Brain activity during intra- and cross-modal priming: new empirical data and review of the literature

Carlesimo, Turriziani, Paulesu, Gorini, Caltagirone, Fazio, Perani · Neuropsychologia · 2004 · neuroscience · 10.1016/s0028-3932(03)00148-9 · record Carlesimo2004-brain-activity-during-intra-and-cross-modal
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. method is 'pet-imaging'; the vocabulary listed in the schema offers 'fmri' but no PET value, and calling an H2-15O PET study fMRI would misdescribe it, so I coined the hyphenated value and flag it here for the controlled-vocabulary pass. Claim type is 'existence' (a dissociation between two priming conditions occurs) rather than 'mechanism' - the mechanistic reading, 'more efficient access to output lexical representations and involuntary retrieval of the recent episode', is offered by the authors as a likely interpretation, not as a tested mechanism. Note the second claim_relation: the contradiction is with the authors' OWN earlier behavioural work (Carlesimo et al., 1996) as well as Graf et al., and they explain it away via the baseline anomaly recorded in the third limitation. The paper also reports a sub-threshold BA 19 deactivation close to Badgaiyan's peak, i.e. a partial recovery of the finding it otherwise contradicts; I did not encode that as a 'replicates' relation because the effect was below the conventional threshold and the authors present it as such. Replication status is 'untested' for this paper's own novel left-fusiform finding. 2026-08-19 schema-0.3 pass: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in 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.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
meta-analysis 4 fields · repetition priming 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 4 concept tags on this paper, all 4 are grounded in a quoted sentence. All carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

repetition priming implicit memory within-modality modality The left inferior temporal/fusiform region mediates interaction between phonological and orthographic word codes, and this shared abstract code is what carries facilitation across modalities Right prefrontal increases arise from post-retrieval awareness that the generated word was recently encountered (involuntary conscious memory), not from deliberate episodic search driving the completions Left prefrontal increases reflect more efficient access to output lexical representations of recently encountered words rather than generic word-fluency demand cross-modality priming stem completion paradigm within-modality priming effect basal temporal language area involuntary conscious memory modality of stem presentation (auditory versus visual) regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) percentage of target words foil lists ANOVA three-way ANOVA F-test t-test the t statistic z-score Z score maps (SPM{Z}) general linear model the general linear model random effects analysis random effect analysis p-value correlation significant negative correlation meta-analysis a meta-analysis of the activation and de-activation patterns neuroimaging

Method, as described: pet-imaging

Legend

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

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(03)00148-9. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 4 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 1 · concepts 4 · content_tags 36 · controls 3 · limitations 3 · mechanisms 3 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 3

