movement and retinal image must be quite a different one for the landscape and for its photograph. Let us consider the simplest possible case, the case of the myopic eye without any lenses whatever, and without any need of accommodation for a picture as near to the eye as 10 cm. If I take a small landscape picture made with a camera whose distance from lens to plate is 10 cm., I have a splendid plastic view if I see it at a distance of about 10 cm. from my eye. I have before me just such a picture in which two mountain peaks are, in the photograph, 1 cm. distant from each other. If I now have my little picture at the distance of 10 cm. from the eye, these two mountain tops correspond in their distance of 1 cm. exactly to the retinal image which the two real mountains, which are ten miles away and one mile distant from each other, produce in my retina. The retinal image of the two mountain peaks in the photograph is thus for my resting eye indeed identical with that of real nature. Does that mean that I have to make the same eye-movement to go from the left to the right mountain in the landscape as in the picture? Of course, that would be so, the movement would be just as identical as the retinal images if the nodal point of the light-rays were identical with the rotation-point of the eyeball. But everybody knows that this is not at all the case. The light-rays cross in the lens. The angle of vision, and thus the size of the retinal image, are thus dependent upon the distance of the lens from the retina. But the movement of the eye is related to a rotation-point which lies about 13 mm. behind the cornea, roughly speaking 1 cm. behind the nodal point of the rays. This additional centimetre plays, of course, no rôle whatever, if I look at my mountains in the real landscape; following with my eyeball from the fixation-point of the left mountain to the fixation-point of the right mountain, I make a movement whose angle can be declared identical with the angle under which I saw the two mountains with the resting eye in the first position. This angle of vision was determined by the distance of the nodal point, which was in our case ten miles, while the angle of eye-movement was determined by the distance of the rotation-point, which would be ten miles plus one centimetre, and there is of course no possible difference for practical discrimination between these two distances.

"But the situation is completely changed if I turn to my little picture 10 cm. distant from my eye. The angle under which I see my two peaks is, of course, again the same under which I saw them in the real landscape. It is determined by the distance of the picture from the nodal point, which is in this case 10 cm. But the angle of the eye-movement necessary to fixate first the left and then the right peak is now a much smaller one because it is again determined by the distance from the rotation-point, and that is in this case 10 cm. plus 1 cm. With this short distance of the picture from the eye this one additional centimetre is not at all the negligible quantity which it was in addition to ten miles in the landscape. For the two real mountains the angle of the eye-movement had a tangent of one tenth; for the photograph mountains, in spite of their equal size of retinal image, the angle of necessary movement would of course have a tangent of one eleventh. Roughly speaking, we could say that the photograph, in order to produce the same eye-movement which the mountains in the landscape excited, would need a pictorial distance between the two photograph mountains of 11 mm. instead of 10 mm. Of course if the distance in the picture were made 11 mm. instead of 10, it would not cover any more the mountains of the landscape. The retinal image would thus be relatively too large and would not give us any longer the true landscape. On the other hand, if we tried to correct it by bringing the picture one centimetre nearer to the eye, then of course every retinal image would be enlarged by that necessary tenth, and yet there would be no help for the situation, as now again the eye-movement demanded by the retinal image would be relatively increased too.

"We can put it in this way: _my real landscape demands a relation between retinal image and movement which my picture cannot produce under any circumstances whatever_. That which would be needed to imitate the relations would be realized only if I had my retinal images from the picture at a distance of 10 cm., and at the same time the movements belonging to the same picture seen at a distance of 9 cm. That is of course unrealizable. We cannot see a picture without having our movements constantly controlled by the size of the real retinal images, as it is necessary that the distance seen in indirect vision is the distance covered by the fixation-point during the eye-movement. That demands, as we have seen, a different relation between retinal image and eye-movement for near and far, and no verant and no stereoscope can eliminate this factor. If a 10-mm. object in the photograph demands an 11-mm. movement to give the impression of real natural distance, then we have a condition which cannot be fulfilled.

