phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | perceptual (repetition) priming in monkeys— “We tested for priming in rhesus monkeys using procedures similar to those that have been effective in humans.” | |
| claim-type | null-result— “Across 11 experiments, monkeys did not show priming, nor did they show any reliable benefit of having seen to-be-classified images.” | |
| method — evidence | — “We tested six adult male rhesus monkeys ( Macaca mulatta ; mean age at start of testing = 3.2 years).” | |
| transfer | from human memory research (human cognitive psychology): the human occluded-picture-naming priming paradigm is converted into a classification task so it can be run on monkeys— “As in priming studies in which humans were asked to name partially occluded images that they either had or had not seen previously ( Mitchell, 2006 ; Snodgrass & Feenan, 1990 ), we required monkeys to classify partially occluded photographs that they either had or had not seen previously.” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | The visual processing that supports recognition is encapsulated from the processing that supports classification, so remembering an image cannot feed forward to help classify a degraded version of it.— “This suggests that the visual processing necessary for recognition is cognitively encapsulated from that necessary for classification.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Pigeons and monkeys classify by different routes — local features versus global shape — which is offered as the explanation for why priming appeared in pigeons but not here.— “Thus, it appears that unlike our monkeys, pigeons are more likely to process local rather than global features in classifications tasks.” | mechanisms[1] |
| builds-on | Brodbeck (1997)— “Following Brodbeck (1997) , we trained rhesus monkeys ( Macaca mulatta ) to categorize photographs according to content (e.g., birds, fish, flowers, people).” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Brodbeck (1997)— “We failed to replicate the findings of the single study of priming in nonhumans ( Brodbeck, 1997 ).” | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | Mcmahon & Olson (2007)— “Given the short delays used (mean = 1.9 seconds), it is likely the monkeys would have recognized the primes and, thus, this study does not provide evidence for implicit priming in monkeys.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | priming as IMPLICIT - named by the paper as the critical feature of the theories it is testing, and stated as a double requirement: subjects identify primed material better AND cannot explicitly remember it. The effect is defined partly by a FAILURE that has to accompany it, which is why a study finding memory for the primes is testing something the definition cares about— “A critical feature of theories of the organization of human memory is that priming is implicit. Subjects are better at identifying primed material even when they cannot explicitly remember” | senses[0] |
| sense | priming defined by a PROPERTY LIST rather than by a mechanism - automatic, effortless, unconscious, neuroanatomically separate from sophisticated forms of memory such as episodic memory. Every item is a contrast with something else, and it is precisely this shape of definition that licenses the leap to evolutionary age: a capacity that needs none of the expensive machinery is assumed to have come first— “Because priming is automatic, effortless, unconscious, and neuroanatomically separate from sophisticated forms of memory such as episodic memory, researchers have theorized that it may be evolutionary old” | senses[1] |
| sense | the PHYLOGENETIC ASSUMPTION, named as an assumption in the abstract: priming is `commonly thought, with little evidence, to be widely distributed phylogenetically`. The paper's target is not a finding but a belief its field holds without having tested it - and the only prior nonhuman evidence it can find is one study in pigeons— “Such priming is commonly thought, with little evidence, to be widely distributed phylogenetically. Following Brodbeck (1997) , we trained rhesus monkeys” | senses[2] |
| sense | search image versus perceptual priming - a neighbouring concept separated by two stated measurements rather than by definition: the search image is SHORT LIVED and is DIMINISHED BY DIVIDED ATTENTION, so it is classed as short-term ATTENTIONAL priming rather than the long-term PERCEPTUAL priming seen in humans. Two literatures using one word, told apart by duration and by whether attention matters— “The phenomenon of perceptual priming is also similar to, but distinct from, the concept of “specific searching image” in studies of insect predation by birds ( Tinbergen, 1960 ). After repeated exposure to cryptic prey, such as when foraging for camouflaged moths, birds may form a mental image that facilitates subsequent searches for that… | senses[3] |
