Equivalent inter- and intramodality long-term priming: Evidence for a common lexicon for words seen and words heard

Lukatela, Eaton, Moreno, Turvey · Memory & Cognition · 2007 · cognitive-psychology · 10.3758/bf03193315 · record lukatela2007-equivalent-inter-and-intramodality
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. Claim type set to null-result because the empirical core is the absence of the expected intramodality advantage ("contrary to the standard observation... an equivalence"); the positive theoretical conclusion ("Quotation withheld") is an interpretation layered on that null result, so a mechanism/existence reading is defensible but weaker. Replication status = contested rather than untested because the paper itself reports both an internal reversal ("A within-subjects experiment yielded the conventional intramodality advantage.") and a prior between-subjects study (Pilotti et al., 2000) that found the opposite pattern. Relation to Brown et al. typed as replicates on the strength of the quoted agreement; the paper words it as agreement, not as a formal replication attempt. Experiment 4's replication of Experiments 1-2 within this paper was not entered as a claim_relation, since the rule restricts relations to named prior work. 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.

5 quotes on this page break a word across a line. The PDF this text was extracted from hyphenated those words at the end of a printed line — adversar- ial, repre- sentations — and the extractor kept the hyphen and the space. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing: the break is the typesetter’s, not the author’s. A search of this page will not find the affected words.

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.

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 5 concept tags on this paper, all 5 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.

intramodality implicit memory amodal lexicon common lexicon long-term priming Mixing study modalities within subjects pulls attention toward modality-specific processing and away from word phonology, so at test the stems whose modality matches the prime are the ones completed - manufacturing the apparent intramodal advantage. Study-to-test carryover runs simultaneously along two dimensions - modality-independent lexical access, which yields the priming, and modality-dependent sensory analysis, which yields the overall performance difference between seeing and hearing. Priming transfers through activation of a word's phonology, a code common to the word seen and the word heard, so its magnitude is unaffected by which sense delivered the prime. identical study modal homogeneity incidental study indirect test gestural phonology study modality priming condition stem completion spelling-sound consistency ratio of unstudied to studied words at test ANOVA mean mean proportion 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
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/10.3758/bf03193315. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concepts 5 · content_tags 28 · controls 2 · limitations 3 · mechanisms 3 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 4