"If we remember how extremely delicate is our normal sensitiveness for retinal distances and how the newer studies in stereoscopic vision have demonstrated an unsuspected delicacy of adjustment between retinal images and motor responses, it is evident that this so far always neglected relation must be an extremely important one. If we have one adjustment of central reaction in which a certain eye-movement corresponds to retinal images of one size, and another adjustment in which the same movements correspond to retinal images which are ten per cent larger, we can really not expect our judgment of distance to neglect the difference between these two systems of relations. Of course they represent two extreme cases. Every distance beyond 10 cm. demands its special adjustment up to the point where the distance becomes too large to be influenced by the distance from the nodal point to the rotation-point. We must thus presuppose a sliding scale of ever new adjustments for the different distances at which we see any object, and we have, in this relation, probably not the least important factor in the judgment of the third dimension for relatively near objects, and probably even more important than the irradiation circles which control the accommodation, as these circles must be the same for objects which lie before and behind the fixation-point. Of course the whole system of our localizing reactions becomes through these considerations more complex by far than the schematizations of the text-books propose. But physiological optics has shown at every point in its development that mere simplification has not always meant a deeper insight into the real relations."

It is evident that our studies in stereoscopic vision with lateral eye-position involve exactly the same principle and reaffirm completely Professor Münsterberg's theoretical views. In both cases, in the monocular of the verant as in the binocular of our experiments, the same retinal image has different psycho-physiological space-value on account of the different motor situation.

FOOTNOTE:

[Footnote 1: Münsterberg: Perception of Distance, The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, vol. 1, p. 617, 1904.]

EYE-MOVEMENTS DURING DIZZINESS

BY E. B. HOLT

It is a familiar fact that when the head is passively turned about its vertical axis, the eyes do not move with the head but lag behind, keeping their fixation on that object toward which they were directed before the head moved. The eyes move in their sockets in a direction opposite to that in which the head has moved. Now it has been proved beyond a doubt by the experiments of Mach,[2] Crum Brown,[3] and Breuer,[4] that these lagging movements of the eyes are reflex and are governed by the semi-circular canals, which are stimulated directly by the motion of the head. Similar reflex eye-movements are found when the head is turned about some other than its vertical axis, the direction of such movements being always in confirmation of the theory. All these movements, together with the theory, are well described in the summaries of Peters[5] and Nagel.[6] The present paper deals solely with the eye-movements that occur after rotation of the head about its vertical axis.

The mechanism of these lagging, reflex movements is not, then, identical with that which enables us, when the head is at rest, to fix on and follow a luminous moving object,--the "pursuit movements" of Dodge.[7] It is, however, identical with that of Dodge's "fourth type"[8] and that of the compensatory eye-movements described by Brown,[9] Nagel,[10] and Delage,[11] and recently studied by Angier.[12] This function of the semi-circular canals was first suggested by Goltz in 1870. Now if the rotary movement of the head is prolonged, the eyes lag for a while on their first fixation-point, and then dart suddenly forward to a new fixation-point on which they rest for a while as before, until they dart forward again. Therefore if the head continues to rotate, the eyes fall into a regular and well-marked nystagmus. In this the lagging movements, or those opposite to the direction of the head, are called "compensatory," and are relatively slow and long. Their rate coincides closely if not exactly with that of the head-movement. But the movements forward, in the direction of the head-movement, are short and swift. Such are the facts during the rotation of the head.

But if this rotation has been somewhat prolonged, the ocular nystagmus continues after the head and body are brought to rest. But now its phases are reversed, and the slower eye-movements are in that direction in which the head has moved; while the swifter are in what before was the lagging direction. These observations are in accord with the semicircular canal theory, and are well established by various investigators.[13]

This paper presents the results of a photographic study of the reflex eye-movements following after rotation of the head (and body) about the vertical axis.

The subject whose eyes were to be photographed sat in a chair placed on a rotating platform, in such a position that the vertical axis of rotation passed through, or just posterior to the nose. Rays from an arc-lamp of 6 amperes, placed about 60 cm. from the subject's face, were so converged by a lens that when the subject came to rest, after the rotation, his two eyes were brightly illuminated. An adiathermal screen consisting of a dilute solution of copper ammonium sulphate kept the heat from being painfully intense on the eyes. The light fell slightly from one side on the subject's face, when he was brought to rest; and directly in front of him, at a distance of about 40 cm., was a camera of which the lens was on a level with his eyes. The ordinary ground-glass screen at the back of this camera was replaced by a light-proof box, in the front of which, and in the plane which should have been that of the ground glass, was a slit 55 mm. broad and 5 mm. high. Inside the box was a Ludwig kymograph of which the drum rotated on a horizontal axis: the circumference of the drum lay tangentially to the front of the box, and the line of tangency passed horizontally through the long axis of the slit. For each photograph a photographic film of sensitometer 40 was fixed to the drum, as paper is ordinarily fastened, and in moving, the drum carried this film upwards past the slit. It follows from this arrangement that 5 mm. along the length of this film were always exposed at once. The camera was so focused that the images of both eyes were sent through the slit, and fell on the film.

