Priming and Human Memory Systems

Endel Tulving, Daniel L. Schacter · Science · 1990 · neuroscience · 10.1126/science.2296719 · record tulving-schacter1990-priming
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (corpus-body); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. SOURCE-TEXT WARNING: the PDF-to-text extraction of this paper has lost most inter-word spaces, so the verbatim quotes are run-together strings (e.g. 'Primingisatypeofimplicit memory;...'). They are reproduced exactly as they appear in the file and all pass a substring check; they are NOT paraphrases and the spacing damage is the extractor's, not mine. The article body also opens with ~1,500 characters of stray reference-list text bled in from the preceding Science article on asbestos; I quoted nothing from that region. Claim type is 'mechanism' rather than 'existence' because the paper's contribution is the PRS account of WHY priming dissociates from explicit memory, not the demonstration that priming occurs. Replication status = 'contested' is grounded in the paper's own text: it explicitly reports that processing theorists dispute the memory-systems interpretation of the same data. FACETS WITHDRAWN: the text used was word spacing lost in extraction (mean token length 48); the quotes verified against that text but it is not this paper. Record left ungrounded rather than grounded in the wrong document. The extracted text begins with the tail of an unrelated preceding Science article (an asbestos reference list, lines 8-16) and contains a block of PDF-mangled watermark characters plus scrambled figure-caption fragments around Fig. 1; no quotes were taken from any of that material, only from the priming article's running prose. This is a theoretical review article, so 'method' is review even though it reports one previously unpublished-style summary of experiments (Yule's Q values around 0.90 for identical cues, dropping to zero for different cues) and a case study of patient K.C. Replication status is set to 'contested' because the paper itself describes an active dispute with processing theorists who deny that separate memory systems are needed, while simultaneously reporting that the dissociations themselves have been obtained across many labs, tasks and populations. Update, 18 September 2026: the three passages above were written in this order - the first faceting, the purge, and the re-faceting from a spaced copy. The purge's 'it is not this paper' was wrong: the copy it judged was this paper with its word spaces lost (the copy is kept in an internal file). Today's phenomenon and method, and the quotes for claim type, phenomenon and method, come from the re-faceting (claim type, 'mechanism', is the same in all three); research_question, contribution and replication status are older than both facetings, and neither replaced them - both facetings argued 'contested', and the record keeps 'replicated'. 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.

The quality of the text these quotes were cut from. corrupt-text-layer (SECOND COPY ONLY): the web page we fetched has lost its inter-word spaces - space ratio 0.022 against 0.155 in an internal file, which is intact and is the copy every anchor resolves against. THE DAMAGE IS IN THE PUBLISHING ARTEFACT, NOT IN THE GROUNDING TEXT; a quality note that did not say so would accuse the wrong file. All 35 live quotes are cut from the grounding copy and are unaffected.

This record’s own method is review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. No tag on this page names a different author. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

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
semantic memory 4 fields · episodic memory 3 fields · priming 2 fields

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 9 concept tags on this paper, 4 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 2 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

priming implicit memory perceptual representation system memory systems association secondariness modulation semantic memory procedural memory priming reflects a distinct perceptual representation system (PRS) - a pre-semantic, implicit memory that operates without conscious recollection, separate from but interacting with episodic and semantic memory episodic memory nonconscious identification dissociations magnitude of the priming effect review

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/10.1126/science.2296719. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concepts 4 · content_tags 12 · controls 1 · limitations 6 · mechanisms 1 · 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	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	priming (implicit memory) 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. also in: priming reflects a distinct perceptual representation system (PRS) - a pre-semantic, implicit memory that operates without conscious recollection, separate from but interacting with episodic and semantic memory	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The authors say the field's knowledge of priming is still slight because research is at an early stage. 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 neural substrates of priming are largely unknown, and the cited neuroimaging and lesion evidence supports only indirect inferences about the brain basis of priming; direct studies are missing. 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	Direct studies of the brain loci of priming have not been done. 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 prediction that patients with 'reading without semantics' should show robust word priming has not yet been tested directly; only indirect evidence from a single alexic patient is offered. 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 authors concede that their PRS account does not explain conceptual (semantically driven) priming effects. 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
limitations	Little is known about the neural systems that mediate priming. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[5]`		the tagger's words
controls	the materials built so that the target word could not be predicted either from the picture or from the first two words of the phrase Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the priming effect being ordinary predictability - if the target can be guessed from the context, a faster response measures guessing rather than implicit memory · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
concepts	priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming	`concepts[0]`		the paper's words
concepts	perceptual representation system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perceptual representation system	`concepts[2]`		the paper's words
concepts	semantic memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic memory	`concepts[7]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	procedural memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: procedural memory	`concepts[8]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	THE PAPER THAT MADE PRIMING A MEMORY SYSTEM, AND IT SAYS HOW RECENT THAT WAS: `Quotation withheld.` Not an effect, not a task - a system. Most of this corpus inherits that framing without arguing for it; this is where it was argued, and the `only recently` is the authors dating their own claim 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 SPLIT INSIDE THE WORD, MADE IN 1990 BY THE PEOPLE WHO OWNED IT: `priming is an expression of a perceptual representation system that operates at a pre-semantic level ... Quotation withheld.` Two phenomena under one term, separated by naming the systems rather than the tasks. This is the one-name-many-concepts problem being SOLVED inside a discipline - and it is worth the corpus noting that the solution was to split the referent and keep the word, which is exactly what soil science and psychology have not done with `priming effect` 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 ARGUMENT FOR A NEW SYSTEM IS TAXONOMIC, NOT EXPERIMENTAL: `Quotation withheld.` A new system is established by showing it sits between two accepted ones and belongs to neither. That is why this paper is cited by records in this corpus that share no method with it - the claim is about how to carve the field, and a carving can be adopted by anyone 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 UNAWARENESS IS OF THE MEMORY, NOT OF THE STIMULUS - WHICH IS A DIFFERENT CLAIM FROM EVERY MASKED-PRIMING RECORD HERE: `Quotation withheld.` dehaene1998, Finkbeiner2011 and hesselmann2016 all work to make the STIMULUS unavailable to report. Tulving and Schacter are saying the stimulus is seen perfectly well and its status as a memory is what goes unnoticed. Two senses of `nonconscious priming` that the corpus has been filing under one heading 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	extends → the authors' own earlier priming article (reference 9), which conjectured an as yet little understood memory system 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	builds-on → Warrington and Weiskrantz's experiments on learning in densely amnesic patients (reference 4) 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 → processing theories of priming that treat memory as a unitary cognitive system (reference 49) 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	10 — how long systematic priming study had run 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 — study and test stages of a priming experiment 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	2 — lines of support for the pre-semantic system 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	priming is a nonconscious form of memory distinct from other systems 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	priming expresses a pre-semantic perceptual representation system 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[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	amnesic patients show near-normal priming despite impaired recall 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	priming dissociates from explicit memory 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	magnitude of the priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: magnitude of the priming effect	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	procedural memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: procedural memory	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	semantic memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic memory	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	episodic memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: episodic memory	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		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.