Different Time Courses for Visual Perception and Action Priming

Dirk Vorberg, Uwe Mattler, Armin Heinecke, Thomas Schmidt, Jens Schwarzbach · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2003 · neuroscience · 10.1073/pnas.0931489100 · record vorberg2003-action-priming
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (html); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim type coded 'existence' for the headline dissociation (priming occurs, with an invariant time course, for primes that cannot be reported). The paper also has a modelling half - 'We propose a model that provides a quantitative account of priming effects on response speed and accuracy.' - which the single-slot method field cannot show alongside the psychophysical experiments; the model's slope prediction was additionally checked by Monte Carlo simulation. Two further explicit contrast claims (against fast-guessing and against the prime-modulates-mask-processing hypothesis) were left out of claim relations because their targets appear only as numbered references, with no author named in the body text. TEXT PROVENANCE, 2026-08-15: the text now staged for this record was re-fetched from the PMC article page (PMC156362) on 2026-08-14, 5,567 words. IT IS NOT THE COPY THE TAGS WERE READ FROM. Of the 13 evidence strings on this record, 8 were located verbatim in it and carry anchors; 5 were not, and remain unanchored because the copy they were read from is not held. The 5 that do not resolve are all from the discussion and the modelling sections. The comparison covers quoted passages only: it says nothing about the passages we did not quote from. Update, 18 September 2026: the counts above are out of date - today all 31 of this record's quotes are in the staged text and anchored.

The quality of the text these quotes were cut from. operator-codes-not-extractable (INVISIBLE TO THE '(cid:NN)' CENSUS): 144 Highwire operator codes in an internal file (19 distinct, commonest /H11005) - '/H11005' is '=' and '/H11003' is a multiplication sign. THE CODE IS FUSED TO THE NUMBER THAT FOLLOWS IT, so 'M /H1100520.3' is 'M = 20.3' and a reader sees a garbage token where the relation was. THIS IS THE SAME FAULT AS '(cid:NN)' IN A DIFFERENT SPELLING - a glyph index with no ToUnicode map, written in Highwire's encoding instead of decimal - so every damage count that greps '(cid:' scores this record ZERO. 24 live quotes, 2 carrying a code - AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IS IN content tags statistics, THE LAYER WHERE THE OPERATOR IS THE CLAIM. Across the three affected records that is 9 hits out of 9.

Some words in these quotes contain the wrong character. The PDF this text was extracted from substituted 8 characters inside a word — a currency sign or a stray accent where a letter pair belongs, as in signi¢cantly for significantly, or a single ligature glyph, as in conﬁdence. They are valid characters in the wrong place, so they survive every encoding check. The quotes keep them for the same reason as above, and a search of this page will not find the affected words.

1 quote on this page breaks a word across a line. The PDF this text was extracted from hyphenated a word 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.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
awareness 3 fields · perception 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 8 concept tags on this paper, 7 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 5 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

response priming masked priming metacontrast masking action priming visual awareness SOA priming recognition accuracy metacontrast time course prime awareness motor perception ANOVA standard-error 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
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/10.1073/pnas.0931489100. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 3 · concepts 7 · content_tags 4 · controls 2 · limitations 2 · 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 3 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

This record holds no mechanisms. 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	existence 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	masked response (action) 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	experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: experiment	`method`		the paper's words
limitations	The findings hold only for the early (under 100 ms) time range studied; priming in other time ranges appears to follow different laws. 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.	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The proposed accumulator model is not the only account compatible with the data; other saturating or leaky models might also fit. 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.	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
controls	the slope prediction from the mean-process approximation was re-derived by MONTE CARLO SIMULATION of the stochastic process Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the analytic result is an artefact of the mean-process approximation and does not hold for the stochastic process it approximates · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	priming time courses were compared under two different masking types Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that masking and priming reflect the SAME underlying process - a dissociation between the two time courses cannot be produced by a single mechanism · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concepts	response priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response priming	`concepts[0]`		the paper's words
concepts	metacontrast masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: metacontrast masking	`concepts[2]`		the paper's words
concepts	action priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: action priming	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	visual awareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: visual awareness	`concepts[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	SOA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SOA	`concepts[5]`	0.95	the paper'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[6]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	recognition accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: recognition accuracy	`concepts[7]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	THE DOUBLE DISSOCIATION ITSELF, and it is two CURVES rather than two conditions: `within the SOA range from 42 to 98 ms: the amount of priming INCREASED, but recognition accuracy DETERIORATED with SOA`. No level of invisibility is asserted anywhere - the argument is carried entirely by the opposite slopes, which is the criterion Schmidt2011 later proposed as a replacement for requiring zero sensitivity 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	`different temporal laws` - the general form of the claim, and it is a statement about SHAPES rather than about magnitudes: conscious perception and unconscious behavioural effects of the same masked stimuli do not merely differ in size, they are governed by different functions of time. Seventh record this sitting where a time course is the load-bearing variable, and the first where two time courses ARE the finding 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	SUBLIMINAL IN WHICH RESPECT - a precision most records in this corpus do not make: `prime stimuli were not subliminal in the sense that their presence or absence could not be detected, but the critical prime feature remained perfectly invisible`. Something was plainly there to be seen; the attribute that did the priming was not. `Subliminal` is a predicate of a FEATURE here, not of a stimulus, and the difference decides what the effect is evidence for 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	the priming time course is INDIFFERENT to whether the prime could be reported: `Quotation withheld` The masking function changes shape - type A to type B - and the priming function does not follow it. That is a stronger result than a difference in size at one delay, because it survives a change in the shape of the other curve 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 neural accumulator model of Hanes and Schall 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.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Milner and Goodale's theory of separate perception and action systems 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.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Macknik and Livingstone's single-cell observation of V1 after-discharge 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.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	action priming —distinct-from→ visual awareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THEIR TIME COURSES - measured under the same conditions, on the same stimuli, and found to obey different temporal laws. Over 42 to 98 ms priming rises while recognition falls, so neither can be a noisier reading of the other · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE PAPER'S RESULT, and the empirical basis for the criterion Schmidt2011 proposes eight years later. Confidence 0.95 - the contrast is the study's design, stated in its own summary of what it did. also in: action priming · visual awareness	`concept_edges[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	SOA —causes→ priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: Half of the dissociation. Recorded separately from the visibility half so that the two directions are queryable independently - a corpus that stored only 'there was a double dissociation' could not answer which way each curve went. also in: SOA · priming	`concept_edges[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	SOA —causes→ recognition accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: reduces · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: The other half, and the reason the pair is a dissociation rather than a correlation: the SAME manipulation moves the two measures in OPPOSITE directions over the same interval. also in: SOA · recognition accuracy	`concept_edges[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
content_tags	masked response priming increased with SOA from 42 to 98 ms while prime recognition fell 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 can occur without the prime being consciously seen 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	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	standard-error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard-error	`content_tags.statistics[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.