This record holds no relations between concepts. 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	null-result 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	cross-modal long-term word 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: Mixing study modalities within subjects pulls attention toward modality-specific processing and away from word phonology, so at test the stems whose modality matches the prime are the ones completed - manufacturing the apparent intramodal advantage.	`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: Study-to-test carryover runs simultaneously along two dimensions - modality-independent lexical access, which yields the priming, and modality-dependent sensory analysis, which yields the overall performance difference between seeing and hearing.	`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. also in: Priming transfers through activation of a word's phonology, a code common to the word seen and the word heard, so its magnitude is unaffected by which sense delivered the prime.	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The paper says it cannot say precisely why its results diverge from the conventional finding. 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 between-subjects design alone does not explain the contradiction with prior work, since other between-subjects studies did not find equivalence. 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 offered for the within-subjects asymmetry found in Experiment 3 is described as tentative. 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
controls	an 'identical study' step established that the orientation at study was the same whether words were experienced visually or aurally Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a cross-modality difference is a difference in how the word was ENCODED rather than in the modality itself · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	experimental and baseline words were randomly interleaved at test 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 block or order effect rather than an item effect · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concepts	intramodality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intramodality	`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	amodal lexicon Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: amodal lexicon	`concepts[2]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	common lexicon Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: common lexicon	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	long-term priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: long-term priming	`concepts[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	TWO HYPOTHESES BUILT ON AN EFFECT, AND THE EFFECT TURNS OUT TO BE THE DESIGN: `Quotation withheld` Five experiments matching study activities, controlling phonological consistency and moving modality between subjects find `Equal magnitudes`. Kirsner1986, merged earlier today, reports intermodal priming `to a lesser extent than by intramodal` and reasons from it - the corpus now holds the record that builds on the asymmetry and the record that dissolves it, twenty-one years apart 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 CONTROL THAT MAKES IT AN ARTEFACT CLAIM RATHER THAN A FAILED REPLICATION: `A within-subjects experiment yielded the conventional intramodality advantage.` The old effect comes back when the old design is used. That is the strongest form this argument can take: not `we did not find it` but `here is the feature of the design that produces it, and here it is switched back on`. Compare erb2019, where removing a confound removed one of two effects - same logic, opposite direction 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 CONCLUSION NAMES BOTH THE STORE AND THE ROUTE: `Quotation withheld` Not merely that the two lexicons are one, but that what reaches it is phonology either way - which is why the experiments controlled whether words were `phonologically consistent`. A positive mechanism offered alongside the negative result, and it is testable: inconsistent words should behave differently, which the paper then examines 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 IT IS THE FOURTH RECORD TODAY WHERE THE INSTRUMENT IS PART OF THE PHENOMENON. Finkbeiner2011: the prime-classification task's difficulty decides what counts as subliminal. erb2019: associative-priming overlap decides whether a congruency sequence effect is control. eckstein2007: which awareness test you use decides whether the prime was seen. Here: whether modality is manipulated within or between subjects decides whether the lexicons look separate. Four paradigms, one shape, and not one of them is a critique paper - all four are ordinary empirical papers that had to clear the ground first Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.85	the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Morton (1979), hypothesis of separate visual and auditory lexicons 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 → Pilotti, Gallo, and Roediger (2000, Experiment 3) 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	replicates → Brown et al. (1991), on design-dependence of modality effects 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
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 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[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Priming from a different study modality equalled priming from the same modality, with stem completion, fragment completion and perceptual identification at test. 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	The authors conclude that one amodal lexicon serves words seen and words heard, and that implicit word memory rests on modality-independent phonological processing. 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	Experiment 1 showed equal inter- and intramodal priming, contrary to the standard observation. 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	Experiment 2 found auditory-to-visual and visual-to-auditory transfer equal to each other, and auditory-to-auditory transfer equal to visual-to-visual transfer. 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	The within-subjects design of Experiment 3 favoured same-modality over cross-modality transfer. 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	Priming magnitude in fragment completion did not depend on study modality, but overall fragment completion did. 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	Level of processing at study did not affect long-term priming, suggesting the study tasks involved the lexicon alike. 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	identical study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: identical study	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	modal homogeneity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: modal homogeneity	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	incidental study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: incidental study	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	indirect test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: indirect test	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	gestural phonology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: gestural phonology	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	study modality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: study modality	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	priming condition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming condition	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	stem completion 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: stem completion	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	spelling-sound consistency 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: spelling-sound consistency	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	ratio of unstudied to studied words at test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ratio of unstudied to studied words at test	`content_tags.variables[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	.45 / .18 — Experiment 1, visual study-visual test: proportion of stems completed for primed words versus unprimed 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	.44 / .10 — Experiment 1, auditory study-visual test: proportion of stems completed for primed words versus unprimed words 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	.38 vs .30 (baseline .15) — Experiment 3 (within-subjects design): primed stem completion for visual-to-visual versus auditory-to-visual, against the unprimed baseline 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	6% — size of the auditory-to-auditory advantage over visual-to-auditory in Experiment 5, which was tested separately 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	3.2 of the 26 — average number of critical primed words a participant could recall in the post-test memory check of Experiment 5 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	5:1 — ratio of unstudied to studied words on the test list, set to keep participants unaware of the study-test link 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	85% — share of Experiment 5 participants who said there was a connection between the three tasks 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	Forty — number of undergraduates in Experiment 1, ten per group 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	86 — size of the base word pool from which critical, study-filler and test-filler words were drawn 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

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.