The subject's head was rigidly held by a rest: this rest was adjusted, and the camera focused, before the rotation. The adjustment of the head was greatly facilitated by fastening a fine black thread to pegs that projected forward from the head-rest, on either side; the thread was stretched horizontally, and at such a height that its image in the camera coincided with the middle of the long (horizontal) axis of the open slit. If then the subject, on seating himself in the chair, had his head so adjusted that each eye was directly behind the thread, each eye would certainly be imaged on the sensitive film. Neither the shadow of this thread on the subject's face, nor its image on the film, interfered in the least with the exposure that was made after rotation. This thread was further found very useful by the subject himself, who, after the rotation and just before the exposure was made, could make sure by sighting on the thread that his eyes had not slightly changed position during the rather protracted rotation. The subject was ordinarily turned twenty-five times at about the rate of one turn in two seconds. The kymograph was set in motion and the exposure commenced as soon as the whirling chair was brought to a dead stop. This stopping always took two or three seconds, at the very time when the nystagmus was most pronounced, so that the photographs do not show the maximum eye-movements. The exposure lasted through one rotation of the drum, nine seconds.

In the strongest negatives the movements of the eyes can be fairly well made out from the undulatory curve generated on the film by the dark image of the iris as it oscillated from side to side. But this is true only of the best negatives, and almost never of these if the eyes photographed had the iris blue. In order to obtain better definition in the photographs of the eye-movements, small flecks of Chinese white were tried, as invented and described by Judd.[14] A small square of white was laid with a brush on each cornea, on the side toward the lamp, so that its image on the film should be as bright as possible. The flecks were found to adhere to the eyeball even more perfectly than Judd himself has claimed; and they produced so little discomfort that the subject ordinarily forgot their presence on the eyes. Nevertheless their image as produced on the negatives, although much better than that of the iris, was generally not clearly readable, owing to the brief exposure and the illumination by electric light. This light seems not to be well reflected by the Chinese white: but in all cases where daylight can be employed the use of these flecks must be eminently satisfactory.

Thus it was found necessary to fall back on the image of the arc as reflected from the cornea. This corneal image invariably traced a clear, strong curve on the negative, and would have been appropriated at the outset, were it not that its movements are not, as is well known, a true register of the _amplitude_ of the corresponding eye-movements; a fact that was shown clearly from a comparison in these negatives of the curves produced respectively by the flecks of Chinese white and by the corneal image. The former showed a much greater amplitude of movement. But the corneal reflection is a perfect register of the _time_ and _direction_ of the eye-movements; and in the following tables these features alone are studied. This reflection traced on the film a perfectly readable curve, although in some of the films, owing to a shifting of the carbons in the lamp taking place during the rotation, one of the eyes would be badly illuminated and a good record would be obtained from the other eye alone.

The arc ran on an alternating circuit of 60 phases per second, and owing to these interruptions of the illumination the curve of the corneal image showed on the negative as a dotted line in which the distance between any two dots represented one sixtieth of a second. Since the constancy of this alternation in the current has been measured in the Jefferson Physical Laboratory (of Harvard), and found to vary within a few tenths of one per cent only, the spacing of the dots on the negatives formed the most convenient possible means for determining the durations of the nystagmiform movements. These dots are shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 5 (Plates I and II).

Fig. 3

(By an error Fig. 4 is shown reversed; the lettering is correct.)

Fig. 4]

Fig. 3 shows a portion of one of the films. The two curves are to be read from below upwards; but at the bottom is a photograph of the slit (showing a part of the subject's face) taken when the drum had made a little over one revolution and had come back to rest. Hence below the image of the slit, the curve of corneal reflection is doubled. "Right" and "Left" refer to the subject's right and left sides, so that the reader looks into the subject's face from in front. In the picture of the slit, the place on the cornea of the corneal reflection is shown; and also a minor reflection, which as may be seen traced no curve, from some other source of light. The fine line that crosses the slit horizontally is the image of the thread, above mentioned, which was used in adjusting the head. The time-dots are seen to be perfectly distinct, so that they could be accurately read with the help of a jeweller's eyeglass. Fig. 4 shows another part of the same negative, a portion subsequent to the single eye-curves of Fig. 3, that is, a continuation vertically upwards of Fig. 3. The rotation had been from the subject's left to his right, a direction that will be termed "clockwise" throughout this paper, and it can be seen that the quick eye-movements are toward the subject's _left_, while the slow are towards his right: had the photograph been taken _during_ the rotation, the directions of the quick and slow movements would have been reversed. Two points may be observed in this figure which the tables will also bring out,--that the two eyes move together, and that as the nystagmus subsides the quick eye-movements become less frequent but endure no longer, or in other words, the slow movements alone increase in duration. The corneal reflection does not accurately show the amplitude of the movements; but direct inspection of a subject's eyes, as the nystagmus dies away, shows that generally (but perhaps not always) the amplitudes of both quick and slow movements decrease together. When this is the case, it follows that at the end of the nystagmus the _rate_ of the slow movements decreases very much faster than that of the rapid movements.

