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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 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 | 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 | semantic 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 | review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review | 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 | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The status of several relation types (collocates, episodic relatives, script relations) is left unresolved and needs further experiments. 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 | Restricting the review to published studies leaves the direction of the resulting bias in effect-size estimates unknown. 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 review cannot say why auditory presentation yields so much larger priming estimates than visual presentation. 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 available evidence cannot decide whether the associative boost reflects combined lexical and semantic connections or simply greater featural overlap. 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 | |
| limitations | THE NORMS THE WHOLE LITERATURE RESTS ON ARE CONCEDED NOT TO BE WHAT THEY ARE TAKEN FOR: 'Quotation withheld' This is the review's own instrument being withdrawn mid-argument, and it is what licenses a senses row's verdict on a whole class of studies. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | every target was counterbalanced BOTH ACROSS AND WITHIN subjects so that each appeared in the related, unrelated and neutral conditions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a priming effect is an item effect - that the related and unrelated sets simply contain different words · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | association strength Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: association strength | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | feature overlap Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: feature overlap | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | automatic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: automatic priming | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | mediated associates Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mediated associates | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | semantic matching Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic matching | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | stimulus onset asynchrony Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stimulus onset asynchrony | concepts[5] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | semantic similarity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic similarity | concepts[6] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE ANSWER IS BOTH, AND IT IS NOT A COMPROMISE - IT IS A PARTITION BY STIMULUS CLASS. `Quotation withheld` Then the split: `Quotation withheld` Different stimulus classes, different mechanisms, one label over all of them - which is precisely the condition under which a controlled vocabulary stops being informative 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 CATCHES A CLAIM CHANGING MEANING ALONG A CITATION CHAIN, BY HAND. Lucas (2000) cited Hodgson (1991), who cites Neely (1991), for the claim that priming is smaller in pronunciation than in lexical decision. `Quotation withheld such as Cohen's d.` A claim about milliseconds became a claim about effect sizes in two citations, and the meta-analysis built on it. This is the failure the concept-record design exists to make visible, found here by one person reading a chain backwards 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 VERDICT ON A WHOLE CLASS OF STUDIES, STATED WITHOUT SOFTENING: `Quotation withheld` The reason is the confound: associated words tend also to be similar words, so varying association alone varies both. Not `limited`, not `to be interpreted with caution`. A review willing to write that sentence about its own field's standard design is rare enough to be worth the tag on its own 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 | `dominance` and `association strength` - REPORTED AS INTERCHANGEABLE IN THE LITERATURE, with a citation: `the terms dominance and association strength have been used interchangeably (Lorch, 1982)`. Two measures that a paper arguing about WHICH ONE DRIVES PRIMING needs kept apart. 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 | `similar` - THE MEASURED QUANTITY DEPENDS ON HOW THE EXPERIMENTER DEFINED THE WORD TO THE PARTICIPANT, AND THE PAPER LISTS THAT AS ONE OF FIVE SOURCES OF VARIANCE: `there is no universal method for determining similarity in this task`, and ratings vary on (1) the other words in the norming set, (2) HOW THE RESEARCHER DEFINES SIMILAR FOR THE PARTICIPANTS, (3) presentation order, (4) instructional set, (5) association between the items. THE DEFINITION IS NOT UPSTREAM OF THE MEASUREMENT HERE - IT IS ONE OF ITS INPUTS, named alongside stimulus order. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the CONSCIOUS/UNCONSCIOUS boundary - A THEORETICAL DISTINCTION WITH NO UNIVERSAL OPERATIONAL VALUE: `there is no universal SOA that distinctly separates conscious from unconscious processing, and the SOA necessary to demonstrate automatic priming may vary from task to task`. A THRESHOLD DISPUTE, not a naming one - the two categories are not in doubt and the number that divides them is, so no nomenclature body can repair it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Lucas (2000) 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 → Lucas (2000) 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 → Lucas (2000) 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 | association strength —causes→ automatic priming 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: 0.95 · direction on the measure (stated by the tagger, no quotation): increases · note: HALF OF A CONCLUSION SENTENCE, AND THE OTHER HALF IS THE NEXT EDGE. The span names all three endpoints, so two triples come out of one quote and the note has to say which half each is carrying or a reader gets a partial claim as if it were the whole one. Weight 0.95: it is the review's stated conclusion, both endpoints are named, and 'due to' is unambiguous. The 'both' is the finding - either edge alone reproduces exactly the one-sided reading this paper was written to correct. also in: association strength · automatic priming | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | feature overlap —causes→ automatic priming 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: 0.95 · direction on the measure (stated by the tagger, no quotation): increases · note: The other half. Lucas's (2000) meta-analysis concluded feature overlap was the WHOLE story - 'implies that semantic…' - and this review keeps the mechanism while removing the 'primarily'. A finding preserved and a quantifier withdrawn, which is a shape the schema records only in prose. also in: feature overlap · automatic priming | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | association strength —distinct-from→ feature overlap 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 EDGE IS A CONFOUND, WHICH IS A STRANGE THING TO BE ABLE TO SAY. 