Auditory priming in an implicit memory task that emphasizes surface processing

Meehan, Pilotti · Psychonomic bulletin & review · 1996 · cognitive-psychology · 10.3758/bf03214553 · record Meehan1996-auditory-priming-in-an-implicit-memory-task
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. limitations is deliberately EMPTY: the paper states no caveat about its own design, sample or inference anywhere in the article body - the closest statements ('Both factors should be considered in future investigations and computational modeling.') are recommendations for others, not self-stated limits, so nothing was recorded rather than inventing one. Claim type 'mechanism' captures the moderation claim (voice matters *because of* the processing level the task demands and the acoustic environment); the paper also frames itself methodologically - 'Quotation withheld ing.' - which a single claim type cannot hold. Evidence strings preserve OCR damage verbatim ('signifi cance ofhuman', 'Mul1enix' with a digit one, 'ofword'); all were substring-verified. 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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
standard deviation 3 fields · priming 2 fields · response latency 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.

auditory priming implicit memory phoneme monitoring voice acoustic variability word frequency Processing an increasingly varied and less familiar set of voices consumes additional perceptual operations, and those extra operations break the ability of voice-plus-word repetition to speed the response. When encoding must handle different and progressively less familiar voices, repetition of voice and word stops being sufficient to support priming. priming priming score number of speakers response latency length of the study and test lists number of exposures ANOVA one-way ANOVA A one-way ANOVA, with number of speakers as factor post hoc pairwise comparison (Fisher's LSD) post hoc LSD pairwise comparisons standard deviation mean overall mean accuracy 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	`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
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/bf03214553. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 2 · claim_type 1 · concepts 6 · content_tags 29 · controls 1 · mechanisms 2 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 5

This record holds no relations between concepts or limitations. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.

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	auditory 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. also in: Processing an increasingly varied and less familiar set of voices consumes additional perceptual operations, and those extra operations break the ability of voice-plus-word repetition to speed the response.	`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: When encoding must handle different and progressively less familiar voices, repetition of voice and word stops being sufficient to support priming.	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
controls	the speaker's voice assigned to each word was counterbalanced across participants so that every word was uttered equally often by each of the four speakers Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that an auditory priming effect belongs to a particular voice rather than to the word · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concepts	auditory priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: auditory priming	`concepts[0]`	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[1]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	phoneme monitoring Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: phoneme monitoring	`concepts[2]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	voice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: voice	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	acoustic variability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: acoustic variability	`concepts[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	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	`concepts[5]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	THE CONCLUSION IS ABOUT THE INSTRUMENT, NOT ABOUT MEMORY: `the significance of voice in implicit memory is dependent on the level of processing required by the task and the acoustic environment.` Whether voice matters to implicit memory has no answer on its own - it has an answer per task. So two studies of `auditory priming` that used different tasks are not measuring the same thing, and a corpus that pools their effect sizes is pooling answers to different questions. The paper was designed to demonstrate exactly this: it swapped the task and the role of voice changed 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 PRIOR LITERATURE ALREADY DISAGREED WITH ITSELF, BY TASK, AND THIS PAPER NAMES IT: `a voice change between a spoken word and its repetition has been shown to have a detrimental effect on auditory priming in stem completion and word identification ... but not in lexical decision.` Three tasks, all called auditory priming, two showing an effect of voice and one not. That is the observation the whole study is built on - not a puzzle to be resolved but a clue about what the tasks 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	VOICE REPETITION TURNS OUT TO BE NECESSARY, NOT MERELY HELPFUL: `Quotation withheld.` Word repetition was intact in that condition - the same words came back - and priming did not. At the level this task works on, repeating the word is not enough; the voice has to repeat too, which is a much stronger claim than voice being one contributor among several 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	THE DOSE-RESPONSE HAS A CROSSING VARIABLE, WHICH IS WHY THE DESIGN NEEDED A SECOND ROUND. Priming appeared `only in the one- and two-speaker conditions` and vanished at three and four - but voice FAMILIARITY falls as the number of speakers rises, so the two are confounded by construction. When familiarity was equated by pre-training, priming came back at three voices. `Number of speakers` is therefore not the variable it appears to be, and the paper takes it apart rather than reporting the monotone result it could have 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	AND THE TASK WAS CHOSEN TO DEFEAT A RESPONSE BIAS, WHICH IS AN ARGUMENT ABOUT MEASUREMENT RATHER THAN ABOUT MEMORY. The introduction's charge against the standard tasks is that requiring participants to report whole words `renders priming dependent on the activation of whole words while focusing performance away from the acoustic component` - so the instrument was producing the word-level answer it kept finding. Phoneme monitoring forces attention below the word, and the result changes. A methodological objection of the same shape as Holcomb2005's against Kiefer, in a different literature 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	extends → Schacter & Church (1992) 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	builds-on → Mullenix & Pisoni (1990) 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
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	one-way ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: one-way ANOVA	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	post hoc pairwise comparison (Fisher's LSD) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: post hoc pairwise comparison (Fisher's LSD)	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		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[3]`		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[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Auditory priming was significant only in the one- and two-speaker conditions, not with three or four speakers. 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	With voice familiarity equated to the one-speaker reference, the harmful effect of acoustic variability on priming was confined to the four-speaker condition. 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	Changing the voice of a studied word at test abolished priming, showing voice information to be a critical component of auditory priming. 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 did not interact with priming, so the memory traces supporting auditory priming were independent of a word-level factor such as frequency. 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	High-frequency words were responded to 25 msec faster on average than low-frequency words. 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	Words beginning with the monitored phoneme b were responded to 55 msec faster than words beginning with another phoneme. 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	At the surface level of processing this task demands, repeating the word only produces priming if the voice is repeated too. 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	auditory priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: auditory priming	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		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[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	priming score Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming score	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	number of speakers Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: number of speakers	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	voice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: voice	`content_tags.variables[1]`		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[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	response latency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response latency	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	length of the study and test lists Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: length of the study and test lists	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	number of exposures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: number of exposures	`content_tags.variables[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	280 — number of college students who took part 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	98.65% — overall mean accuracy of phoneme monitoring after preliminary training 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	4.41% — proportion of trials discarded as latency outliers beyond 2 SD of each participant's mean 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	F(l,124) = 34.79, MSe = 720.09,p < .0001 — main effect of priming across the four same-speaker baseline conditions 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	F(l,62) = 1.72 — non-significant test of whether priming magnitude differed between the one- and two-speaker conditions 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	55 msec — speed advantage for words beginning with the monitored phoneme b 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	25 msec — speed advantage for high-frequency over low-frequency words 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	48 — number of monosyllabic English word stimuli, split into two sets of 24 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.