<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="en">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Implicit Memory: History and Current Status</title>
        <author>Daniel L. Schacter</author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt>
        <p>Tag layer of the DHSS Meta-Tagging Project. The article text is reproduced from the
           staged copy named in sourceDesc and is not altered; the tags are held separately in
           standOff so that overlapping and nested spans are preserved.</p>
      </publicationStmt>
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <title>Implicit Memory: History and Current Status</title>
          <date>1987</date>
          <publisher>Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition</publisher>
          <idno type="DOI">10.1037/0278-7393.13.3.501</idno>
          
          <idno type="record">schacter1987-implicit-memory</idno>
          <note type="staged-file">schacter1987-implicit-memory.txt, the project's staged copy</note>
          <note type="text-sha1">6cc4b74d190580f4eff2248c33811af037e09d68</note>
          <note type="rights">personal-copy</note>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
    <profileDesc>
      <textClass><keywords><term>cognitive-psychology</term></keywords></textClass>
      <particDesc>
        <person xml:id="paper"><p>the paper's own words</p></person>
        <person xml:id="tagger"><p>the tag layer; a sentence written by the tagger about the
          paper, always anchored to a quotation but not itself a quotation</p></person>
      </particDesc>
    </profileDesc>
    <revisionDesc>
      <change when="2026-10-06"
              who="build_paper_edition.py">0 spans located by searching the stored text for the quote's exact words, allowing any whitespace between them</change>
    </revisionDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <standOff>
    <spanGrp type="tags">
      <span xml:id="t0" type="claim_type" ana="#claim_type" resp="#paper">
        <label>existence</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t1" type="phenomenon" ana="#phenomenon" resp="#paper">
        <label>implicit memory</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t2" type="method" ana="#method" resp="#paper">
        <label>review</label>
        <term>review</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t3" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>The review cannot settle whether implicit and explicit memory rest on one system or several</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t4" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>None of the three main theoretical positions surveyed accounts for all the evidence</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t5" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[2]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>There are no firm criteria for deciding between multiple-system and single-system explanations</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t6" type="transfers" ana="#transfers[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.9">
        <label>the concept of unconscious cerebration, and the interest in implicit memory that followed from it, is traced to a general nineteenth-century attempt to relate physiology and psychology</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t7" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[0]" resp="#paper">
        <label>implicit memory</label>
        <term>implicit memory</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t8" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[2]" resp="#paper">
        <label>explicit memory</label>
        <term>explicit memory</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t9" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[3]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>conscious recollection</label>
        <term>conscious recollection</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t10" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[4]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>repetition priming</label>
        <term>repetition priming</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t11" type="senses" ana="#senses[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>THE PAIR IS DEFINED IN ONE SENTENCE BY ONE CRITERION APPLIED BOTH WAYS: `Quotation withheld.` Both are defined by what the TASK demands, not by what the memory IS. Same move Finkbeiner2011 makes for `subliminal` - the phenomenon is the outcome of a measurement - and it is why this distinction survived while the theories about it did not</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t12" type="senses" ana="#senses[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE RECORD DATES ITS OWN VOCABULARY: `Graf and Schacter (1985, 1987; Schacter &amp; Graf, 1986a, 1986b) have labeled this type of memory implicit memory, and have used the term explicit memory to refer to conscious recollection.` A paper that says who named the thing, when, and in which papers - two years before this review, by one of its own authors. Most of this corpus inherits `implicit memory` as vocabulary; this record can tell a reader where it came from, which is what the term-coiner layer exists to do</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t13" type="senses" ana="#senses[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND IT NAMES THE NEGATIVE SPACE IN ITS OWN HISTORY, TWICE. `Quotation withheld.` And on the modern literature: `there is a sense in which the entire literature on transfer of training may be perceived as the study of implicit memory, researchers did not view it as such and did not elaborate any distinctions like the one between implicit and explicit.` A densely populated region of research that had no name until somebody drew the line - said by the person who drew it. That is the `missing terms / negative space` argument with a worked historical case attached</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t14" type="senses" ana="#senses[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE ACCOUNT IT REPORTS THE FIELD ABANDONING IS THE OBVIOUS ONE: `The most popular idea was that implicit memory phenomena were produced by memory traces that are TOO WEAK to exceed the threshold of strength or activation needed for EXPLICIT memory.` One dimension, one threshold, implicit memory as sub-threshold explicit memory. A corpus that holds only current accounts cannot show what was given up - and this one is worth holding because the strength account is what every dissociation in this corpus is evidence against, including Bruce1998&#x27;s dose asymmetry and Kirsner1986&#x27;s crossover</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t15" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>builds-on → Graf and Schacter (1985)</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t16" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>contradicts → the trace-strength/threshold account of implicit memory (Herbart, 1896; Leibniz, 1916; Korsakoff, 1889; Prince, 1914)</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t17" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>implicit memory —distinct-from→ explicit memory</label>
        <term>implicit memory</term>
        <term>explicit memory</term>
        <note>strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE DEFINITION IS THE EDGE. One sentence defines both by the same criterion - whether the task requires conscious recollection - applied in opposite directions, so the distinction is constitutive rather than empirical. Weight 0.95: this is the sentence the field took the pair from. Note what it does NOT claim: not that they are separate systems, only that they are separately revealed. The systems argument is elsewhere in the paper and is much weaker, which the fourth sense records.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t18" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>implicit memory —distinct-from→ conscious recollection</label>
        <term>implicit memory</term>
        <term>conscious recollection</term>
        <note>strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: THE NAMING SENTENCE, AND IT CARRIES THE CONTRAST THE TERM WAS COINED TO MARK. &#x27;implicit memory&#x27; was introduced for the case where memory shows without conscious recollection, and &#x27;explicit memory&#x27; for the case where it needs it. Weight 0.9 rather than 0.95: the quote reports Graf and Schacter&#x27;s usage rather than asserting the distinction, and the citation is to four papers this corpus does not hold.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t19" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>repetition priming —part-of→ implicit memory</label>
        <term>repetition priming</term>
        <term>implicit memory</term>
        <note>strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: &#x27;MOST OF&#x27; IS IN THE QUOTE AND IT IS THE REASON THIS EDGE MATTERS TO THIS PROJECT. Schacter places nearly the whole cognitive-psychology strand of implicit-memory research inside the repetition-priming paradigm - so a corpus about priming and a corpus about implicit memory are nearly the same corpus, and the two literatures cite each other under different names. Weight 0.9: &#x27;most&#x27; is a hedge and the claim is a reviewer&#x27;s characterisation, but it is the reviewer who named the field.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t20" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>implicit memory facilitates performance without conscious recollection</label>
        <note>about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER&#x27;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&#x27;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.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t21" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>priming is the central measure of implicit memory</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t22" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>statistical-significance</label>
        <term>statistical-significance</term>
        <note>about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER&#x27;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&#x27;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.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
    </spanGrp>
  </standOff>
  <text>
    <body>
      <p><note type="rights">The full text of this article is not redistributable, so it is
      not included here. The evidence sentences are withheld with it; the tag layer and its
      grounding status remain. The article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.3.501.</note></p>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