'The second problem…' They are distinct - the whole review depends on that - and in ordinary stimuli they travel together, because words people associate tend also to be words that resemble each other. Weight 0.9 rather than 0.95: the span asserts the distinction only by asserting the difficulty of drawing it. That is real evidence of distinctness and it is weaker than a sentence saying so directly.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span notes the DIFFICULTY of separating the two; distinct-from is loose. also in: association strength · feature overlap | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | 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[0] | 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[1] | 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[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Automatic semantic priming is produced by both association strength and feature overlap, not by either alone. 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 | Mediated associates (e.g. lion-stripes) give the strongest evidence for automatic purely associative priming, while functional associates, synonyms and antonyms instead support priming based on feature overlap. 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 | Category coordinates and perceptually similar items show no automatic priming when the stimuli are presented visually. 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 | Category coordinates produced only 4 ms of priming in the pronunciation task. 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 the standard lexical decision task at long SOA, backward priming (28 ms) was comparable to forward priming (34 ms), and statistically equivalent in every experiment. 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 | Mediated priming is strongest when strategic processing is minimised and disappears when it is encouraged. 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 | LSA similarity of Balota and Lorch's mediated pairs (.20) was significantly higher than when the items were randomly re-paired (.10). 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-presentation studies gave more than twice the effect size of visual ones (d = .51 vs .25). 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 | Published studies averaged an effect size of .35, almost twice the .18 of unpublished studies. 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 | Contrary to Lucas's claim, close inspection of her studies shows that priming from category coordinates is not automatic. 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 | semantic priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic priming effect | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | automatic Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: automatic | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | association strength Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: association strength | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | expectancy generation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: expectancy generation | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | instrument relations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: instrument relations | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | script relations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: script relations | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | attractor basins Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: attractor basins | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | semantic distance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic distance | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Hyperspace Analogue to Language (HAL) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming effect | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | RP Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: RP | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | presentation modality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: presentation modality | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | association strengths Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: association strengths | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | type of task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: type of task | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | SOA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SOA | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 31 msec — average priming from category coordinates across studies using the standard lexical decision task 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 | 4 msec — average priming from the same category-coordinate items in the pronunciation task 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 | t(47) 5 4.27, p , .001 — test comparing LSA similarity of mediated pairs (.20) with randomly re-paired controls (.10) 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 | .51 — mean Cohen's d for the five auditory-presentation studies, against .25 for the visual ones 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 | .35 — unweighted mean effect size of published studies, against .18 for unpublished ones 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 | 26 studies (accounting for 116 experiments) — size of the Lucas (2000) meta-analysis that this review re-examines 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 | over 6,000 participants — norming sample behind the Nelson et al. (1999) association norms used to recheck every study's stimuli 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 | 160 million words — size of the Usenet corpus from which HAL builds its co-occurrence matrix 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 | |
| content_tags | 14 — number of association types into which the author classified each Palermo-Jenkins norm pair, showing association norms are heterogeneous Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | 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.