Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T01:47:54.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Is a Tachistoscope? Historical Explorations of an Instrument

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Ruth Benschop
Ruth Benschop
Affiliation:
Theory and History of Psychology, University of Groningen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay addresses the historiographical question of how to study scientific instruments and the connections between them without rigidly determining the boundaries of the object under historical scrutiny beforehand. To do this, I will explore an episode in the early history of the tachistoscope — defined, among other things, as an instrument for the brief exposure of visual stimuli in experimental psychology. After looking at the tachistoscope described by physiologist Volkmann in 1859, I will turn to the gravity chronometer, constructed by Cattell at Wundt's Leipzig institute of psychology in the 1880s. Taking Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblances as a methodological suggestion to travel from one member to another to find out just how members relate to one another, I will investigate part of the family to which both the tachistoscope and the gravity chronometer turn out to belong. A detailed analysis of these instruments, using both historical sources and historical accounts of psychological instruments, may demonstrate that the instrument is not a standard package that, if well applied, will simply secure good results. Each package needs to be assembled again and again; the particular package that is assembled may differ on different occasions. Thus an alternative is developed to an understanding of instruments as univocally functioning material means.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Spring 1998 , pp. 23 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albert, D., and Gundlach, H. 1997. Apparative psychologie: Geschichtliche Entwicklung und gegenwädrtige Bedeutung. Lengerich: Pabst.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. G. W., Bennett, J. A., and Ryan, W. F., eds. 1993. Making Instruments Count: Essays on Historical Scientific Instruments Presented to Gerard L'Estrange Turner. Aldershot, Hampshire: Varorium.Google Scholar
Ash, M. 1995. Gestalt Psychology in German Culture, 1890–1967. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bechner, E. 1904. “Experimentelle und kritische Beiträge sur psychologie des Lesens bei kurzen Expositionszeiten.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane 36:19–73.Google Scholar
Benschop, R., and Draaisma, D.. 1997–1998. “Omwille van de precisie.” Feit en Fictie 3(4):69–89.Google Scholar
Bijker, W. E. 1995. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Towards a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boring, E. G. [1950] 1957. A History of Experimental Psychology. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Brickenkamp, R. 1986. Handbuch apparativer Verfahren in der Psychologie. Göttingen: Verlag der Psychologie — C. J. Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Bringmann, W. G., Lück, H. E., Miller, R., and Early, C. E., eds. 1997. A Pictorial History of Psychology. Chicago: Quintessence Books.Google Scholar
Bringmann, W. G., and Tweney, R. D., eds. 1980. Wundt Studies. A Centennial Collection. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Brown, C., Hagoort, P., and Meijering, T., eds. 1989. Vensters op de Geest: Cognitie of het snijvlak van Filosofie en Psychologie. Utrecht: Grafiet.Google Scholar
Brugmans, H.J.F.W., Jonkman, W. F., and Woldendorp, J. J.. 1923. “Een Onderzoek betreffende de Opmerkzaamheid in verband met het Schooloor-deel.” Mededeelingen van de Dr. D. Bos-stichting 7:2–26.Google Scholar
Bud, R., and Cozzens, S. E., eds. 1992. Invisible Connections: Instruments, Institutions, and Science. Bellingham, Wash.: SPIE.Google Scholar
Cattell, J. McK. 1886a. “The Inertia of the Eye and Brain.” Brain: A Journal of Neurology 8:295–312.Google Scholar
Cattell, J. McK. 1886b. “The Influence of the Intensity of the Stimulus on the Length of the Reaction Time.” Brain: A Journal of Neurology 8:512–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, J. McK. 1886c. “The Time Taken Up by Cerebral Operations.” Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 11:220–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, J. McK. 1892. “Reaction.” The American Journal of Psychology 4:596–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, J. McK. 1894. “Chronoskop und Chronograph.” Philosophische Studien 9:307–10.Google Scholar
Cattell, J. McK., and Dolley, C. S. 1895. “On Reaction-Times and the Velocity of the Nervous Impulse.” Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences 7:393–415.Google Scholar
Caudle, F. M. 1983. “The Developing Technology of Apparatus in Psychology's Early Laboratories.” In Dauben and Sexton, 1983 19–55.Google Scholar
Chou, S. K. 1929. “Reaction-Keys and a New Technique for Reading-Reactions.” The American Journal of Psychology 41:469–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, A. E., and Fujimura, J. H., eds. 1992. The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleary, A. 1977. Instrumentation for Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Danziger, K. 1990a. Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziger, K. 1990b. “Wilhelm Wundt and the Emergence of Experimental Psychology.” In Olby et al. 1990, 396–409.Google Scholar
