standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | repetition priming of face recognition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Exposure duration and frequency for poster faces were uncontrolled, so absolute priming magnitudes for poster versus lab faces are not directly comparable. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Experiment 3 could not counterbalance items across conditions, leaving only four items per cell and an underpowered items analysis. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The poster-versus-lab comparison in Experiment 1 was severely underpowered. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The contextual manipulation used cues known to matter for unfamiliar-face memory, but may not have changed the functional context relevant to identifying familiar faces. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | the test list mixed primed faces with unprimed famous faces, unfamiliar faces and six additional familiar filler items Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the priming effect is recognition of fame or familiarity rather than the priming exposure · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition priming | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | explicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explicit memory | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | episodic memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: episodic memory | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | context Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: context | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE PRIME WAS NOT ADMINISTERED - IT WAS A POSTER IN A CORRIDOR. Faces on subject recruitment advertisements primed laboratory face recognition, `even when the advertisements make no specific mention of experiments involving face recognition` and even when subjects `were not obliged to look at them`. This is the only record in the corpus where the exposure happened outside the experiment: dijksterhuis1998 doses by duration, Schmidt2009 by the prime-target gap, bargh1996 by a scrambled-sentence task, and every one of them is delivered by an experimenter to someone who has already consented. Here it happened to people who did not yet know they were in a study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND THE DISSOCIATION IS IN THE DERIVATIVE, NOT THE LEVEL, WHICH IS A SHARPER CLAIM: `there is little evidence that repeated or extended exposure to items influences repetition priming at all ..., whereas it is clear that increase in exposure duration and/or frequency does affect explicit memory for the items.` More exposure buys explicit memory and buys priming nothing. Two systems that differ in whether they respond to MORE, rather than in whether they respond - which cannot be explained by one measure being less sensitive, the objection that sinks a difference in means Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND THE THEORETICAL GAP IS NAMED AND LEFT OPEN: `Quotation withheld.` They say what their own result does to the account they favour, and stop. Second record running to decline to close its own gap - hesselmann2016 reports its surviving effect as `difficult to reconcile` with the obvious model. A corpus that only held resolved claims would hold neither, and the unresolved version is what a later paper actually picks up Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND THE CAREFUL CONCLUSION IS CAREFUL IN A SPECIFIC DIRECTION: `Quotation withheld.` A negative claim about what the effect is NOT bound to, rather than a positive claim about what carries it. `What we can say, however` is the authors marking the edge of their evidence inside the sentence that states it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | replicates → Bruce (1982) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Flude (1993) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Burton et al.'s (1990) interactive activation account Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | repetition priming —distinct-from→ explicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: THE DISSOCIATION IS IN HOW THEY RESPOND TO DOSE, AND THAT IS WHY IT IS STRONG. Not 'priming is smaller than explicit memory' - a difference in means, always answerable with a sensitivity argument - but 'more exposure moves one and not the other'. The quote carries both halves and the 'whereas'. Weight 0.9 rather than 0.95: the claim is attributed to Roediger & McDermott's 1993 review inside the sentence, so it is the literature's finding that this paper builds on, not this paper's measurement. also in: repetition priming · explicit memory | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | repetition priming —contrasted-with→ episodic memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: A DESIGN SENTENCE, AND IT IS DELIBERATELY THE GROUNDING FOR THIS EDGE. The two memories are contrasted here by being measured on split halves of the same subject pool from the same poster exposure - which is what makes the later finding (episodic memory weak, priming present) a dissociation rather than a comparison across studies. Weight 0.8: the quote establishes the contrast operationally and not its outcome; the outcome is in the senses and in the record's findings.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but half the subjects did the repetition-priming experiment and half the episodic-memory test; contrasted-with is loose. also in: repetition priming · episodic memory | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | statistical power / effect size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical power / effect size | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | confidence interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THIS QUOTE - the page number '508' at its end. The sentence before it is printed twice in the paper (two figure legends), so the number stays to keep the quote unique; read the quote without it. also in: confidence interval | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Faces first encountered on subject-recruitment posters outside the laboratory produced measurable repetition priming of laboratory familiarity decisions, even when the poster never mentioned face recognition. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Poster priming was reliable across all four experiments but smaller in magnitude than priming from faces seen in the laboratory. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Priming occurred even when the poster faces were seen incidentally and participants were not required to look at them. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Changing the pictured exemplar between prime and test reduced priming by about the same amount in the poster and laboratory conditions, so exemplar change and context change acted additively rather than interactively. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Changing the background colour behind the face between prime and test had no detectable effect on the size of the priming effect. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Explicit episodic memory for the poster faces was very poor: they neither interfered as distractors nor were recognised at anything like the rate of laboratory faces. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The authors conclude that face priming does not require reinstating the environmental context of the priming episode, since medium, venue, experimenter presence and task all differed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | A methodological consequence drawn is that researchers testing famous-face recognition must screen out participants who saw those faces in any earlier, apparently unrelated study. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition priming | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | episodic account of priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: episodic account of priming | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | structural models of repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | context Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: context | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | background color Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: background color | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | wording on the posters Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: wording on the posters | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | place of priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: place of priming | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | exemplar Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: exemplar | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 622 msec / 611 msec / 737 msec — Experiment 1 mean familiarity-decision times for poster-primed, lab-primed and unprimed famous faces Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 773 msec / 678 msec / 822 msec — Experiment 2 mean response times for incidentally poster-primed, lab-primed and unprimed faces, showing significant but weaker poster priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | F(l,46) = l7.45, p < .001 — Experiment 3 effect of same versus different pictorial exemplar on the amount of priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 51% — Proportion of poster faces that participants recognised as previously seen in the direct test of episodic memory, against 95% for lab faces Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 95% / 33% / 15% — Replication hit rates for lab faces and poster faces plus the false-positive rate, confirming very weak explicit memory for poster faces Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.