The effects of prime visibility on ERP measures of masked priming

Holcomb, Reder, Misra, Grainger · Brain research. Cognitive brain research · 2005 · neuroscience · 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.01.003 · record Holcomb2005-the-effects-of-prime-visibility-on-erp-measu
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (html); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Replication status is 'contested' on the paper's own words about the effect it reports: masked N400 priming had been found absent by Brown and Hagoort and present by Deacon and Kiefer ('As will be described below, subsequent studies have challenged the view put forth by Brown and Hagoort [ 3 ].'), and this paper both replicates the repetition effect and disputes the semantic one. method is given as 'eeg-erp' rather than the generic 'electrophysiology' because the recordings are scalp ERPs in humans, not unit recordings; the study is simultaneously a behavioural experiment (go/no-go semantic categorisation with d-prime prime-detection measures). 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.

6 quotations on this page contain a reference number where the paper printed a superscript. This journal style prints citations as raised numerals — parameters^12,13 — and the extraction flattened them into the line, so the sentence reads parameters 12 , 13 . The digits are citation markers and not part of what the author wrote. The quotes keep them for the same reason they keep every other extraction fault: a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing.

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

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 6 concept tags on this paper, all 6 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 semantic priming prime visibility conscious leakage N400 pre-activation Form information is extracted from the prime automatically while semantic extraction consumes capacity-limited attentional resources, so prime visibility gates semantic but not repetition priming Repetition priming works by pre-activating shared representations whereas semantic priming works by establishing post-target connections between related representations, the latter requiring attention The N400 indexes a resonance process at a form–meaning interface in which prime-derived form or meaning information helps the lexical processor settle on one form–meaning association masked priming prime duration repetition relatedness mean target amplitude prime–target SOA ANOVA analyses of variance (ANOVAs) mixed-design ANOVA mixed design ANOVA t-test correlation regression / coefficient of determination d-prime (signal detection sensitivity) D-prime was calculated from the proportion of hits median split a median split of their d-prime scores electrophysiology

Method, as described: eeg-erp

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/j.cogbrainres.2005.01.003. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 4 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 3 · concepts 6 · content_tags 27 · controls 2 · limitations 4 · mechanisms 3 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 5

