At first it remains that an image-inversion in the sense of the Innsbruck experiment did not occur. However phenomena occurred which cannot be interpreted as rudimentary image-inversion, but include inversions. To describe these as an “image”-inversion is not encouraging.
It can be said in the conext of the experiment, that the restriction of the field of view constituted a more significant disturbance than the inverted image. A clear dominance of vision was experienced, over the other senses, which in simpler cases was easy to ignore yet in extreme cases – as with signing ones name – could only be overcome by closing ones eyes.
The adaptation or re-learning of coordination skills proceeded, although perhaps slower than expected, possibly explained by the age of the test-subject (57 years).
Perhaps not in the first days of the experiment but certainly later, the visual image was used as an orientation guide for movement, as if to a life of blindness another perception now joined. Much trouble was experienced with the recognition of faces, but for the overview of images and texts there was no need or want for a more familiar orientation.
As the experiment should not lead to statements about “movement-coordination” the presence of such is brief. Also covered only briefly are the various tests, as their evidentiary value for the instance of image-inversion seems to be low.
It can be stated that decision-making processes seemed to be disturbed by the interference of sensory perceptions. Any relation between motoric skills and altered sensual perception could not be ascertained. Instead an interference between the perception of sight and of movement was observed. The role of the sense of touch seems to be negligible.

Apparent re-inversion of eyes and mouths was observed on the ninth day, without a change in shape of the seen image. For eyes this re-inversion was observed as eyes like an overlap looking at the test-subject, as opposed to the previous
state where the eyes appeared only to be looking in the direction of the test-subject. For mouths this re-inversion was observed as the mouth appearing to undergo a similar transformation – it appeared as though a new mouth was situated on another layer. If the test-subject altered his focus he could come to recognize the previous-state image of an inverted mouth. As in the case of the eye, there was “seen” a mouth on the mouth in the new upright. It was similiar to the eyes where there was no actual change in shape merely a new more correct position felt.

With our current knowledge, to see an “image-inversion” as an entire reconstitution of the image under the terms of inversion-glasses or inverting-mirrors would be naive. The complete reconstitution of vision in the new upright would require a neural rewiring which certainly could not be done in Kohler’s specified periods and would require special circumstances for adults that would probably go beyond the wearing of reversing spectacles.