Repetition priming and repetition suppression: Multiple mechanisms in need of testing

Gotts, Chow, Martin · Cognitive Neuroscience · 2012 · neuroscience · record Gotts2012-repetition-priming-and-repetition-suppressio
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (xml); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. A theoretical Discussion Paper: the method facet records 'review' even though the paper also reports preliminary ECoG data from two epilepsy patients and formulates new predictions. Claim type is 'mechanism' because the paper's positive contribution is an account of why priming and suppression co-occur (enhanced synchronization); its rejection of the Facilitation model is captured as a 'contradicts' relation rather than as the paper's claim shape. Replication status is 'untested' for the synchrony proposal itself; the paper's own preliminary data are recorded separately as a replication of Gilbert et al. (2010). 2026-08-19 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: 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.

This record’s own method is review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. No tag on this page names a different author. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

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
repetition priming 2 fields · coherence 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 5 concept tags on this paper, all 5 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 repetition suppression Sharpening neural synchronization processing efficiency Repetition makes task-engaged cells fire more synchronously even as their average rates fall, so processing becomes more efficient and behaviour improves despite reduced activity. Coincident input spikes sum on the receiving cell's membrane before the depolarization decays, so synchronous inputs cross spike threshold more reliably than the same number of asynchronous inputs. In the Bayesian alternative, learned top-down predictions inhibit the bottom-up sensory evidence, so the residual prediction error - and hence the measured activity - shrinks with repetition. Facilitation model explaining away stimulus repetition low-frequency evoked power phase-locking coherence phase-locking (LFP-LFP coherence) review

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 its publisher. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 1 · concepts 5 · content_tags 18 · controls 2 · 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	mechanism 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 and repetition suppression 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	review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review	`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: Repetition makes task-engaged cells fire more synchronously even as their average rates fall, so processing becomes more efficient and behaviour improves despite reduced activity.	`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: Coincident input spikes sum on the receiving cell's membrane before the depolarization decays, so synchronous inputs cross spike threshold more reliably than the same number of asynchronous inputs.	`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: In the Bayesian alternative, learned top-down predictions inhibit the bottom-up sensory evidence, so the residual prediction error - and hence the measured activity - shrinks with repetition.	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The favoured synchrony account has been evaluated empirically in very few studies. 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	Neither of the two surviving models has been subjected to a full set of experimental tests. 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	How long-term plasticity would link activity decreases to changes in synchrony is unclear. 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	a CONTROL CONDITION against which spike-LFP coherence in the gamma range was compared Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the synchronisation change is a general property of the recording rather than an effect of stimulus repetition · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	the extreme form of the Explaining Away account was tested against the observed pattern Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that ALL repetition suppression is high-level repetition expectation - the extreme version predicts a pattern the data do not show · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[1]`	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	repetition suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition suppression	`concepts[1]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	Sharpening Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Sharpening	`concepts[2]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	neural synchronization Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: neural synchronization	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	processing efficiency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: processing efficiency	`concepts[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	THE PARADOX IN ONE SENTENCE, and it is a SIGN CONFLICT between two measures of one event: `Stimulus repetition in identification tasks leads to IMPROVED behavioral performance (repetition priming) but ATTENUATED neural responses (repetition suppression).` Behaviour gets better while the brain does less. Every mechanism in this paper exists to make those two facts one fact, and a corpus that recorded only `repetition improves performance` would lose the half that makes it interesting 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	FOUR ACCOUNTS OF ONE RELATIONSHIP, and the review's job is to keep them separate rather than to pick: FACILITATION (activity advanced in time - refuted for the typical case by single-cell recording, which finds firing curves to repeated stimuli SUBSUMED UNDER those to novel ones), SHARPENING (the poorly tuned cells drop out), SYNCHRONY (lower rates, tighter timing), and EXPLAINING AWAY (the Bayesian form of facilitation). Everyone agrees on improved efficiency; `the exact form that it takes remains elusive` 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	A REVIEW WHOSE VERDICT ON ITS OWN FAVOURITE IS A GAP: `Quotation withheld` The title says the same - `Multiple mechanisms IN NEED OF TESTING`. The contribution is an inventory of untested explanations, and the paper is explicit that its preferred one is preferred on promise rather than on evidence 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
claim_relations	contradicts → the Facilitation model (Henson, 2003; James et al., 2000) 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	replicates → Gilbert et al. (2010) 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	builds-on → Gotts (2003) neocortical circuit model 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 —contrasted-with→ repetition suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE DIRECTION EACH MOVES ON THE SAME EVENT - repetition IMPROVES the behavioural measure and ATTENUATES the neural one. Not two phenomena but two readings of one, pointing opposite ways, which is the puzzle the paper's four mechanisms exist to dissolve · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE RECORD'S REASON FOR EXISTING. 'contrasted-with' rather than 'distinct-from': the paper is not separating two things, it is insisting they are one thing measured twice and asking why the signs disagree. also in: repetition priming · repetition suppression	`concept_edges[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
content_tags	coherence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: coherence	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Of the four candidate accounts reviewed, only the Facilitation model is judged definitively ruled out by existing data. 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 authors judge the enhanced-synchronization account the most promising of the surviving proposals. 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	In their model, spike synchronization increased as firing rates decreased with repetition. 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	Their preliminary intracranial EEG study in two surgical patients found behavioural priming together with increased low-frequency evoked power at essentially every task-engaged electrode. 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	The same intracranial recordings showed increased fronto-temporal phase-locking with repetition, in alpha and low beta bands. 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	They propose that the processes producing synchronization and those producing activity decreases may be partly separate, which would explain reported dissociations between repetition suppression and priming. 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	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	repetition suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition suppression	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Facilitation model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Facilitation model	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Sharpening Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Sharpening	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	explaining away Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explaining away	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	stimulus repetition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stimulus repetition	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	low-frequency evoked power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: low-frequency evoked power	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	phase-locking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: phase-locking	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	two patients — number of epilepsy surgery patients in the authors' own preliminary electrocorticography study of object naming 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	1–15 Hz — frequency band in which evoked power increased with stimulus repetition in their intracranial recordings 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	8–12 Hz and 12–18 Hz — alpha and low-beta bands in which fronto-temporal phase-locking increased with repetition in their intracranial recordings 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

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.