Experimental study on the co-relation between

time and space

著者 Abe Saburo
journal or Tohoku psychologica folia
publication title
volume 3
number 1
page range 53-68
year 1935-07-12
URL http://hdl.handle.net/10097/00130386
 Experimental study on the co-relation
between time and space
By

Saburo Abe
(~ ffl = t/6)
(Kitirin Normal University)

Contents
I Statement of the problem . 53
II Method . 55
III Results . . . . . . . . 58
IV Conclusion . . . . . . . 66
V Provisional consideration 67

This investigation was made at Tohoku Imp. University from

May 1934 to March 1935. The first plan of this investigation
is not yet performed. For some reason or other, I will publish
this results and my provisional considerations on it.
I am deeply indebted to prof. T. Chiba, whose instructive
suggestions were helpful throughout the planning and conduct of
the research. I am also indebted to Mr. Dr. Y. Tatibana,
T. Susukita, M. Aizawa, M. Abe, S. Kitamura and Ms. M.
Kitazima, who voluntarily acted as subjects throughout all the
exepriment.

I. Statement of the problem

It is well known that in our everyday life the consciousness
of the temporal magnitude fuse into that of the spatial, and the
consciousness of the spatial into that of the temporal. In
scientific region, however, it is possible to point out the codepen-
54 Saburo Abe

dence of space and time. The physical theory of relativity, as

stated by Dr. Einstein, teaches us that space and time are
inextricably connected. Psychologically also, Brown 1 in-
dicated that we could experience the unity of space and time in
visual movement and velocity. The many investigators,
for example, Benussi, Gelb, Helson and King, pointed out
that in comparison of two succesive spatial intervals the spaces
depended upon the time between stimulus, by which the spatial
intervals are limited. For example, three stimuli in succession
are exposed at equal spatial intervals but unequal temporal
intervals. If the time between the first and second stimuli
is shorter (longer) than that between the second and third stimuli,
the extents undergo a corresponding change, for the first appears
shorter (longer) than the second.
This dependence of space upon time in comparison was pointed
out first by Benussi2 in vision, and then by Gelb3 in vision,
hearing and touch. On the most recent, Helson and King4 con-
fined and formulated in detail this facts in touch. And they
called such a dependence of space and time 'Tau Effect' in order to
avoid the use of such name that might imply the dealing with an
'illusion', error in judgment, some effect of attention or sugges-
tion5. They put as the objectivity of the phenomenon their finger
on the following fact that it has been found in vision, hearing and
touch by different investigators and is susceptible to quantitative
treatment.
But the above-stated studies indicated only the dependence
of space upon time in the comparison between spatial intervals.
That is only one half of the co-relation between time and space.
Is not there, however, the dependence of time upon space in our
direct experience? Bergson7 said that our time consciousness
in ordinary life was always spatialised. In experimental work,
Guilford8 indicated the dependence of the apprehension of time
upon many spatial symbols. But it has never yet been pointed
out by any body that in comparison between two temporal in-
tervals the judgment depended upon spatial intervals.
We imagined it was possible to test this experience from our
ordinary life. Therefore we attempted to make our test on a
 Experimental study on the co-relation between time and space 55

subject. Though the investigation was somewhat rough, we

could make almost sure of the following fact from this preliminary
investigation : If three stimuli are exposed in succession at
equal temporal but unequal spatial intervals and the spatial inter-
val between the first and the second stimuli is shorter (longer)
than that between the second and third stimuli, the temporal
extents undergo a corresponding change, for the first appears
shorter (longer) than the second. We shall temporarily call it
the 'S-effect' in contrast with Helson's Tau-effect.
The purpose of this investigation is to make sure of the S-effect
in the comparison between temporal interval on many observers.

II. Method
Room. Two rooms were used in this experiment. One
of these was for subjects and the other was for the experimenter.
The former was a dark, noiseless room. While the latter, a
common lighter one.