Readable negatives were obtained from four, out of six subjects. Of such negatives there are fourteen, ten of which are of eye-movements after rotation clockwise, and four after rotation anti-clockwise. This distribution is accidental, for the rotations in each direction were about equal in number. With the exceptions to be noted later all the negatives exhibit the same features, so that of the fourteen only four examples are given in full in the tables; while for the others merely the averages of the duration of quick and slow eye-movements respectively are given.

TABLE I

KEY:
1: Subject
2: Film
3: Eye
4: Direction of the rotation.
5: Slow movements toward Subject's
6: Rapid movements toward Subject's
7: Average duration in seconds of slow movements
8: Average duration in seconds of rapid movements

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

C 1 left clockwise right left .32 .05
" 2 " " " " .36 .06
" 3 right anti-clock left right .26 .08
H 1 " clockwise right left .54 .07
" 2 " " " " .45 .07 }
" " left " " " .45 .07 }
" 3 " " " " .50 .08}
" " right " " " .49 .08}
" 4 " anti-clock left right .49 .07
" 5 left clockwise right left .53 .06
Ta 1 right " " " .73 .07
" 2 " anti-clock left right .48 .10
Tu 1 " clockwise right left .50 .06 }
" " left " " " .49 .07 }
" 2 " " " " .49 .12}
" " right " " " .49 .12}
" 3 left " " " .40 .07
" 4 right anti-clock left right .58 .08

Av. .48 .08

Table I gives these averages for all the fourteen negatives. In four of these (H 2, H 3, Tu 1, Tu 2) simultaneous curves for both eyes were obtained. In every curve the slow eye-movements were in the same direction as the previous rotation; the rapid in the opposite direction. The very few single movements that are exceptions to this are noted under Table II. Had the photographs been taken during (instead of after) the rotation, the directions of rapid and slow movements would undoubtedly have been reversed. It is to be noted that when both eyes were recorded, their movements were generally identical, within the accuracy of measurement (one sixtieth of a second). There are a few exceptions to this. The averages of all slow and all rapid movements merely show that in general, and for that part of the nystagmus that was photographed, the slow eye-movements lasted six times as long as the rapid ones. This ratio varies considerably from one case to another, and at best throws little light on the whole nystagmiform series, since during the very first instants after the rotation the ratio of quick to slow movements would be less than one sixth, and at the very end of the series would be considerably more; this because toward the end the slow movements become much slower, while the rapid seem to change very little. The variations from case to case arise, at least partly, because in some cases the picture was taken more promptly, after the rotation stopped, than in others.

TABLE II

All records in seconds.
Subject C. Subject H. Subject H. Subject Tu.
Film 3. Film 2. Film 3. Film 4.
anti-clockwise. clockwise. clockwise. anti-clockwise.
right eye. left eye. right eye. left eye. right eye. right eye.

slow fast slow fast slow fast slow fast slow fast slow fast
m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m.
to to to to to to to to to to to to
lft. rt. lft. rt. lft. rt. lft. rt. lft. rt. lft. rt.

.26
.08 .03 .05 .06 .08 .06
.2 .51 .58 .1 .1 .45
.06 .06 .06 .06 .05 .08
.05 .16 .16 .13 .13 .75
.08 .05 .06 .1 .13 .06
.19 1.01 1.05 .36 .33 .36
.05 .06 .06 .1 .06 .13
.02 .26 .26 .28 .3 .48
.05 .05 .06 .13 .13 .05
.21 .26 .26 .28 .23 .61
(.19) .06 .06 .11 .13 .1
.16 .55 .6 .35 .35 .41
.05 .1 .1 .08 .1 .05
.03 .25 .25 .33 .3 .65
.05 .06 .05 .06 .11 .06
.18 .33 .33 .25 .2 .51
.06 .1 .1 .1 .1 .05
.03 1.65 1.65 .83 .83 .66
.05 .06 .06 .1 .13 .16
.29 .26 .26 .63 .61 .66
.11 .06 .08 .06 .06 .08

TABLE II, _continued_.

