The emotional valence and features of subliminal priming images impact conscious perception of face expressions

Huang, Rana, Vaina · bioRxiv · 2018 · cognitive-psychology · 10.1101/255489 · record Huang2018-the-emotional-valence-and-features-of-sublim
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. bioRxiv preprint, not peer reviewed at time of posting. Claim type is 'existence' because the headline result is that a class of prime (face-containing) produces an impairment, not an account of why. The paper offers a mechanistic speculation about egocentric primes engaging action preparation, but phrases it as a suggestion, so I did not tag it as 'mechanism'. The only stated self-limitation is the scope restriction implied by the planned extension; the paper reports no other explicit caveats (no discussion of the small target-face set, the single 16 ms SOA, or the lack of an objective prime-visibility check beyond self-report), so the limitations array carries just one entry. The paper also states agreement with Klinger/Neumann/Otten congruency-effect studies, but that sentence bundles its own novel qualification, so I kept the three cleanest relations. 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.

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.

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.

subliminal priming affective primacy centricity egocentric faces in the prime are processed preferentially, and the perceived prime face then competes with and interferes with perception of the target face a face in the prime sets up an expectation of an emotionally charged target, which speeds and biases the response toward 'angry' an egocentric vantage-point recruits action-preparation processes, which lower the priority given to affect processing and so degrade angry-face recognition congruency effect affective primacy hypothesis SAFFIMAP test presence or absence of a face in the priming image percent correct subject variability generalized linear mixed model General Linear Mixture Model (GLMM) Wilcoxon signed-rank test Wilcoxon Signed-Rank (WSR) Test false discovery rate correction power analysis a priori power analysis using G*Power F-test standard error behavioural-experiment

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/10.1101/255489. 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 4 · content_tags 26 · controls 1 · limitations 1 · mechanisms 3 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 4

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	subliminal affective priming of facial expression perception 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. also in: faces in the prime are processed preferentially, and the perceived prime face then competes with and interferes with perception of the target face	`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: a face in the prime sets up an expectation of an emotionally charged target, which speeds and biases the response toward 'angry'	`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. status: the paper's own words: we suggest that also in: an egocentric vantage-point recruits action-preparation processes, which lower the priority given to affect processing and so degrade angry-face recognition	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The design cannot separate the emotion of the depicted scene from the emotion of the facial expression within the prime; the authors state they will add further prime dimensions to do so. 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
controls	prime and mask both subtending 12.5 by 12.5 degrees and presented at the same central location Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a size or position difference between prime and mask, which would make the masking incomplete in a way that varies with the stimulus · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
concepts	subliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal priming	`concepts[0]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	affective primacy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: affective primacy	`concepts[1]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	centricity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: centricity	`concepts[2]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	egocentric Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: egocentric	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	A NAMED HYPOTHESIS GIVEN A BOUNDARY CONDITION RATHER THAN A VERDICT: `the affective primacy hypothesis which predicts that affective information can be accessed automatically, preceding conscious cognition, holds true in subliminal priming only when the priming image contains a face.` Not confirmed, not refuted - restricted. And the condition is a property of the STIMULUS, where the ambiguity condition is a property of the outcome situation and Holcomb2005's is a property of the observer. Three different places a priming effect can be conditional, and a corpus that records only `X primes Y` loses all three 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 PRIME MAKES THE TASK HARDER, WHICH IS THE CASE THE STANDARD DEFINITION EXCLUDES. `subliminally priming with a face-containing image significantly impairs the subjects' ability to perceive the emotional expression of the target-face.` Minton2017 quotes McNamara defining priming as `an IMPROVEMENT in performance` and then strikes the word out, because `priming can also involve a change in performance that is neutral or results in POORER performance`. This record is the counterexample that correction needed - a real interference effect, in a different literature, from a paper that never mentions the definitional dispute 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	IT CONTRADICTS A NAMED STUDY AND SAYS SO PLAINLY: `Quotation withheld.` And it offers the reconciling detail rather than leaving the disagreement bare - `the emotional expression of a face in a prime can be processed, at least partially, during a 16 ms exposure`. A null and a positive on the same manipulation, with an exposure duration between them 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 CONGRUENCY EFFECT IS ITSELF CONDITIONAL, WHICH IS THE SECOND `only when` IN ONE PAPER: `we found that specifically the incongruency of the pleasant prime and the angry expression of the target-face lead to worse performance ... Quotation withheld.` So the paper reports an affective congruency effect, agrees it is the known one, and then restricts it - twice qualifying a borrowed finding rather than claiming a new one 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	extends → Vaina, Rana, Cotos Cheng, Huang, & Podea (2014) preliminary study of affective subliminal priming in schizophrenic subjects 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 → Andrews, Lipp, Malan, & Könjg (2011) 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 → Kemps, Erauw, and Vandierendock (1996) 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	egocentric —causes→ subliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: NO effect direction. Vantage-point is a two-level CATEGORY (egocentric or allocentric), not a quantity, so 'increases' and 'reduces' are both meaningless - what the paper reports is that the two levels DIFFER, and in which direction for which target. And what this edge cannot carry is the sharpest part: the centricity effect holds 'REGARDLESS of whether…', which makes it the one route here that does NOT need the affective content. That sentence never says 'subliminal priming', so it is on the 'centricity' concept row instead. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says vantage point impacts the priming effect; 'egocentric causes subliminal priming' drops the effect. also in: egocentric · subliminal priming	`concept_edges[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
content_tags	generalized linear mixed model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: generalized linear mixed model	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Wilcoxon signed-rank test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon signed-rank test	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	false discovery rate correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: false discovery rate correction	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	power analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: power analysis	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		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. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: F-test	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	standard error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Priming images that contained a face impaired subsequent identification of the target face's expression relative to primes without a face. 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	Pleasant primes containing a face selectively damaged recognition of angry target-face expressions. 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	After an egocentric prime, neutral target expressions were recognised significantly better than angry ones. 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	Among face-containing primes, neutral ones produced better target-face performance than either aggressive or pleasant ones. 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 authors conclude that the affective primacy hypothesis survives in subliminal priming only in the special case where the prime image contains a face. 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 face-versus-non-face prime difference reached significance only for aggressive prime content. 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	congruency effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: congruency effect	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	affective primacy hypothesis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: affective primacy hypothesis	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	SAFFIMAP test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SAFFIMAP test	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	centricity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: centricity	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	presence or absence of a face in the priming image Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: presence or absence of a face in the priming image	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	centricity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: centricity	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	percent correct Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: percent correct	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	subject variability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subject variability	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	16 ms — exposure duration of the subliminal prime image, followed by a 100 ms mask 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	Thirty-three subjects — number of participants, with their sex split and mean age 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	120 trials — total number of trials in the SAFFIMAP test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	74.20% vs 78.00% — mean accuracy on target-face evaluation after face primes versus non-face primes 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	73.4% vs 81.0% — mean accuracy after aggressive primes with a face versus aggressive primes without a face 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	81.64% vs 77.31% — mean accuracy on neutral target faces after egocentric versus allocentric primes 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.