Apparatus and Procedure. Every subject saw a horizontal

succession of three momentaly light-points at a distance of 140
cm on a level with his eyes. Two spatial intervals and two tempo-
ral intervals were made by the three light-points. The presenta-
tion of light-points began sometimes from his right hand side,
sometimes from his left. It was made possible to alter the posi-
tions of the two extreme light-points on a horizontal line, but
excepting the central light-point. The length of spatial intervals
was regulated by this alteration of positions of the light-points.
The subject was demanded to compare the length of one spatial
interval with that of the other under varied conditions, the most
important one of which was the variation of time between light-
points that limited the spatial interval. His judgments were
reported by a telephone, which was set on a table before him.
A Meumann's time-sense apparatus was used in this investi-
gation to control the timing of every light-point, to regulate the
length of time-interval between light-points and to present
stimulus-pattern consisting of a main time interval. This
56 Saburo Abe

apparatus was set in the other room for the experimenter. A little
motor of 1/16 h.p. was used to rotate the arm of the time-sense
apparatus, the rotation of the arm being controled by transmis-
sion. When the arm comes in touch with the contact-apparatus
on the circumference of the disc-part by own rotation, an electric
circuit was automatically opened and the light-point was instantly
burned on the wall in the dark room. A commutator was used
to open or shut the electric circuit at any time. A telephone
was set to receive the observer's reports and to give him a signal
at the beginning of every comparison. The observers were
unaware of the purpose of the experiments. Before the experi-
ment began, the observers were given the following general
instruction :
"You will see presently a horizontal succession of three
momentary light-points. The first spatial interval is limited
by the first and the second light-points, and the second spatial
interval by the second and the third light-points. You must
compare the length of the second spatial interval with that of
the first, and give (the experimenter) your earliest possible
judgment in a natural manner by the telephone."
Experimenter put thier judgments on a record in every
comparison. After a set of their comparisons had been
completed, the subjects were inquired thier experiences in the
comparisons.

Observers. There were 6 observers in this experiment.

Ai, Am, S, and T were the psychologists in the institute at
Tohoku Imp. University in Sendai. Km was a graduate student
in the same institute who enrolled for advanced course in psycho-
logy. Ks was a student enrolled in the course of elementary
psychology and only a female among the observers.

Relation between t 1 and t 2 • We shall refer to the first

temporal interval as t 1, and the second temporal interval as t 2 •
In every case the judgment was made on the basis of the second
temporal as compared with the first. The relations between t 1
and t 2 were as follows :
 Experimental study on the co-relation between time and space 57

Case I., here t 1 was not changed but t 2 was changed.

Case Ia. t 1 >t 2 ,

for the general for ob. Am. for ob. T.
1000 250 2500 1000 2000 500
1000 500 2500 1500 2000 1000
1000 750 2500 2000 2000 1500

Case lb. t 1 <t 2 ,

for the general for ob. Am. for ob. T.
1000 1250 2500 3000 2000 2500
1000 1500 2500 3500 2000 3000
1000 1750 2500 4000 2000 3500

Case le. t 1 >t 2 ,

for the general for ob. Am. for ob. T.
1000 : 1000 2500 : 2500 2000 : 2000

Case II., here t 1 was changed but t 2 was not changed.

Case Ila. t 1 >t 2,
for the general for ob. Am. for ob. T.
1250 1000 3000 2500 2500 2000
1500 1000 3500 2500 3000 2000
1750 1000 4000 2500 3500 2000

Case Ilb. t 1 <t 2 ,

for the general for ob. Am. for ob. T.
250 1000 1000 2500 500 2000
500 1000 1500 2500 1000 2000
750 1000 2000 2500 1500 2000

Case Ile. t 1 =t 2,
for the general for ob. Am. for ob. T.
1000 : 1000 2500 : 2500 2000 : 2000
58 Saburo Abe

Relation between s 1 and s 2 • We shall refer to the first

spatial interval as s1 ,and the second spatial interval as s 2 • As
the relation between s1 and s 2 three cases were tested ; in the
first case s1 - s 2 = 30 mm, in second s1 > s 2 , 50 : 30 mm and in
the third s1 < s2 , 30 : 50 mm.

