Page:American Journal of Psychology Volume 21.djvu/527

Rh movement? Here too there are 'camps' though the vagueness in the use of the term 'voluntary,' coupled with its peculiar individual uses and the various interpretations of the current kinaesthetic theory of voluntary movement, make it much more difficult, if not practically impossible, to classify the different positions found in the literature upon the subject. James' exposition (Prin. of Psy. Vol. II, pp. 486-592) of the kinaesthetic theory reveals, as Woodworth has pointed out, the possibility of a wider and a narrower interpretation of this theory. The theory is so familiar that a summary of it seems unnecessary.

The latitude of interpretation which James' statement permits reflects what one actually finds in both earlier and later writers, namely, in some cases, a limiting of the mental antecedents necessary to a voluntary movement to "resident" processes with the possible inclusion of remote visual effects. Ziehen (Intro, to the Study of Phys. Psy., pp. 246-248) andMcDougall (Phys. Psy., pp. 163-165) are clearly inclined to this narrower view. On the other hand Mtinsterberg ( Willenshandlung, pp. 88-96) and Angell (Psy., pp. 404-409) give the theory a broader interpretation so as to accord a fuller recognition to James' 'Very remote" sensible effects.

One of the earliest criticisms, based upon experimentation and observation, of this entire position is found in an article by Kirkpatrick (The Development of Voluntary Movement, Psy. t Rev., Vol. 6, 1899, pp. 273-281) in which he reports a study of the motor development of one of his own children. His observations lead him to the conclusion that "there is no evidence that his (the child's) consciousness is concerned at all with the movements he is making in order to get hold of the object and bring it to him, attention to the movement itself hinders rather than helps in learning the movement." (p. 280.)

Another investigation having an important bearing upon this problem is Bair's study of how we get voluntary control of an entirely unused muscle, the retrahens aurem by means of which the ear is moved. (Development of Voluntary Control, Psy. Rev., Vol. 8, 1901, pp. 474-510.) Twelve of the fourteen persons who acted as his subjects had absolutely no control of the ear at the beginning of experimentation. In order to give his subjects the kinaesthetic sensations and images produced by the movement of this muscle, Bair at first caused the muscle to contract by means of electrical stimulation.

His results may be stated both negatively and positively. Negatively he found that the kinaesthetic sensation or image of the movement of this muscle was not in itself sufficient to bring about voluntary control. Positively, he found that before control of a muscle is established the sensation produced by the