medial strip would separate from one or the other. In most cases a more or less jagged and blurred outline showed the adhesion of clots of mucous to the passage-walls. In fact, twelve out of the thirteen subjects had suffered or were suffering from frequent “colds” or from hypersecretion more or less chronic. As a function of the turbinal bone is to deflect a part of the inspired air to the upper passages, its removal damages the sense of smell. The sensitivity of T. was higher on the left side of the nose, from which, as she reported, the smaller amount of bone had been taken, but the small remains of the secondary division of the breathing spots did mot indicate that more bone had been removed on the one side than on the other. The obstruction of the inferior meatus would not, in itself, do much mischief to the sense, but it must indicate a dropping of mucous from the upper passages. It is of some interest to note that the subject (D.) whose spots are most perfect is a Russian. He came, however, to live in New York city at the age of twelve. K. is Japanese, but has been long enough in this country to suffer severely from the catarrhal climate. Rob., one of the best subjects, comes from Prince Edward’s Island. The homes of the other ten are scattered over the States from Eastern Massachusetts to California, though none are farther south than Missouri.[1]
When it is said that Δr was determined with one, two ,or more inspirations, it is meant that the stimulus of comparison was manipulated during one, two, or more inspirations. More than one inspiration was almost never taken to “learn” the standard. It seemed better to risk the increase of adhesion by allowing a subject to take as many breaths to a determination as he wished than to make him try to form a judgment when the force of an inhalation was decidedly on the wane. Many of the subjects considered a judgment with one inspiration an impracticable ideal, D., K., Se. and Sh., and in a smaller measure Be. and P., had a bad habit of suspending an inspiration, and not of sniffing, but of “holding the breath” momentarily during an inspirations, This practice must have tended to weaken the stimulus allowing the air in the upper chamber to rush downwards to the middle mentns. Be., N., P., Rob., Se. and T. noticed that the stimulus was stronger during the latter part of an inspiration. This may point to cumulative stimulation of the rod-cells, or it may merely mean an access of attention and an unconscious sniff. Se., who had the habit of suspending an inhalation, noticed the increase most after a strong inspiration, and D., K. and Sh., who had the same habit did not notice it at all. And it is clear that this peculiar mode of breathing would tend to prevent cumulative stimulation. On the other hand, Be., P. and T. noticed the increase most when the stimulus was near its limen, and this looks as if it were a matter of attention and breathing-rate, especially as T. did not hold her breath. Be. remarked that the least difference of attention altered the stimulus. Rob. thought the first part of an inspiration gave the fairest measure of an intensity, and Be. and Se. relied on it “in easy judgments,” but judged by the latter part of the inspiration if the stimulus were weak or vague. N. and P. asserted that they judged “by the impression as a whole,” but N. confessed to a tendency “to emphasize the last whiff.” T. reversed the procedure of Be. and P., usually judging by “the last whiff,” but repeating the inspiration and relying on the first impression if the determination were difficult. With Rog, exhaustion often supervened in a long inspiration. If is clear that if the intensity of
- ↑ Spraying the subject's nose at the beginning of the hour might be a useful expedient, but we did not try it.