III. Results

We shall refer to the judged temporal as tj. The Judgment

,,t 2 is shorter than ti'' is represented by the sign tj 1 > tj 2, the
judgment ,, t 2 is longer than t 1 " by the sign tj 1 <tj 2, and the
judgment ,,t 2 is equal to t 1 " by the sign tj 1 =tj 2 • The numbers
on the tables refer to the percentages of tj 1 >tb tj 1 <tj 2 and
th =tj2,

a) The judgments in case I. Tables 1-6 show separately

the distribution of judgments of every observers under the
condition, that t 1 is not changed but t 2 is changed. Tables 7
shows the average (mean) distribution of all their judgments
under the same condition.

Table 1 Observer Ai.

Conditions Judgments

Temporal I spatial th>ti2

I th<ti2 I th=tfo
I total n.

S1=S2 87.50 0 12.50 24

t1>t2 s1>s2 91.67 0 8.33 24
S1 <s2 66.67 12.50 20.80 24

S1=s2 0 75.00 25.00 24

t1<t2 S1>S2 0 70.83 29.17 24
s1<s2 0 87.50 12.50 24

S1 =S2 0 25.00 75.00 8

t1=~ S1> S2 25.00 12.50 62.50 8
Sl <s2 12.50 12.50 75.00 8
 Experimental study on the co-relation between time and space 59

Table 2 Observer Am.

Conditions Judgments

Temporal I Spatial th>th

f
th <tfo
I th=ti2 I total n.

Sl =S2 83.33 0 16.67 24

t1>t2 s1>s2 79.17 0 20.83 24
Sl <s2 79.17 0 20.83 24

S1 =S2 0 70.84 29.16 24

tl <t2 s1>s2 0 50.00 50.00 24
Sl <s2 0 87.50 12.50 24

S1=S2 0 0 100.00 8
t1=t2 S1>S2 0 0 100.00 8
Sl <s2 0 25.00 75.00 8

Table 3 Observer Km.

Conditions Judgments

Temporal I Spatial tit>th I th<t2

I th=ti2
I total n.

SJ =S2 75.00 8.33 16.67 24

t1>t2 S1>s2 83.33 0 16.67 24
s1<s2 54.17 20.83 25.00 24

Sl =S2 0 70.83 29.17 24

tl <t2 s1>s2 8.33 79.17 12.50 24
s1 <s2 0 100,00 0 24

81 =Sz 0 37.50 62.50 8

t1=t2 s1>s2 0 37.50 62.50 8
S1 <s2 25.00 0 75.00 8

Table 4 Observer Ks.

Conditions Judgments

Temporal J spatial th>ti2 j th<th

I th=ti2
I total n.

Sl =S2 78.17 0 20.83 24

t1>t2 s1>s2 83.33 8.33 8.34 24
Sl <s2 91.67 4.16 4.17 24

Sl =S2 8.33 70.84 20.83 24

t1<t2 s1>s2 16.67 62.50 20.83 24
s1<s2 0 75.00 20.83 24

S1=S2 25.00 12.50 62.50 8

t1=tz S1>s2 62.50 0 37.50 8
Sl <s2 12.50 25.00 62.50 8
60 Saburo Abe

Table 5 Observer Ss.

Conditions Judgments

Temporal I Spatial th>tj2 I th <tj2 I th=tj2 l total n.

S1=82 62.50 4.17 33.33 24

t1>1::! s1>82 100.00 0 0 24
s1<s2 41.67 4.16 54.17 24

S1=S2 0 79.17 20.83 24

t1<t2 S1>s2 0 25.00 75.00 24
S1<S2 0 91.67 8.33 24

S1=S2 0 12.50 87.50 8

t1=t2 S1>s2 37.50 0 62.50 8
s1<s2 0 50.00 50.00 8

Table 6 Observer T.

