Using a numerical estimation procedure, subjects judged the perceived distance between pairs of brief electrical stimuli presented over different physical distances, on different body regions, and in different spatial orientations. The skin turns out to be anisotropic, with the same physical separation between electrodes appearing greater on the forehead than on the forearm, greater on the forearm than on the abdomen. Perceived distance also depends on the orientation and, to some extent, on the time relation between the two electrical pulses. Under all conditions, the perceived distance between electrical stimuli was "compressed" as compared with visual distance. These results bear on the design of devices that attempt to transmit information by electrical stimulation of the skin.Having evaluated, in the previous paper of this series (Girvin, Marks, Antunes, Quest, O'Keefe, Ning, & Dobelle, 1982), how several properties of the stimulus influence absolute sensitivity to electrocutaneous stimulation, the specific aim of the experiments reported here is to determine the skin's capacity to represent spatial information. In essence, this study asks: How accurately and how reliably can one perceive the distance between two brief electrical pulses presented in various parts of the body?It has long been known that the skin is not isotropic in its response to mechanical stimulation. More than a century ago, E. H. Weber (1834) observed that the distance between two points touched on the skin seemed greater in some parts of the body (e.g., the face) than in others (e.g., the trunk), and greater when the points were oriented in certain directions (e.g., transversely) than in others (longitudinally). In terms of the two-point threshold, measurements by others (Vierordt, 1869;Weinstein, 1968) conform to Weber's own observations, although, to be sure, two-point thresholds provide