A priming method for investigating the selection of motor responses

Rosenbaum, Kornblum · Acta Psychologica · 1982 · cognitive-psychology · 10.1016/0001-6918(82)90036-1 · record rosenbaum1982-a-priming-method-for-investigating
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. This PDF extraction is badly column-interleaved: the abstract and most of the Method, Results and 'Relations to earlier results' sections are shuffled word salad, so I quoted only from the passages that survived intact (Introduction, the response-priming-technique section, footnote 2, Incidental observations, Discussion, Implications for future studies). That is why method_evidence is a trial-level observation sentence rather than a participants-and-apparatus sentence - every clean Method-section sentence was destroyed by the interleaving. Replication status is 'contested' because the paper itself reports that its between-hand superiority agrees with Kornblum (1965) but is the opposite of what Miller (1982) obtained with precuing, and asks why opposite within- and between-hand effects are observed in different settings; I did not add those as claim relations because the sentences stating them are interleaved with other columns and cannot be quoted honestly. The relation to LaBerge et al. (1970) and Posner and Snyder (1975), which inspired the technique, is likewise unquotable - the extraction fuses 'devel-' and 'limitations' into 'devellimitations' mid-sentence. 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 pass: 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.

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.

High response uncertainty shrinks the reaction-time benefit any single readied response can gain, which is why subjects abandon multiple-response preparation for individual-response preparation. response priming method IRP pure insertion RT of the required response error rate ANOVA analysis of variance F-test p-value mean Mean RTs 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
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

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/10.1016/0001-6918(82)90036-1. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 1 · claim_type 1 · content_tags 15 · controls 1 · limitations 2 · mechanisms 1 · method 1 · phenomenon 1

This record holds no relations between concepts or senses of a term. 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	method 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	motor response selection 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. about this quote: THE QUOTE IS HEDGED - in the paper it reads 'it may be' before 'preferable'; a running head and text from another column are spliced between them. also in: High response uncertainty shrinks the reaction-time benefit any single readied response can gain, which is why subjects abandon multiple-response preparation for individual-response preparation.	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The technique's key assumption - that subjects ready only the primed response - was violated in some conditions of this very experiment, so the full set of inferences the method affords could not be drawn. 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 subtraction analyses rest on an explicitly acknowledged pure-insertion assumption about response latency differences. 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
controls	a control experiment for the discriminability account of precue effects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that RT differences between precue types reflect the discriminability of the readied response set rather than the priming manipulation · outcome: absent-stated-about-other	`controls[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → the movement precuing technique (Rosenbaum 1980) 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
content_tags	ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE QUOTE STOPS WHERE THE EXTRACTED TEXT GOES OUT OF ORDER: the words that follow it in the extraction ('response p ~0.05. For all Ss, mean RTs were shortest when…') belong to another line of the page, so the sentence cannot be completed from this copy. also in: ANOVA	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	F-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: F-test	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		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[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	Extra responses occurred on about 6% of correct primed trials, and all but one used the opposite hand. 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	Subjects appeared to ready nonprimed as well as primed responses in some conditions. 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	The proposed pair of preparation methods reconciles the opposite within-hand and between-hand advantages found across experiments, at the cost of assuming that same-hand responses share more movement features than opposite-hand responses. 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	response priming method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response priming method	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	IRP Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: IRP	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	pure insertion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pure insertion	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	RT of the required response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: RT of the required response	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	error rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: error rate	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	about 6% — proportion of correctly performed primed trials on which subjects made an additional, unrequired response 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	2.18 — mean error rate (percent) across subjects 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	F(3, 10)=0.466 — non-significant effect of which response was required (i.e. of required finger) on mean RT 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

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.