Attention and Implicit Memory: Priming-Induced Benefits and Costs Have Distinct Attentional Requirements

Keane, Cruz, Verfaellie · Memory & cognition · 2015 · cognitive-psychology · 10.3758/s13421-014-0464-4 · record Keane2015-attention-and-implicit-memory-priming-induce
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. Claim type is 'existence' because the paper's demonstrated result is a dissociation (the cost is eliminated, the benefit is not); the two-mechanism reading is stated as an inference ('Quotation withheld') and the response-competition explanation is explicitly offered only as a suggestion, so 'mechanism' would over-read it. Note also that one component of the result is a null (no attentional effect on the benefit; no cost under divided attention), so 'null-result' is a partial fit for half the finding. Experiment 2's amnesia result does not obviously square with the paper's own cited Keane et al. (2000, 2009) findings that amnesics sometimes fail to show costs, but the paper never states that as a contradiction, so no relation is recorded for it. 2026-08-17 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.

1 quote on this page breaks a word across a line. The PDF this text was extracted from hyphenated a word at the end of a printed line — adversar- ial, repre- sentations — and the extractor kept the hyphen and the space. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing: the break is the typesetter’s, not the author’s. A search of this page will not find the affected words.

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
standard deviation 3 fields · priming 2 fields · education 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.