Daston, L. 1992. “Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective.” Social Studies of Science 22:597–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, L., and Galison, P.. 1992. “The Image of Objectivity.” Representations 40:81–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauben, J. W., and Sexton, V. S., eds. 1983. History and Philosophy of Science: Selected Papers. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Davis, R. C. 1970. “The Laboratory Instruments Exhibit of the Archives of the History of American Psychology.” Technology and Culture 11:604–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Clercq, P. R., ed. 1985. Nineteenth-Century Scientific Instruments and Their Makers: Papers Presented at the Fourth Scientific Instrument Symposium, Amsterdam 23–26 October 1984. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehue, T. 1995a. Changing the Rules: Psychology in the Netherlands, 1900–1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dehue, T. 1995b. “The ‘Label Criterion’ in the Historiography of Scientific Disciplines: The Case of Clinical Psychology in the Netherlands.” In Stachowski and Pankalla 1995, 42–49.Google Scholar
Dehue, T. 1997. “Deception, Efficiency, and Random Groups.” Isis 88:653–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dodge, R. 1907. “An Improved Exposure Apparatus.” Psychological Bulletin 4:10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doenias, J. M., Langland, S. E., and Reisberg, D.. 1992. “A Versatile, User-Friendly Tachistoscope for the Macintosh.” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 24(3):434–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draaisma, D. 1989. “De Chronometrie van de Geest.” In Brown et al. 1989, 22–48.Google Scholar
Draaisma, D.., ed. 1992. Een Laboratorium voor de Ziel: Gerard Heymans en het Begin van de experimentele Psychologie. Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij & Universiteitsmuseum.Google Scholar
Edgell, B., and Symes, W. L.. 1906. “The Wheatstone-Hipp Chronoscope: Its Adjustments, Accuracy, and Control.” British Journalof Psychology 2:58–88.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. 1990a. Learning, Working and Imagining. Helsinki: Orienta- Konsulit Oy.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. 1990b. “When Is a Tool? Multiple Meanings of Artifacts in Human Activity.” In Engeström 1990a, 171–91.Google Scholar
Erdmann, B., and Dodge, R.. 1898. Psychologische Untersuchungen über das Lesen. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Erdmann, B. 1900. “Zur Erläuterung unserer tachistoscopischen Versuche.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane 22:241–67.Google Scholar
Fick, A. 1863. “Ueber den zeitlichen Verlauf der Erregung in der Netzhaut.” Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie und Wissenschaftliche Medicin: 739–64.Google Scholar
Finzi, J. 1901. “Zur Untersuchung der Auffassungsfähigkeit und Merkfähigkeit.” Psychologische Arbeiten herausgegeben von Emil Kraepelin 3:298–384.Google Scholar
Galison, P. 1987. How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galton, F. 1883. “Instrument für Augenblicks-Beobachtungen.” Zeitschrift für Instrumentenkunde: 34.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. 1966. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. 1992. “Discovery in Cognitive Psychology: New Tools Inspire New Theories.” Science in Context 5:329–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooding, D., Pinch, T., and Schaffer, S., eds. 1989. The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, H. 1867. Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik. Leipzig: Leopold Voss.Google Scholar
Holmes, F. L., and Olesko, K. M..1995. “The Images of Precision: Helmholtz and the Graphical Method in Physiology.” In Wise 1995, 198–221.Google Scholar
Hornstein, G. A. 1988. “Quantifying Psychological Phenomena: Debates, Dilemmas, and Implications.” In Morawski 1988, 1–34.Google Scholar
Huey, E. B. [1908] 1968. The Psychology and Paedagogy of Reading. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, D. [1925] 1989. The World of Touch. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Krüger, L., Daston, L. J., and Heidelberger, M., eds. 1987. The Probabilistic Revolution. Volume 1: Ideas in History. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krüger, L., Gigerenzer, G., and Morgan, M. S., eds. 1987. The Probabilistic Revolution. Volume 2: Ideas in the Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lenoir, T. 1994. “Helmholtz and the Materialities of Communication.” Osiris 9:185–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Löwy, I., ed. 1993. Medicine and Change: Historical and Sociological Studies of Medical Innovation. Paris: Les Editions INSERM.Google Scholar
Mol, A. 1993. “What Is New? Doppler and Its Others: An Empirical Philosophy of Innovations.” In Löwy 1993, 107–25.Google Scholar
Morawski, J. G., ed. 1988. The Rise of Experimentation in American Psychology. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Olby, R. C., Cantor, G. N., Christie, J. R. R., and Hodge, M. J. S., eds. 1990. Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pillsbury, W. B. 1897. “A Study in Apperception.” The American Journal of Psychology 8:315–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popplestone, J. A. 1987. “The Legacy of Memory in Apparatus and Methodology.” In Traxel 1987, 203–15.Google Scholar
Popplestone, J. A., and McPherson, M. W.. 1971. “Prolegomenon to the Study of Apparatus in Early Psychological Laboratories circa 1875–1915.” American Psychologist 26:656–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popplestone, J. A., and McPherson, M. W.. 1980. “The Vitality of the Leipzig Model of 1880–1910 in the United States in 1950–1980.” In Bringmann and Tweney 1980, 226–57.Google Scholar
