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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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.| 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 |
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 2 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 | repetition priming between pictures and printed words 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. | 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. | 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. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Equal relative-priming values do not entail that the same underlying processes are involved in each stimulus-class combination. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The strategy-insensitivity result rests on a single dissociation and inherits its inferential weakness. 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 account cannot explain the observed variability in relative priming across experiments and experimenters. 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 estimated picture-word priming value may hold only when pictures are treated as linguistic objects; treated as pictures, priming may vanish. 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 | a PEST staircase (Parameter Estimation by Sequential Testing) held every subject at approximately the same level of difficulty Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a group difference is a difference in task difficulty rather than in priming · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the item subsets were counterbalanced across subjects so each appeared equally often under each of the three priming treatments Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a treatment effect is an item-subset effect · 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 | word identification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: word identification | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | episodic recognition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: episodic recognition | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | memory trace Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: memory trace | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | A REVERSAL BETWEEN TWO TASKS ON THE SAME MATERIAL, WHICH IS WHY DIFFICULTY CANNOT EXPLAIN IT: `Intramodal performance was superior in word identification, Quotation withheld.` Word-word beats picture-word when the task is identification; picture-word beats word-word when the task is recognition. The sign flips, so no account in which one condition is simply weaker can survive - the same structural move as Finkbeiner2011's colour-versus-identity and Schmidt2010's brightness-versus-contrast, and the strongest form of dissociation evidence in this corpus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND IT CONTRADICTS THE PROPOSITION IT SET OUT TO TEST. Durso and Johnson (1979) held that although a printed word facilitates identification of a corresponding picture, a picture does NOT facilitate later word recognition. This paper finds that it does: `repetition priming of words by prior pictures is found with the PEST procedure, in which the dependent variable is accuracy of word identification.` An asymmetry claimed in the literature turns out to be an artefact of the measure - the authors say they used identification rather than naming latency `in order to avoid the range limitations in adult reading data`, and the effect appears 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 FIFTH EXPERIMENT EXISTS ONLY TO CROSS THE TWO TASKS, AND THAT IS THE DESIGN: `Quotation withheld.` Four experiments establish the effect in one task; the fifth puts both tasks on the same footing so their ordering can be compared. A crossover is only available to a design that runs both tasks - and the earlier literature, which ran them separately, could not have found it however many subjects it used 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 → Durso & Johnson (1979) and Morton (1984) accounts of asymmetric picture-word transfer 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 → Scarborough, Gerard and Cortese (1979, Experiment 3) episodic recognition experiment 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 | |
| concept_edges | word identification —contrasted-with→ episodic recognition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE CONTRAST IS THE INSTRUMENT, NOT THE SUBJECT. These two tasks are crossed so that the ORDERING of intramodal against intermodal priming can be compared between them, and the reversal is what the fifth experiment was built to detect. Weight 0.95: the comparison is explicit and it is the paper's design. The reversal itself is quoted whole in the first sense, because it names 'intramodal' and 'intermodal' - which are not nodes here, since the staged text breaks 'inter modal' in most of its occurrences. also in: word identification · episodic recognition | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | repetition priming —operationalised-as→ word identification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: THE MEASURE WAS CHOSEN TO AVOID A KNOWN CEILING AND THAT CHOICE PRODUCED THE RESULT. The authors state they used word identification rather than naming latency 'in order to avoid…' - and the effect Durso and Johnson could not find appears. Weight 0.9: the operationalisation is explicit, and the quote names both the procedure (PEST) and the two dependent variables (accuracy, threshold). An operationalisation that changes the answer is worth an edge of its own, because the disagreement in the literature is about the measure and not about the phenomenon. also in: repetition priming · word identification | 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 | post hoc multiple comparison test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: post hoc multiple comparison test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ANOVA interaction test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA interaction test | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | repeated measures ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repeated measures ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[3] | 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[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | meta-analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: meta-analysis | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Repetition priming occurred when a test word was preceded by a line drawing of the same concept. 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 | Intermodal (picture-word) priming is real but smaller in magnitude than intramodal (word-word) priming. 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 | The size of picture-to-word priming is unaffected by whether subjects encoded the pictures by naming or by referential size judgment, i.e. it is insensitive to study-phase strategy. 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 | Word frequency modulates only the intermodal component of priming; the extra facilitation attributable to intramodal repetition is frequency-independent. 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 | In episodic recognition the ordering of conditions reverses, with picture-word better than word-word, the opposite of the perceptual identification result. 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 | relative priming (RP) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: relative priming (RP) | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | primary processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: primary processing | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | secondary processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: secondary processing | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | remote repetition conditions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: remote repetition conditions | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mode Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mode | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | modality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: modality | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | repetition status Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition status | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | word frequency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: word frequency | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | accuracy of word identification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accuracy of word identification | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | identification threshold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: identification threshold | content_tags.variables[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 0.57 — relative priming value for picture-to-word transfer obtained 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 | .35 (SD = 0.22, N = 9) — mean relative priming for picture-word transfer averaged over the nine previously published studies the authors compiled 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 | 55.3 % and 61.6 % vs 46.8% — word identification accuracy in the picture-word and word-word conditions compared with the new word baseline 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[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 14 msec (range 7 to 33) — mean PEST-derived stimulus onset asynchrony threshold for the 24 retained subjects 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[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 15.4 msec (SD = 3.2) and 12.9 msec (SD = 4.3) — 50% identification thresholds for low- and high-frequency words that had previously been seen as line drawings (Experiment 4) 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 | 48.1 % and 0.30 sec — accuracy and reaction time advantage of the picture-word over the word-word condition in the episodic recognition test 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 |
Tags that could not be placed 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.