All records in seconds.
Subject C. Subject H. Subject H. Subject Tu.
Film 3. Film 2. Film 3. Film 4.
anti-clockwise. clockwise. clockwise. anti-clockwise.
right eye. left eye. right eye. left eye. right eye. right eye.

slow fast fast slow fast slow fast slow fast slow slow fast
m. to m. to m. to m. to m. to m. to m. to m. to m. to m. to m. to m. to
lft. rt. lft. rt. lft. rt. lft. rt. lft. rt. lft. rt.
.29 .78 .76 .45 .43 .68
.03 .06 .06 .05 .1 .15
.04 .16 .2 .45 .43 .23
.05 .1 .1 .06 .1 .11
.25 .38 .33 .4 .38 .36
.15 .08 .11 .08 .06 .08
.3 .58 .56 .58 .56 .35
.05 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06
.33 .78 .78 .58 .56 .38
.05 .08 .1 .08 .08 .05
.28 .71 .71 .35 .35 1.78
.11 .08 .06 .05 .06 .06
.41 .46 .45 .51 .5
.06 .05 .06 .06 .05
.43 .56 .58 .6 .61
.11 .06 .06 .08 .1
.35 .33 .31 .73 .68
.05 .1 .1 .06 .06
.23 .86 .86
.15 .08 .08
.38 .21 .21
.1 .06 .05
.43 .8 .81
.11 .08 .08
.38 1.53 1.58
.03 .06 .05
.53
.2
.23
(.18)
.36
.03
.23
.06
.45
.11
.25

Averages
.26 .08 .07 .45 .07 .45 .08 .50 .08 .49 .58 .08

Parentheses indicate time during which the eye did not move at all.

Fig. 5]

Table II gives in detail the data yielded by four of the most instructive films. C 3 is the longest record that was obtained; Tu 4 is among the shortest, though it is not the very shortest. H 2 and H 3 show how nearly alike are the simultaneous movements of the two eyes: .07 sec. is the greatest difference recorded on any film between simultaneous movements. All four records show how much less the duration of the slow movements is at the beginning of the record than at the end, and how little the fast movements vary in this respect.

H 2 is given because it is not typical; and about one half of the film itself is reproduced in Fig. 5 (Plate II). It will be seen that at four points there intervened between slow movements (toward the right) a rapid one that was also toward the right. This is the only record in which such a thing happened: and its explanation is problematical. With the subjects C and H, and only very rarely with these, a rapid movement sometimes took the place of a slow one, that is, occurred in the same direction as the slow movements (_e. g._, Table II, C 3). And a trifle more often, yet very seldom, a rapid movement was relatively slow (_e. g._, _ibid._). With every subject there are a few cases in which the eyes stood still for a small part of a second (_e. g._, _ibid._), and these moments of rest seem to come after a rapid or a slow movement indifferently.

McAllister[15] and others have shown that the eyes are seldom at rest even when voluntary fixation is attempted, and these anomalies in the nystagmiform series may well be the result of such random factors, which instead of being always inhibited by the afferent impulses from the semicircular canals, which govern the nystagmus, operate along with these latter, and sometimes even inhibit them. With the exception of these anomalies, the movements recorded in the photographs confirm the observations of Purkinje, Mach, Breuer, Delage, and other investigators.

In conclusion, the sensations of vertigo and of nausea seem not to be essentially connected with the nystagmus. Several subjects were so disagreeably affected by a preliminary rotation that it seemed best not to continue the experiment with them. With those, however, whose eyes were photographed, while they experienced a mild degree of vertigo and nausea during and after the first few rotations, these sensations soon wore off with further practice, while so far as could be observed their eye-movements were as ample and rapid as at first. The introspection of these subjects was that after the rotation the body seemed at rest and the stomach quite settled, while the visual field alone whirled rapidly in the direction opposite to that of the previous rotation.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 2: E. Mach: Sitzungsb. d. k. Akad. d. Wissensch., Wien, 1874.]

[Footnote 3: A. Crum Brown: Proceedings of the Royal Soc., Edinburgh, 1874.]

[Footnote 4: J. Breuer: Med. Jahrb., Wien, 1874-75.]

