Statistics of mental imagery / by Francis Galton.
- Galton, Sir Francis, 1822-1911.
- Date:
- [1880]
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Statistics of mental imagery / by Francis Galton. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
7/22 page 5
![6. The image once seen is perfectly clear and bright. 7. Brightness at first quite comparable to actual scene. 8. The mental image appears to correspond in all respects with reality. I think it is as clear as the actual scene. 9. The brightness is perfectly comparable to that of the real scene. 10. I think the illumination of the imaginary image is nearly equal to that of the real one. 11. All clear and bright; all the objects seem to me well defined at the same time. 12. I can see my breakfast table or any equally familiar thing with my mind’s eye, quite as well in all particulars as I can do if the reality is before me. Cases where tlie faculty is mediocre. 46. Fairly clear and not incomparable in illumination with that of the real scene, especially when I first catch it. Apt to become fainter when more particularly attended to. 47. Fairly clear, not quite comparable to that of the actual scene. Some objects are more sharply defined than others, the more familiar objects com- ing more distinctly in my mind. 48. Fairly clear as a general image ; details rather misty. 49. Fairly clear, but not equal to the scene. Defined, but not sharply ; not all seen with equal clearness. 50. Fairly clear. Brightness probably at least one-half to two-thirds of original. [The writer is a physiologist.] Definition varies very much, one or two objects being much more distinct than the others, but the latter come out clearly if attention be paid to them. 51. Image of my breakfast table fairly clear, but not quite so bright as the reality. Altogether it is pretty well defined ; the part where I sit and its surroundings are pretty well so. 52. Fairly clear, but brightness not comparable to that of the actual scene. The objects are sharply defined ; some of them are salient, and others insignificant and dim, but by separate efforts I can take a visualised inventory of the whole table. 53. Details of breakfast table when the scene is reflected on, are fairly de- fined and complete, but I have had a familiarity of many years with my own breakfast table, and the above would not be the case with a table seen casually unless there were some striking peculiarity in it. 54. I can recall any single object or group of objects, but not the whole table at once. The things recalled are generally clearly defined. Our table is a long one ; I can in my mind pass my eyes all down the table and see the different things distinctly, but not the whole table at once. Cases where the faculty is at the lowest. 89. Dim and indistinct, yet I can give an account of this morning’s breakfast table;—split herrings, broiled chickens, bacon, rolls, rather light coloured marmalade, faint green plates with stiff’ pink flowers, the girls’ dresses, &c., &c. I can also tell where all the dishes were, and where the people sat (I was on a visit). But my imagination is seldom pictorial except between sleeping and waking, when I sometimes see rather vivid forms. 90. Dim and not comparable in brightness to the real scene. Badly de- fined with blotches of light; very incomplete. 91. Dim, poor definition ; could not sketch from it. I have a difficulty in seeing two images together. 92. Usually very dim. I cannot speak of its brightness, but only of its faintness. Not well defined and very incomplete.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b22462375_0009.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
