Repetition Priming and Automaticity: Common Underlying Mechanisms?

Gordon D. Logan · Cognitive Psychology · 1990 · cognitive-psychology · 10.1016/0010-0285(90)90002-L · record logan1990-automaticity
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. Replication status reflects only the paper's internal design: Experiment 2 is explicitly described as intended to replicate Experiment 1 in a different paradigm, and Experiment 4 plays the same role for Experiment 3. No external replication is claimed. This paper is also the one that most directly links the repetition-priming literature (including Scarborough, Cortese & Scarborough, 1977, also in this corpus) to the automaticity literature, so the two records share vocabulary by design rather than by coincidence. 2026-08-15, 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. Update, 15 September 2026: EXCEPTION, measured with the merge gate's own predicate (Paper.locate): 1 quote(s) on this record are not found as one exact string in the current staged text - content_tags.statistics[5].evidence. The sentence above does not hold for them as written. Where a row records why - the quote is grounded in another copy of the paper, joins two passages with an ellipsis, or differs from the staged text by extraction noise - that note stays on the row.

1 quote on this page was cut from a different copy of this article. This project holds two extractions of this paper: the plain text every other quote here is anchored in, and the publisher’s own HTML edition, which we are not licensed to republish. It is verbatim in the second and cannot be found in the first — not because the tagging is wrong, but because the extraction damaged the passage: a page number dropped into the middle of a number, a formula moved out of its sentence, a ligature where two letters belong. The record names the copy for each one. The quote is the paper’s; the extraction is not.

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
attention 36 fields · learning 7 fields · sample-size 5 fields · standard-deviation 3 fields · priming 2 fields · repetition priming 2 fields · and 1 more →

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 8 concept tags on this paper, 4 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 1 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

priming repetition priming automaticity instance theory association secondariness modulation power function instance theory of automaticity: each encounter with an item stores a memory trace, and with practice performance shifts from a slow general algorithm to fast direct retrieval of stored instances (unifying automaticity and repetition priming) implicit memory instances lexical decision attention item specificity exposures learning lexical decision task explicit memory number of exposures ANOVA correlation hypothesis-testing test hypotheses mean mean of p-value sample-size sample size standard-deviation standard deviation statistical-significance 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/10.1016/0010-0285(90)90002-L. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 5 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 1 · concepts 4 · content_tags 22 · controls 2 · limitations 5 · mechanisms 1 · 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 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	repetition priming and automaticity 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: instance theory of automaticity: each encounter with an item stores a memory trace, and with practice performance shifts from a slow general algorithm to fast direct retrieval of stored instances (unifying automaticity and repetition priming)	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	error data were not analyzed because the theories at issue do not address them 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 transfer effects of Experiment 3 were small and not strongly supported statistically. 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	Alternative learning functions such as exponentials or hyperbolics were never tested against the power-function fits. 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 data cannot decide between a declarative and a procedural interpretation of the memory underlying the effect. 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	Item specificity does not discriminate the instance theory from rival accounts. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[4]`		the tagger's words
controls	a control condition in which subjects saw a NEW set of 10 words and 10 nonwords for the same 16 blocks Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that improvement across blocks is general practice at the task rather than item-specific automaticity · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	the assignment of keys to yes and no responses was counterbalanced within each group Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the effect is a motor or hand preference rather than a decision 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[1]`		the paper's words
concepts	automaticity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: automaticity	`concepts[2]`		the paper's words
concepts	instance theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: instance theory	`concepts[3]`		the paper's words
concepts	power function Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: power function	`concepts[7]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	TWO LITERATURES STUDYING ONE THING AT DIFFERENT DOSES, AND THE DOSE IS WHY THEY NEVER MET: students of memory investigate `one or two stimulus exposures`; students of attention investigate `several hundred`. Memory calls it repetition priming; attention calls it automaticity. `Quotation withheld.` The fourth record today about one name covering two things - and the first running the other way: forster-davis1984, tulving1990 and was2019 each SPLIT a term the field used as one, and Logan JOINS two the field used as separate 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 THE CLAIM IS MADE FALSIFIABLE BEFORE IT IS TESTED, BY NAMING THREE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD HAVE TO MATCH: `The main empirical question asked in this article is whether automaticity and repetition priming share three characteristics: (1) Power-Function Speed-Up ... (2) Item Specificity ... (3) Associative Basis.` Each is then phrased as a question - `Quotation withheld?` Three named tests, stated before the experiments, any one of which could have killed the claim. Same discipline as Schmidt2009's rapid-chase criteria, and rare enough in this corpus to be worth counting 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	AND THE MECHANISM IS A STORAGE CLAIM, WHICH IS WHY ITEM-SPECIFICITY IS A PREDICTION AND NOT A FINDING: the common mechanism is `Quotation withheld.` If what is stored is a record of each encounter with a particular item, then benefit MUST be specific to that item - the second characteristic falls out of the theory rather than being observed alongside it. A theory that predicts one of its own tests is stronger than one that accommodates it 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	AND THE BRIDGE IS THE POINT, STATED AS THE ARTICLE'S PURPOSE: `Quotation withheld.` A paper whose contribution is a connection rather than a result - and for this corpus that is the interesting kind, because a citation graph shows that two literatures do not cite each other and cannot show that they should 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 → stimulus-to-response association accounts of automaticity 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 → instance theory (Logan, 1988) 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 → Morton's (1969, 1979) logogen model and Balota and Chumbley's (1984) familiarity model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE PAPER MARKS THE PARAMETER WITH 'in that'. The span: 'The instance theory DIFFERS FROM the logogen model (Morton, 1969, 1979) and the familiarity model (Balota & Chumbley, 1984) in that it predicts an associative basis for repetition priming and automaticity whereas those models do N[OT].' The disagreement turns on whether repetition priming has an associative basis - stated, quotable, and absent from the edge until now.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → the instance theory of automaticity developed in Logan (1988) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[3]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → earlier multiple-repetition studies in the lexical decision task (Forbach, Stanners & Hochhaus, 1974; Scarborough et al., 1977; Logan, 1988) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[4]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	repetition priming —part-of→ automaticity 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 first few steps on the way to' IS A CONTINUUM CLAIM AND 'part-of' IS THE CLOSEST THE VOCABULARY COMES. It is not that priming is a component of automaticity - it is the same process earlier on. 'same-as' would overstate (they differ in degree and in everything that follows from degree); 'is-a' is wrong; there is no 'earlier-stage-of' and this is the fifth thing today the enforced vocabulary cannot say,,, Weight 0.9 and 'Theoretically' is inside the quote - this is the article's thesis, and the three characteristics are the test of it. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says repetition priming is VIEWED as the first steps on the way to automaticity; part-of is loose. also in: repetition priming · automaticity	`concept_edges[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
content_tags	3 — shared features of priming and automaticity 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	15 — span of automaticity research reviewed 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	hundreds — attention studies use many exposures vs memory's one-two 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	priming and automaticity share a common instance-based mechanism 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	processing speed increases as a power function of exposures 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 repetition benefit is specific to individual items 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	repetition priming is the first few steps toward automaticity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		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[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	item specificity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: item specificity	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	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	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	automaticity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: automaticity	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	lexical decision task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lexical decision task	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	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	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	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	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		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	correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	hypothesis-testing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: hypothesis-testing	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		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[3]`		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[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	sample-size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sample-size	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		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. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: standard-deviation	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	statistical-significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical-significance	`content_tags.statistics[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.