Porter, T. M. 1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Prinzmetal, W. 1992. “The Word-Superiority Effect Does Not Require a T-scope.” Perception & Psychophysics 51:473–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prinzmetal, W., and Silvers, B.. 1994. “The Word without the Tachistoscope.” Perception & Psychophysics 55:296–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, L. 1991. “A Word and the World: The Significance of Naming the Calorimeter.” Isis 82:198–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, E. C. 1888. “The Relative Legibility of the Small Letters.” The American Journal of Psychology 1:402–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, E. C. 1891. –A Simple and Inexpensive Chronoscope.— The American Journal of Psychology 3:174–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, S., 1988. “Astronomers Mark Time: Discipline and the Personal Equation.” Science in Context 2(1): 115–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheerer, E. 1981. “Early German Approaches to Experimental Reading Research: The Contributions of Wilhelm Wundt and Ernst Meumann.” Psychological Review 43:111–30.Google Scholar
Schumann, F. 1899. “Demonstrationen im psychologischen Institut.” Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 1:96–100.Google Scholar
Schumann, F. 1904. “Die Erkennung von Buchstaben und Worten bei momentaner Beleuchtung,” with discussion. Bericht über den 1. Kongress für experimentelle Psychologie:34–40.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. 1989. “The Invisible Technician.” American Scientist 77:554–63.Google Scholar
Shapin, S., and Schaffer, S. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sidowski, J. B., ed. 1966. Experimental Methods and Instrumentation in Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sokal, M. M., ed. 1981. An Education in Psychology: James McKeen Cattell's Journal and Letters from Germany and England, 1880–1888. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sokal, M. M., Davis, A. B., and Merzbach, U. C.. 1976. “Laboratory Instruments in the History of Psychology.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 12:59–64.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stachowski, R., and Pankalla, A., eds. 1995. Studies in the History of Psychology and the Social Sciences: Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference of Cheiron-Europe.Google Scholar
Swijtink, Z. G. 1987. “The Objectification of Observation: Measurement and Statistical Methods in the Nineteenth Century.” In Krüger et al. 1987, 261–85.Google Scholar
Tigerstedt, R., and Bergqvist, J.. 1883. “Zur Kenntnis der Apperceptionsdauer zusammengesetzter Gesichtsvorstellungen.” Zeitschrift für Biologie:5–44.Google Scholar
Traxel, W.., ed. 1987. Ebbinghaus-Studien 2. Passau: Passavia Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Traxel, W., Gundlach, H., and Zschuppe, U.. 1986. “Zur Geschichte der appartiven Hilfsmittel der Psychologie.” In Brickenkamp 1986, 1–22.Google Scholar
Turner, R. S. 1982. “Helmholtz, Sensory Physiology, and the Disciplinary Development of German Psychology” In Woodward and M.G Ash. 1982, 147–66.Google Scholar
Turner, R. S. 1994. In the Eye's Mind: Vision and the Helmholtz-Hering Controversy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Helden, A., and Hankins, T. L., eds. 1994. Osiris 9: Special Issue on Instruments.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkmann, A. W. 1859a. “Die stereoskopischen Erscheinungen in ihrer Beziehung zu der Lehre von den identischen Netzhautpunkten.” Archivfür Opthalmologie 5(2): 1–100.Google Scholar
Volkmann, A. W. 1859b. “Das Tachistoskop….” Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, MathematischPhysische Classe 11:90–98.Google Scholar
Warner, D. J. 1990. “What Is a Scientific Instrument, When Did It Become One, and Why? Essay Review.” British Journal for the History of Science 23:83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whipple, G. M. 1910. Manual of Mental and Physical Tests. Baltimore: Warwick & York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wirth, W. 1902. “Zur Theorie des Bewusstseinsumfanges und seiner Messung.” Philosophische Studien 20 (Festschrift):487–669.Google Scholar
Wirth, W. 1903. “Das Spiegeltachistoskop.” Philosophische Studien 18:686–700.Google Scholar
Wise, M. N., ed. 1995. The Values of Precision. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1958. Preliminary Studies for the “Philosophical Investigations” Generally Known as The Blue and Brown Books. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. [1953] 1976. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Woodward, W. R. 1982. “Wundt's Program for the New Psychology: Vicissitudes of Experiment, Theory, and System.” In woodward and Ash 1982, 167–97.Google Scholar
Woodward, W. R., and Ash, M. G., eds. 1982. The Problematic Science: Psychology in Nineteenth-Century Thought. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Woodworth, R. S. 1938. Experimental Psychology. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. 1874. Grundzüge der Physiologischen Psychologie. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. 1893. “Chronograph und Chronoskop.” Philosophische Studien 8:653–54.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. 1894. “Bemerkungen zu vorstehendem Aufsatze.” Philosophische Studien 9:311–15.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. 1900a. “Zur Kritik tachistoskopischer Versuche.” Philosophische Studien 15:287–317.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. 1900b. “Zur Kritik tachistoskopischer Versuche.” Philosophische Studien 16:61–70.Google Scholar
Zeitle, J. 1900. “Tachistoskopische Untersuchungen über das Lesen.” Philosophische Studien 16:380–464.Google Scholar