[Footnote 5: W. Peters: Arch. f. d. ges. Psych., vol. 5, p. 42, 1905.]

[Footnote 6: W. Nagel: Handbuch d. Physiol. des Menschen, vol. 3, p. 762, 1905.]

[Footnote 7: R. Dodge: Amer. Jour. of Physiol., vol. 8, p. 317, 1903.]

[Footnote 8: _Ibid._ p. 327.]

[Footnote 9: A. Crum Brown: Proceedings of the Royal Soc., Edinburgh, 1895.]

[Footnote 10: W. Nagel: Zeitsch. f. Psych. u. Physiol., vol. 12, p. 331, 1896.]

[Footnote 11: Yves Delage: Arch. de Zoöl. expér. et générale, vol. 1, 1903.]

[Footnote 12: R. P. Angier: Zeitsch. f. Psych. u. Physiol., vol. 37, p. 235, 1905.]

[Footnote 13: See the summaries of Nagel and Peters, above referred to.]

[Footnote 14: C. H. Judd: Yale Psych. Studies, Psych. Rev., Mon. Supplements, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 7, 1905.]

[Footnote 15: C. N. McAllister: Yale Psych. Studies, Psych. Rev. Mon. Supplements, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 17, 1905.]

VISION DURING DIZZINESS

BY E. B. HOLT

During and after a prolonged rotation of the head, the visual field seems to spin around before one's eyes,--a phenomenon that is ordinarily called the "dizziness of Purkinje." Delage describes it as follows:[16] "In the experiment of Purkinje, while we are rotating in a positive sense, space seems possessed of a motion in the opposite direction.... This phenomenon is explained _by the direction of the nystagmus_."

"In the nystagmus," he continues, "the eyeballs execute two well-differentiated motions: one, a compensatory, _relatively_ slow motion, during which images pass across the retina so as to give the appearance of a movement of space in the opposite direction; two, a swift motion opposite to the slow one, and so rapid that the images passing across the retina leave no sensation of their movement."

Now, in a previous paper[17] I have shown that there is a central anæsthesia, or central inhibition of visual sensations, during about the latter two thirds of the time occupied by every voluntary eye-jump; and in view of this I was led to enquire whether in fact, as Delage so confidently asserts, it is the _speed_ of these more rapid movements, or some other factor, that causes them to leave no visual sensations. There can be no doubt that they do leave none, since, aside from the statement of Delage, in dizziness the visual field whirls always in only one direction; whereas it should otherwise appear to swing now to one side, now to the other, as the eyes move back and forth across the objects. I have found but one other mention of this point in the literature. In his Analyse,[18] Mach says, parenthetically, "(the jerky eye-movement leaves no optical impression)"; but he does not suggest that this is because of its greater speed.

In order to test this point, a 2 c. p. incandescent lamp was so arranged that it could be moved vertically in front of, and about four metres distant from, a rotating chair. Since after a rotation the eyes are oscillating from side to side, if the lamp is moved up and down an obliquely inclined after-image streak must be generated on the retina; and clearly there are four possible positions in which this may lie, as shown in Fig. 1.

The results were absolutely uniform (the author alone as subject); the after-image streak always lay on that side of the moving light _toward_ which the _slow_ eye-movements were directed, that is, the lamp appeared to drift obliquely up or down and in a lateral direction _opposite_ to that of the slow eye-movements. Apart from its vertical displacement, then, the lamp behaved like the less intensely illumined parts of the visual field, seeming to be totally invisible during the swifter eye-movements. Now since the experiment was done in a partially darkened room and the eyes were partly adapted to darkness, the lamp should have been intense enough adequately to stimulate the retina even during the more rapid movements, and might be expected to leave an after-image streak on that side toward which these rapid movements were directed, and differing only from the streaks seen during the slow eye-movements in being inclined at a less angle from the horizontal. Yet no such streaks were visible.

These observations were made at about the same number of seconds after the rotation stopped, as the photographs were taken that are recorded in the preceding paper of this volume. The rapid movements were therefore about one sixth as long in duration as the slower ones. Since the respective amplitudes of rapid and slow must average very nearly the same, the rapid movements must have been about six times as swift as the slow movements. It needs therefore to be shown beyond a doubt that the 2 c. p. lamp _was_ bright enough, in view of the briefness of stimulation of any one retinal element during the rapid eye-movement, to be above the threshold of perception. For this reason the experiment was not continued with other subjects.