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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | short-term repetition priming 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 | Because no lags beyond 6 were tested, the authors cannot show that the long-term asymptote had actually been reached for auditory items. 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 orthographic locus previously assumed for visual short-term priming was never established directly, since words and pseudowords also differ phonologically and semantically. 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 locus assumed in the authors' own earlier explanations is stated to have no direct evidence, and a confound is named in the same sentence. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the orthographic locus assumed in the authors' earlier accounts of short-term priming: they state there is no direct evidence for it and that words and pseudowords also differ phonologically and in semantic familiarity | limitations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The obvious definition of the measured quantity is rejected outright, because unprimed response times differ by modality, and a different baseline is substituted. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison of these priming magnitudes with a study that measures priming as first-versus-second presentation: this paper rejects that definition and uses the mean of all unprimed trials of matching lexicality and modality as the baseline | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | lexical decision times below 300 or above 1,700 msec excluded, along with incorrect responses - 1.3 per cent of reaction times Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: anticipations and lapses of attention dominating a mean, with the exclusion rate reported so a reader can see how much was removed · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger'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[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | explicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explicit memory | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | short-term implicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: short-term implicit memory | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | baseline for priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: baseline for priming | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| senses | short-term implicit memory - a name chosen by ANALOGY OF DURATION with explicit short-term memory, not by a claim about mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | short-term implicit memory - and the commitment the name would carry is DECLINED in the next sentence: separate stores are explicitly not assumed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | priming - operationalised as the difference from the mean of ALL unprimed trials of matching lexicality and modality, after the first-versus-second-presentation definition was rejected Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | implicit memory - automatic retrieval of the target's initial presentation, defined by CONTRAST with the deliberate conscious retrieval required for explicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | replicates → McKone (1995) 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 | extends → Kirsner and Smith (1974) 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 | contradicts → Kirsner and Smith (1974) 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 | implicit memory —contrasted-with→ explicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: implicit memory · explicit memory | concept_edges[0] | 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 | mean squared error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean squared error | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | planned contrasts (Helmert) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: planned contrasts (Helmert) | content_tags.statistics[2] | 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[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | three-way ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: three-way ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | four-way ANOVA with alpha level Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: four-way ANOVA with alpha level | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | With visual stimuli, short-term priming decayed faster for nonwords than for words (a lag by lexicality interaction), whereas with auditory stimuli both item types decayed smoothly and slowly. 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 | Short-term priming lasted longer when both presentations were spoken than when both were written. 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 | Auditory nonword priming survived at least three intervening trials (about 8 seconds), while visual nonword priming fell to its long-term level after a single intervening item. 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 | Switching modality between prime and target reduced short-term priming but never abolished it, for words and nonwords alike. 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 | Cross-modal short-term priming persisted to lag 1 for word targets but disappeared after one intervening item for nonwords. 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 | Weak cross-modal short-term priming for words and nonwords indicates recoding between perceptual forms. 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 | Modality mismatch significantly reduced priming for visual targets (31 vs. 2 msec) but not for auditory targets (36 vs. 27 msec). Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Error rates fell from first to second presentation (words 11.3% to 6.0%; nonwords 5.9% to 5.7%). Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Unprimed lexical decisions were roughly 320-350 msec faster for written than for spoken items. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | First-presentation responses were consistently faster when the preceding trial was in the same modality. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The main locus of short-term priming is the perceptual subsystem in which the item was presented: orthographic for written items, phonological for spoken ones. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | short-term implicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: short-term implicit memory | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | long-term implicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: long-term implicit memory | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | pseudoword Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pseudoword | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | orthographic lexicon Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: orthographic lexicon | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | phonological lexicon Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: phonological lexicon | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | lag Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lag | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | lexical status Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lexical status | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | first presentation modality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: first presentation modality | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | second presentation modality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: second presentation modality | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | reaction time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reaction time | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | error rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: error rate | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | order of priming conditions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: order of priming conditions | content_tags.variables[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | V = 620 msec, A = 966 msec — unprimed lexical decision times for visual versus auditory words 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 | F(3,63) = 2.76, MSe = 2,416, P < .05 — the lag by lexicality interaction for same-modality visual priming 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 | 31 vs. 2 msec, t(21) = 3.57, p < .005 — same-modality versus cross-modality long-term priming at lag 6 for visual targets 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 | 11.3% to 6.0% — word error rates on first versus second presentation 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 | 22 — number of subjects tested 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 | 1,500 trials in five blocks of 300 — length of the trial list each subject completed 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 | 32 priming conditions ... with 20 items in each — design size: crossings of lexicality, prime modality, target modality and lag, with items per cell 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 | 1.3% ofRTs / 6.2% ofRTs — proportion of responses discarded as outliers and as errors respectively 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 |
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.