Conditions Judgments

Temporal I Spatial th>tj2 j th<tj2 I th=tj2 j total n.

S1=S2 100.00 0 0 24
t1>t2 s1>s2 95.83 4.17 0 24
S1<S2 70.83 0 29.17 24

S1=s2 0 100.00 0 24
tl <t:i s1>s2 0 83.33 16.67 24
81<82 0 95.83 4.17 24

S1=S2 0 0 100.00 8
ti=t2 s1>s2 0 12.50 87.50 8
s1<s2 62.50 0 37.50 8

Table 7

Conditions Judgments

Temporal I Spatial th>tj2

l th<tj2 j th=tj2
I total n.

S1=S2 81.25 2.08 16.67 144

ti>t:a S1>S2 88.89 2.08 9.03 144
Si.<82 67.36 6.94 25.70 144

S1=S2 1.39 77.78 20.83 144

tl <1::i s1>s2 4.17 61.81 34.02 144
S1<S2 0 89.58 10.25 144

S1=S2 4.17 14.58 81.25 48

ti=~ s1>s2 20.83 10.42 68.75 48
s1<s2 18.75 18.75 62.50 48
 Experimental study on the co-relation between time and space 61

If, in comparison of two temporal intervals which are limited

by three successive stimuli, the judgments were not influenced by
the length of the spatial intervals which are limited by the same
stimuli, then the percentage of the judgments would almost make
no difference according to the variation of temporal conditions
(t 1 >t 2 , t 1 <t 2 and t 1 =t 2 ). But the reverse is the case. In
the above tables, it is indicated that the percentage of tj 1 > tj 2 for
t 1 >t 2 under the condition s1 >s 2 is higher than that under the
conditions s 1 <s 2 or s 1 =s 2 , that the percentage of th <tj 2 for
t 1 <t 2 under the spatial condition s 1 <s 2 is higher than that under
the conditions s 1 > s 2 or s 1 =s 2 , and that the percentage of tj 1 =
tj 2 for t 1 =t 2 under the condition s 1 =s 2 is higher than that under
the conditions s 1 <s 2 or s1 > s 2 • And it is also indicated,
that the percentage of th <tj 2 for t 1 >t 2 under the condition
s1 > s2 is lower than that under any other spatial condition
(s 1 <s 2 or s1 =s 2 ), and that the percentage of tj 1 >tj 2 for t 1 =t 2
is higher under the condition s1 > s 2 than that under any other
condition.
From the above tables, we are justified in saying that if
spatial intervals and all other factors except the temporal intervals
are equalized, the temporal judgments tend to follow the actual
temporal distances between successive stimuli, and that if temporal
and all other factors are equalized, the temporal judgments tend to
follow the spatial distances between the stimuli, and that a longer (or
shorter) temporal interval can be made to appear shorter (or longer)
by decreasing (or increasing) the spatial interval.
This tendency is highest at the observers Ss and Ai, and is
1ow est at the observers T and Ks. I think, that such tendency
shows the 'S-effect' on time.

b) The judgments in case II. The tables 8-13 show sepa-

rately the distribution of judgments of every observer under
the condition, that t 1 is changed but t 2 is not changed. Table
14 shows the average (mean) distribution of their all judgments
under the same condition.
62 Saburo Abe

Table 8 Observer Ai.

Conditions Judgments

Temporal/ Spatial tiJ>ti2 I th<ti2 I tii=th

I total n.

S1=S2 66.67 0 33.33 24

t1>t2 s1>s2 83.33 4.17 12.50 24
s1 <s2 54.17 0 45.83 24

S1=S2 0 95.83 4.17 24

t1<ts s1>s2 4.16 54.17 41.67 24
S1<s2 0 95.83 4.17 24

S1=S2 0 12.50 87.50 8

t1=t2 S1>S2 0 25.00 75.00 8
Sl <s2 0 0 100.00 8

Table 9 Observer Am.