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 3 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	masked priming and the N400 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	electrophysiology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electrophysiology	`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: Form information is extracted from the prime automatically while semantic extraction consumes capacity-limited attentional resources, so prime visibility gates semantic but not repetition priming	`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: Repetition priming works by pre-activating shared representations whereas semantic priming works by establishing post-target connections between related representations, the latter requiring attention	`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: The N400 indexes a resonance process at a form–meaning interface in which prime-derived form or meaning information helps the lexical processor settle on one form–meaning association	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The 40 ms condition is acknowledged to be partly contaminated by trials on which the prime was consciously perceived. 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	Conscious leakage can never be fully eliminated by shortening prime duration. 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 data do not show that the process the N400 reflects is itself exclusively automatic, only that it is sensitive to automatic priming. 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 columnar analysis strategy multiplies the number of statistical comparisons. 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	four participants were excluded, three for excessive artifact and one for experimenter error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the averaged waveform is dominated by a few contaminated recordings · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	response hand was counterbalanced across participants Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a lateralised effect is a motor effect of the responding hand · 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	semantic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic priming	`concepts[1]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	prime visibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime visibility	`concepts[2]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	conscious leakage Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conscious leakage	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	N400 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: N400	`concepts[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	pre-activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pre-activation	`concepts[5]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	THE DISSOCIATION IS MADE OF CORRELATIONS, NOT OF MEANS, AND THAT IS THE DESIGN. One measure (the N400), one design, two kinds of priming, and the question is whether each effect's size tracks how well the individual participant could see the prime: `unlike repetition priming in Experiment 1, for semantic priming in Experiment 2, visibility of primes at 40 ms ... predicted the N400 effect`. Individual differences are the instrument - a median split on d-prime - so the NULL in Experiment 1 is the informative half, not the weak one. It is also the paper's defence against its own worst confound: if repetition priming ran on conscious leakage, the participants who leaked more would prime more, and they do not 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	THE AUTOMATIC/CONTROLLED LINE MOVES OFF THE REPRESENTATION AND ONTO THE MECHANISM: `it is not the type of representation (form or meaning) that determines the automaticity of priming effects, but rather the type of mechanism utilized (pre-activation versus establishing connections).` The older account - form is automatic, meaning is not - would have to say the repetition effect is mostly form, and the authors call that assumption AD HOC in their own words rather than defending it. What replaces it is a distinction between raising the activation of a shared representation and building a link between two different ones, and only the second needs attention 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	THEY NAME THE RESULT THAT WOULD REFUTE THEM, which almost nothing else in this corpus does: `finding evidence of N400 priming effects on masked targets would strengthen the case for the N400 being a direct reflection of automatic processing and would force those of us who have assumed that it reflects a post-lexical stage of comprehension to rethink our position.` A named observation, a design that would produce it (mask the target instead of the prime), and the authors' own position placed at risk by it. The corpus holds many predictions; this is a stated disconfirmer 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	A SECOND, SHARPER TEST IS SPECIFIED WITH ITS DISCRIMINATING PREDICTION: translation equivalents in bilinguals (arbre-TREE). `Quotation withheld.` That separates the two accounts cleanly - a translation equivalent is semantically related but shares no form, so the form-versus-meaning account predicts it behaves like semantic priming while the pre-activation account predicts it behaves like repetition priming. The prediction is stated in the direction that would embarrass the authors' preferred story if it failed 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
senses	THIS IS THE STUDY THAT CONTROLLED WHAT Kiefer DID NOT, AND Kiefer2012 IS IN THIS CORPUS - tagged tonight, four records earlier. `Quotation withheld.` The go/no-go animal-probe task exists to hold attention on the prime epoch constant across durations, because otherwise a shorter prime is also a less-attended one and the two are confounded. So the corpus now holds Kiefer's gating account, this paper's methodological objection to the evidence for it, and both papers' own hedges Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	0.95	the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Brown and Hagoort 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 → Deacon et al. and Kiefer et al. reports of unconscious masked semantic priming 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	replicates → Misra and Holcomb; Schnyer et al. 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	extends → Misra and Holcomb 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 —contrasted-with→ semantic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER THE EFFECT TRACKS HOW WELL THE PRIME WAS SEEN. Semantic priming correlates with prime visibility across participants; repetition priming does not. Same measure, same design, so the difference is in the priming and not in the instrument - and on the authors' account it is a difference of MECHANISM (pre-activation versus establishing connections) rather than of representation · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: THE PAPER'S CENTRAL RESULT. Grounded on the sentence that states BOTH arms so a reader cannot take half of it, and the conditional 'If we further hypothesize' is left in because the correlation is the finding while the resource account is the interpretation. also in: repetition priming · semantic priming	`concept_edges[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	prime visibility —causes→ semantic priming 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: WEIGHTED 0.8 AND 'causes' IS DOING MORE WORK THAN THE DATA DO. This is a CORRELATION ACROSS PARTICIPANTS - nothing was manipulated between the people who saw more and the people who saw less - and the paper's own words are 'likely played a role', which is in the quote. The vocabulary has no 'covaries-with', so the note carries what the type cannot. No effect direction: see the comment above this edge. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but prime visibility 'LIKELY played a role' in semantic priming; causes is hedged. also in: prime visibility · semantic priming	`concept_edges[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	pre-activation —causes→ repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: THE PROPOSED MECHANISM, AND THE HEDGES ARE THE FIRST WORDS OF THE QUOTE: 'One way to avoid…'. This is the authors' preferred account offered as an alternative to one they have just called ad hoc, not a result. Weight 0.8 for that reason - it is the lowest-evidenced row on this record and the most interesting one. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says 'one way ... would be to argue' repetition priming is driven by pre-activation; causes is hedged. also in: pre-activation · repetition priming	`concept_edges[2]`	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	mixed-design ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mixed-design ANOVA	`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	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[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	regression / coefficient of determination Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regression / coefficient of determination	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	d-prime (signal detection sensitivity) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: d-prime (signal detection sensitivity)	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	median split Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: median split	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Robust N400 repetition effects were found for targets preceded by very briefly displayed masked primes. 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	For repetition priming, individual prime visibility was unrelated to the size of the N400 effect at the shortest prime duration, arguing against conscious leakage as its source. 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	For semantic priming, by contrast, prime visibility at 40 ms did predict the size of the N400 effect. 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	Direct between-experiment comparison showed repetition priming produced a larger N400 effect than semantic 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	There was no clear evidence of a repetition effect on the post-N400 late positivity, unlike earlier unmasked studies. 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 authors conclude that previously reported masked semantic priming effects were plausibly driven by conscious leakage on a subset of trials rather than by unconscious processing. 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	masked priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: masked priming	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	conscious leakage Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conscious leakage	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	prime duration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime duration	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	repetition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	relatedness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: relatedness	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	mean target amplitude Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean target amplitude	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	prime visibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime visibility	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	prime–target SOA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime–target SOA	`content_tags.variables[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	n = 22 (18 analysed) — participants recruited for Experiment 1 (four later excluded) 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	63% vs. an expected 23% — size of the 40 ms N400 repetition priming effect relative to the 120 ms effect, versus what conscious leakage alone predicts 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	42% vs. an expected 25% — same comparison for semantic priming in Experiment 2, where the gap was not significant 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	r 2 = 0.434, P = 0.006 — relationship between 40 ms prime visibility (d-prime) and the semantic N400 relatedness effect at Cz 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	18% — proportion of masked animal probes detected at 40 ms, the authors' estimate of conscious leakage 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	~1 µV (vs. ~4 µV previously) — difference in N400 repetition priming between masked and visible primes in this study compared with Misra and Holcomb 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

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.