costs benefits divided attention response competition implicit memory A lure picture activates the perceptually similar studied item as a competing incorrect response alongside the correct one, so naming requires selection among alternatives. Because only the cost involves response competition at test, only the cost depends on attention at encoding, in line with the identification-production account. priming priming-induced performance cost performance benefit identification-production distinction attention at encoding (full vs. divided) study condition mean RT corrected recognition age education WAIS-III Verbal IQ ANOVA t-test one-tailed t -tests power analysis effect size partial eta squared standard deviation z-score standardization converted RT scores to z-scores 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/10.3758/s13421-014-0464-4. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 3 · concepts 5 · content_tags 30 · controls 3 · limitations 2 · mechanisms 2 · 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 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	priming-induced performance costs and benefits in picture naming 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: A lure picture activates the perceptually similar studied item as a competing incorrect response alongside the correct one, so naming requires selection among alternatives.	`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: Because only the cost involves response competition at test, only the cost depends on attention at encoding, in line with the identification-production account.	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The small amnesic sample forced a within-subject design in Experiment 2, unlike the between-subjects design of Experiment 1. 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	Amnesic participants' longer and more variable RTs complicate the between-group comparison, requiring z-score transformation. 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
controls	three FILLER PICTURES resembling none of the critical stimuli placed at the beginning and end of the study list Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that memory for the critical items is inflated or depressed by primacy and recency · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	items counterbalanced across participants so each pair appeared equally often in the old, lure and new conditions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a condition effect is an item effect - that the old, lure and new sets simply contain different pictures · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	which member of each pair became the target and which the mate was decided at random Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the target items are systematically more memorable than their mates · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concepts	costs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: costs	`concepts[0]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	benefits Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: benefits	`concepts[1]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	divided attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: divided attention	`concepts[2]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	response competition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response competition	`concepts[3]`	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[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	PRIMING WITH THE SIGN REVERSED, and a field-level gap named in the abstract: the literature has focused EXCLUSIVELY on priming effects that are beneficial and has OVERLOOKED those that are costly, `wherein performance is harmed by prior exposure to task stimuli`. Nearly every other priming record in this corpus reports a facilitation. If `priming` is defined as an influence of prior exposure rather than as a benefit, then half the phenomenon has gone unstudied because of what the word suggests 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	cost and benefit as a SYMMETRIC PAIR of operationalisations - both are response times against the same NEW baseline, in the same task, from the same study phase: benefit = faster to OLD than to new, cost = slower to LURE than to new. Because the two share a baseline and differ only in the relation between studied and test item (identical versus merely similar), a dissociation between them cannot be explained by task or by measure 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 amnesia control, and it is chosen for the ALTERNATIVE IT KILLS. Dividing attention damages explicit memory as well, so eliminating the cost that way leaves open that the cost was explicit all along. Amnesic participants have no explicit memory to lose and the costs are INTACT - so the Experiment 1 result cannot be an artifact of reduced explicit memory. A population used as a control condition rather than as a subject of study 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	attention required WHERE A SELECTION MUST BE MADE - the paper's account of why one effect needs attention and the other does not is not about strength or depth but about whether the test cue leaves a CHOICE. The lure activates a wrong response alongside the right one; the old item points at a single correct response. Offered as a suggestion (`We suggest`, `may be linked`), and weighted here as 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	contradicts → unitary-source accounts of priming costs and benefits (Rouder, Ratcliff & McKoon, 2000; Marsolek, 2008) 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 → Gabrieli et al. (1999) on divided attention not reducing the picture-naming priming benefit 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 → Cave & Squire (1992) and Verfaellie et al. (1996) on normal picture-naming priming benefits in amnesia 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	costs —distinct-from→ benefits Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER ATTENTION AT ENCODING IS REQUIRED - dividing attention eliminates the cost and leaves the benefit intact. Same task, same study phase, same participants, so the difference cannot be attributed to materials or measure · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE RESULT. Two effects that a corpus would file under one word, separated by an experimental manipulation rather than by definition. Confidence 0.95 - this is the paper's own headline, stated in its abstract, not my reading of a discussion. also in: costs · benefits	`concept_edges[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	divided attention —causes→ costs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: eliminates · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: 'eliminated', not reduced - the paper's own word, and the vocabulary has the exact term for it. Experiment 2 is what licenses reading this as a fact about the cost rather than about explicit memory. also in: divided attention · costs	`concept_edges[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	response competition —causes→ costs 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: 0.7 · note: Weight 0.7, the lowest here, and the paper's hedges are the reason: 'We suggest', 'may be linked', 'it is likely that'. The mechanism is an interpretation offered after the result, not something the experiments manipulated. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the authors 'SUGGEST' the role of attention is linked to response competition; causes is hedged. also in: response competition · costs	`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	t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	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[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	effect size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effect size	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	partial eta squared Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: partial eta squared	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard deviation	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	z-score standardization Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: z-score standardization	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Dividing attention at encoding wiped out the priming-induced cost in speeded picture naming while leaving the priming-induced benefit untouched. 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	Amnesic patients showed a normal performance cost despite explicit memory impairment comparable to that produced by divided attention. 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	Costs and benefits in this task therefore arise from at least two separable implicit-memory mechanisms with different attentional requirements. 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	The dissociation is a problem for existing unitary-source models of priming costs and benefits (decision-node weighting and superimpositional representation accounts). 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	priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	priming-induced performance cost Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming-induced performance cost	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	performance benefit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: performance benefit	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	identification-production distinction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: identification-production distinction	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	attention at encoding (full vs. divided) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: attention at encoding (full vs. divided)	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	study condition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: study condition	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	mean RT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean RT	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	corrected recognition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: corrected recognition	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	age Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: age	`content_tags.variables[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	education Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: education	`content_tags.variables[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	WAIS-III Verbal IQ Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: WAIS-III Verbal IQ	`content_tags.variables[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	F (1, 106) = 82.44, p < .001 — overall priming benefit (old vs. new pictures) in Experiment 1 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	t (53) = 2.12, p = .02, d = .24 — the priming-induced cost, significant only under full attention (p = .12 under divided attention) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	F (1, 106) = 5.68, p = .019 — attention x study condition interaction showing the cost differed between full and divided attention 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	132 msec / 89 msec — size of the priming benefit under divided versus full attention (numerically larger under divided attention) 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	t (22) = 5.09, p < .001, d = 2.16 — impairment of corrected recognition in the amnesic group relative to controls in Experiment 2 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	F (1, 24) = 4.22, p = .051 — the performance cost in Experiment 2, which did not differ between amnesic and control groups 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	54 — participants per attention group in the Experiment 1 implicit memory task 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	11 — amnesic participants tested in Experiment 2 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

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.