Conditions Judgments

Temporal I Spatial th>th

I th<th I th=th I total n.

S1=S2 66.67 4.16 29.17 24

t1>t2 s1>s2 75.00 0 25.00 24
s1<s2 4.16 16.67 79.17 24

S1=S2 4.16 66.57 29.17 24

t1<t2 s1>s2 12.50 33.33 54.17 24
S1<s2 0 83.33 16.67 24

S1=S2 12.50 IS.SO 75.00 8

t1=t2 s1>s2 25.00 0 75.00 8
s1<s2 0 62.50 37.50 8

Table 10 Observer Km.

Conditions Judgments

Temporal I Spatial tiJ>ti2

I th<th
I th=ti2
I total n.

S1=S2 50.00 4.17 45.83 24

t1>t2 S1>s2 75.00 8.33 16.67 24
Sl <s2 79.17 0 20.83 24

S1=S2 0 79.17 20.83 24

t1<t2 S1>S2 0 95.83 4.16 24
Sl <s2 8.33 62.50 29.17 24

S1=S2 0 62.50 37.50 8

tl =t2 s1>s2 0 75.00 25.00 8
s1 <s2 37.50 12.50 50.00 8
 Experimental study on the co-relation between time and space 63

Table 11 Observer Ks.

Conditions Judgments

temporal I spatial th>tj2 I th<ti2 th=tb I total n.

S1=S2 41.67 8.33 50.00 24

t1>t2 s1>S2 70.83 12.50 16.67 24
S1<82 41·67 41.67 16.66 24

S1=S2 8.33 75.00 16.67 24

tl <t2 s1>s2 20.83 66.67 12.50 24
s1<t2 0 75.00 25.00 24

S1=S2 12.50 37.50 50.00 8

ti=½ s1>s2 0 37.50 62.50 8
s1<s2 12.50 37.50 50.00 8

Table 12 Observer Ss.

Conditions Judgments

temporal I spatial th>ti2 th<ti2

I th=tj2
I total n.

s1=s2 58.33 0 41.67 24

t1>t2 s1>s2 62.50 0 37.59 24
SI <s2 41.67 8.33 50.00 24

S1=S2 8.34 58.33 33.33 24

t1<½ S1>S2 8.33 54.33 37.50 24
s1<s2 0 83.33 16.67 24

s1=s2 0 0 100.00 8
t1=t2 s1>s2 37.50 0 62.50 8
SI <s2 0 12.50 87.50 8

Table 13 Observer T.

Conditions Judgments

temporal spatial th>ti2

87.50
I th <ti2
0
I
I th=tj2
12.50
I total n.

24
S1=S2
t1>t2 s1>s2 100.00 0 0 24
s1<s2 87.50 0 12.50 24

S1=s2 0 91.67 8.33 24

t1<t2 s1>s2 4.16 66.67 29.17 24
s1<s2 0 100.00 0 24

S1=S2 12.50 12.50 75.00 8

t1=½ s1>s2 0 62.50 37.50 8
s1<s2 12.50 12.50 75.00 8
64 Saburo Abe

Table 14

Conditions Judgments

temporal I spatial tiJ>ti2

I th <ti2
I th=ti2 I total n.

S1=S2 61.81 2.78 35.42 144

t1>t2 s1>s2 77.78 4.17 18.05 144
s1<s2 51.39 11.11 37.50 144

S1=S2 3.47 77.78 18.75 144

t1<t2 s1>s2 8.33 61.97 29.70 144
SI <s2 1.39 83.33 15.28 144

S1=S2 6.25 22.92 70.83 48

t1=t2 s1>S2 10.42 33 33 56.25 48
s1<82 10.42 22.92 66.66 48

Table 15

Conditions Judgments

temporal I spatial th>ti2

I tiJ<ti2
I tiJ=ti2 I
total n.