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 1 relation 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 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	neuroimaging Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: neuroimaging	`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. also in: The left inferior temporal/fusiform region mediates interaction between phonological and orthographic word codes, and this shared abstract code is what carries facilitation across modalities	`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. also in: Right prefrontal increases arise from post-retrieval awareness that the generated word was recently encountered (involuntary conscious memory), not from deliberate episodic search driving the completions	`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. also in: Left prefrontal increases reflect more efficient access to output lexical representations of recently encountered words rather than generic word-fluency demand	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The cross-modality parietal and temporal activations cannot be attributed a specific role because the interaction contrasts were not significant. 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	The left prefrontal activation specific to within-modality priming is only suggestive, again because the interaction failed. 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 comparability of the two priming effects may be an artefact of a chance difference in the auditory baseline completion rate. 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
controls	the 30-word stimulus sets were counterbalanced across subjects so each occurred equally often in the within- and cross-modality conditions and in the priming and baseline scans Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a condition difference is a difference between the word sets · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	condition and scan order counterbalanced across blocks and subjects in a LATIN SQUARE design Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the effect is an order effect across the scanning session · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	a postscan debriefing asked whether subjects had noticed that some stems came from the study list - and NEARLY ALL OF THEM HAD Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the priming is implicit - the control was run to establish that subjects were unaware, and it established the opposite · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): failed	`controls[2]`	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	implicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: implicit memory	`concepts[1]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	within-modality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: within-modality	`concepts[2]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	modality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: modality	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	THE ASYMMETRY IS STATED AS SETTLED BACKGROUND, AND THREE YEARS LATER IT IS AN ARTEFACT. `Quotation withheld` Written as review, not as a claim under test - which is what makes it worth tagging. lukatela2007 minimised study-test asymmetries across five experiments and found EQUAL magnitudes, with the conventional advantage returning only in a within-subjects design. Kirsner1986 reasons from the asymmetry; this record goes looking for its brain basis; lukatela2007 dissolves it. Three records, one day, none citing the others 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 NEURAL RESULT IS A DISSOCIATION IN DIRECTION, NOT JUST IN LOCATION: cross-modal priming gave a larger rCBF DECREASE in left inferior temporal and fusiform cortex - regions tied to modality-independent lexical retrieval - while `within-modality auditory priming was associated with a bilateral pattern of prefrontal rCBF increase.` Different regions and opposite signs. Whatever the behavioural asymmetry turns out to be, these two conditions are not one process running at two strengths in this data - which is a constraint that survives even if lukatela2007 is right that the behavioural difference is a design artefact 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	THE DEFINITION PUTS THE CRITERION IN THE INSTRUCTIONS, WHICH IS EASY TO READ PAST: repetition priming manifests as facilitation or a completion bias `when test instructions do not make any reference to prior events.` Not `when the subject is unaware`, not `when memory is not consciously used` - when the experimenter did not mention it. The construct is operationalised by what was said to the participant, and the 90%% discussion of this same paper concedes that `involuntary conscious memory` may occur anyway when the study context is reinstated. The definition and the caveat are in the same paper Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	0.85	the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Badgaiyan et al. (1999); Badgaiyan et al. (2001) 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	contradicts → Carlesimo, Marfia, Loasses, & Caltagirone (1996); Graf et al. (1985) 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	contradicts → Badgaiyan et al. (1999); Schacter et al. (1999) 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
claim_relations	builds-on → Buckner et al. (2000) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[3]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	repetition priming —is-a→ implicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE CLEANEST 'is-a' I HAVE CUT THIS SESSION, AND THEY ARE RARE. 'Repetition priming is a form of implicit memory' - the relation is the sentence's main verb, both endpoints are named as words, and there is no hedge to preserve. Weight 0.95. Most taxonomy in this literature has to be inferred from how terms are used together; here it is asserted directly, in an introduction, as the thing the reader is expected to already accept. also in: repetition priming · implicit memory	`concept_edges[0]`	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	F-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: F-test	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		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[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	z-score Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: z-score	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	general linear model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: general linear model	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	random effects analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: random effects analysis	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		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[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation	`content_tags.statistics[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	meta-analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: meta-analysis	`content_tags.statistics[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Auditory-to-visual cross-modality priming produced a significantly larger blood-flow decrease at the left inferior temporal/fusiform boundary than within-modality auditory priming. 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	The interaction analysis confirmed the deactivation difference was specific to the cross-modality condition in left BA 37/20. 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	Within-modality auditory priming was accompanied by bilateral prefrontal blood-flow increases. 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	Right middle frontal activation was significantly greater for within-modality than for cross-modality priming. 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	Within- and cross-modality priming effects were of comparable size behaviourally (4.4 and 3.9). 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	The magnitude of the left inferior temporal deactivation tracked each subject's behavioural cross-modality priming, tying the imaging effect to behaviour. 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	No blood-flow decrease related to within-modality priming reached the threshold used. 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	Priming size did not change across successive study-test blocks. 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	cross-modality priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cross-modality priming	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	stem completion paradigm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stem completion paradigm	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	within-modality priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: within-modality priming effect	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	basal temporal language area Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: basal temporal language area	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	involuntary conscious memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: involuntary conscious memory	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	modality of stem presentation (auditory versus visual) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: modality of stem presentation (auditory versus visual)	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF)	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	percentage of target words Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: percentage of target words	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	foil lists Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: foil lists	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Eight — number of participants scanned (male college students aged 20-27) 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	12 scans — number of PET scans per subject, three in each of the four conditions 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	360 — number of common Italian target words making up the stem-completion materials 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	6.51 per million — mean lexical frequency of the target words in Italian 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	7.7 versus 3.5 — mean number of stems completed with target words in priming versus baseline scans 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
content_tags	4.4 and 3.9 — size of the within-modality and cross-modality priming effects, which did not differ reliably Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	F = 42.2; P < 0.001 — main effect of condition (priming versus baseline) on stem completion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Z = 2.59 — sub-threshold deactivation peak in right BA 19 for within-modality auditory priming, found only in an exploratory analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Z = 2.0; P = 0.02 — strength of the correlation between left BA 37/20 deactivation and behavioural cross-modality priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[8]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located 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.