S1=S2 71.53 2.43 26.04 288

t1>t2 s1>s2 83.33 3.13 13.54 288
SI <s2 59.34 9.02 31.64 288

S1=S2 2.43 77.78 19.79 288

t1>t2 s1>s2 6.25 61.89 31.86 288
s1<s2 7.00 86.45 12.85 288

S1=S2 5.21 18.75 76.04 96

t1=t2 s1>s2 15.63 21.87 62.50 96
s1<s2 14.56 20.83 64.58 96

From table 14, we are also enabled to draw the same tendency
which we concluded from tab]e 7. But table 7, in general,
shows a lower degree of this tendency as compared with table 14.
Individually, this tendency is highest at obs. Ss (tablel2),
T (table 13) and Am (table 9), and is lower at obs. Ai (table 8) and
Ks (table 11.). Even the anti-tendency is seen at obs. Km (10).
Most of Observers complained that comparison in case II was
hard and they were doubtful about what they had done. For
instances;
 Experimental study on the co-relation between time and space 65

Obs. Ai. Aug. 8. 1934 (case II). At the new case, I find
it is harder to judge than at the former case. Perhaps
it is better to judge at rather vague attitude.
Obs. Am. July, 26 1934 (case II). What a vague judgment!
I felt a vagueness on the statement of my judgment.
Obs. Am. July 30. 1934 (case II). It is hard to judge at
new case. I am troubled with vague judgment.
Obs. T. July 4. 1934 (case II). I readily guessed the
normal time-interval changed every time, but I found
it was hard to judge.
Obs. Km. March 7. 1935 (case II). At the beginning of
this case, I was in doubt to make any judgment.
In the comparison in case II, perhaps they were so hard, doubt-
ful and fluster to judge owing to the fact that they were accustomed to
the comparison in case I for a long time. It follows as a necessary
consequence that the constant errors in such case (namely S-eifect)
are not so conspicuous as many accidental errors.
Some subjects knew before hand that the spatial distance
between light-points should affect the judgments of the time
which was limited by the same light-points. Though they had
been ordered to judge naive in their natural manner, they had
a tendency to revise frequently their naive judgments. Some
statements on it run as follows ;
Obs. Am. May, 28. 1934. I have reason to think, that the
spatial distance between light-points affect the temporal
judgments. However, there were the influenced and
the non-influenced statements of my judgments.
Obs. Ai. July, 3. 1934. It is clear that my time-estimation
depended upon spatial distance. It is not good. There-
fore, I frequently revised some of my naive judgments.
Such tendency was seen on other observers too. It follows
as a natural consequence that the S-effect varies with the person,
and that even anti-effect is seen on rare occasions.
From table 15, which shows the mean percentage of the judg-
ments in case I and II, we are enabled to point out exactly the
dependence of time judgment on spatial distance (namely S-
effect.)
66 Saburo Abe

In addition to this, we are enabled to conclude from many state-

ments of our subject's introspections that the most striking
experiences in such temporal comparison are motion of light-
points and variation of spatial interval. But their statements
concerning this point being tedious, are omitted here.

IV. Conclusion
We are enabled to draw the following conclusions from our
results:
I) If spatial intervals and all other factors except the
temporal intervals are equalized, the temporal judgments tend
to follow the actual temporal distances between successive stimuli.
In summary, :
If s1 =s 2 and t 1 =t 2, then th =tj 2
If s 1 =s 2 and t 1 >t 2, then tj 1 >tj 2
If s 1 =s 2 and t 1 <t 2, then tj 1 <tj 2
II) If temporal and all other factors are equalized, then
the temporal judgments tend to follow the spatial distances be-
tween the stimuli. In summary,
If s 1 =s 2 and t 1 =t 2, then th =tj 2
If s 1 > s 2 and t 1 =t 2 , then tj 1 > tj 2
If s 1 <s 2 and t 1 =t 2 , then tj 1 >tL
III) A longer temporal interval can be made to apear equal,
longer, and shorter by the degree of decreasing the spatial inter-
val, and a shorter temporal interval can be made to apear equal,
shorter, and longer by the degree of increasing the spatial inter-
val. In summary,
If s 1 > s 2 and t 1 <t 2,
If s 1 <s 2 and t 1 > t 2,
IV) The above tendency (S-effect) is destroyed by observer's
unconscious attitudes towards revising their naive judgments.
V) The most striking experiences in such temporal com-
parison are motion of light-points and variation of spatial inter-
val.
 Experimental study on the co-relation between time and space 67

V. Provisional considerations
Tau effect, which is indicated by Benussi, Gelb, Helson
and King, expresses the dependence of space upon time in the
comparison between spatial intervals. S-effect, which we are
enabled to indicate in this paper, shows the dependence of time
upon space in the comparison between temporal intervals. It
is strange that such fact has not been experimentally pointed out
by any other person. The existence of this facts, however, are
sufficiently convinced by the reflection of Bergsons argument,
Guilfords experimental study, and our ordinary experience,
on which we have already stated. These effects tell us two sides
of the co-relations between time and space, Benussi, Gelb,
Helson and King pointed out only one side of the co-relation.
We can not conceive that only space depends upon time, but
time does not depend upon space. We aree nabled to infer that
space and time in concrete immediate experience is not an
independent existence but a fusion. There is neither pure time
nor pure space but only spatial-time or temporal space in our
concrete experience. We can characterize only abstractly one
side of this fusion as time, or the other side as space.
Iler gs on once said 9 that in our temporal consciousness, "we
project time into space, we express duration in terms of exten-
sity, and succession thus takes the form of a continuous line
or a chain, the parts of which touch without penetrating one
another," that "succession can not be symbolized as a line with-
out introducing the idea of space of three dimensions," and that
"we have a deeply ingrained habit of setting out time in space."
Fouillee and Guyau10 said too that time can not be measured
without introducing the idea of space.
But such facts, according to our idea, show that time and
space are fused into one body in our original experience but
the two are never the independent, than the co-relation between
independent time and independent space.
The notion of independent time and space is consequence
of our abstraction. In this sense, we can never support english
associationist's opinions, which assert the derivation of space
68 Saburo Abe

from time and Guyau's opinion, which asserts the derivation

of time from space, and Bergson's old opinion, which asserts
absolute opposition of pure duration and space (extensity).
We support that time and space are fused into one body in
original experience, and that every one of the two is derivated
from this original unity (body), but even in ordinary experience
of adult, this original unity is always seen. We have heard that,
Bergson's latest work and in Husserl's and Heidegger's
thought of "present" the unity of time and space in original
experience is stated.

Literatures
1) J. F. Brown, The visual perception of velocity. Psychologische For-
schung Bd. 14., 1930.
2) V. Benussi, Psychologie der Zeitauffassung, 1913, Kap. VlI.
3) A. Ge 1b, Versuch auf dem Gebiet der Zeit- und Raumanschauung.
1914. (Berichte iiber den VI. KongreB fiir experimentelle Psychologie in Gi:ittingen)
4) H. Helson a. S . .M. King, Thetaueffect: An example of psychological
relativity, 1931. J. of exper. Psychol. vol. 14.
5) Ibid.
6) S. A be, Experimental study on the corelation between time and
space, (On the tau effect) Bunka, vol. 2. 1935. In this paper, we reviewed the
former studies on corelation between time and space, and commented on it.
7) H. Bergson, Essai sur les donnees immediates de la conscience,
(Time and free will, by Pogson) Chap. II.
8) G. Q. Guilford, Spatial symbols in the apprehension of time. American
j. of Psychology, vol. 37, 1926.
9) H. Bergson, ibid, p. 101.
10) J. M. Guy au, Genese de l'ldee de Temps, chap. I.

(Received I7. VI I935)