| sense | `priming` and `perceptual priming` are used at DIFFERENT GRAIN in different parts of the argument, and the split is systematic rather than casual: where the paper reasons about memory SYSTEMS - dissociation from explicit memory, survival in amnesia, evolutionary age - it writes bare `priming`; where it describes the visual effect it measures, and where it fences that effect off from the search image, it writes `perceptual priming`. The general term carries the theory and the specific term carries the experiment— “Thus, priming is cognitively distinct from explicit memory, long-lasting, early developing, and depends on neural systems distinct from those serving explicit memory. Because priming is automatic, effortless, unconscious, and neuroanatomically separate from sophisticated forms of memory such as episodic memory, researchers have theorized that… | senses[4] |
| sense | a null defended rather than reported - the paper argues its own absence of evidence is not absence of power, on three separate grounds: priming is routinely seen in SINGLE human subjects, the pigeon result that motivated the study used FEWER subjects than this one, and the same animals demonstrably remembered the primes. The last is the one that matters, because it rules out the animals not having encoded the images at all— “Our null results are unlikely to be the product of low statistical power. First, it is unlikely that the size of our subject pool masked detection of priming. Priming is often seen in case studies of single human subjects ( Gabrieli et al., 1990 ; Hamann & Squire, 1997 ), and the positive evidence from pigeons comes from a study using… | senses[5] |
| control | the S+ category counterbalanced across monkeys - cats were S+ for three monkeys and S- for the other three — held — rules out that the result is a pre-existing preference for one stimulus category rather than learning of the assigned contingency— “The S+ category was counterbalanced across monkeys such that cats were S+ for three monkeys and S-for the other three monkeys.” | controls[0] |
| differs in | perceptual priming —distinct-from→ search image — DURATION AND ATTENTIONAL DEPENDENCE - the search image is short lived and is diminished by divided attention, which is why the paper files it as short-term attentional priming rather than long-term perceptual priming— “The phenomenon of perceptual priming is also similar to, but distinct from, the concept of “specific searching image” in studies of insect predation by birds ( Tinbergen, 1960 ). After repeated exposure to cryptic prey, such as when foraging for camouflaged moths, birds may form a mental image that facilitates subsequent searches for that…— “short lived” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | perceptual priming —distinct-from→ search image — The paper's own phrase is 'similar to, but distinct from', and it does not leave the distinction as an assertion: both differentiating properties are cited to experiments. This is the shape the corpus wants - a boundary drawn with measurements.— “The phenomenon of perceptual priming is also similar to, but distinct from, the concept of “specific searching image” in studies of insect predation by birds ( Tinbergen, 1960 ). After repeated exposure to cryptic prey, such as when foraging for camouflaged moths, birds may form a mental image that facilitates subsequent searches for that… | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | perceptual priming —distinct-from→ search image — 0.9— “The phenomenon of perceptual priming is also similar to, but distinct from, the concept of “specific searching image” in studies of insect predation by birds ( Tinbergen, 1960 ). After repeated exposure to cryptic prey, such as when foraging for camouflaged moths, birds may form a mental image that facilitates subsequent searches for that… | concept_edges[0] |
| differs in | priming —distinct-from→ explicit memory — WHETHER IT SURVIVES AMNESIA AND WHICH NEURAL SYSTEM CARRIES IT - the separation is the definition rather than a finding about it, which is what makes this record's null result awkward for the theory— “Thus, priming is cognitively distinct from explicit memory, long-lasting, early developing, and depends on neural systems distinct from those serving explicit memory. Because priming is automatic, effortless, unconscious, and neuroanatomically separate from sophisticated forms of memory such as episodic memory, researchers have theorized that…— “depends on neural systems distinct from those serving explicit memory” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | priming —distinct-from→ explicit memory — Recorded because the dissociation is doing definitional work: priming is IDENTIFIED by being separable from explicit memory. A monkey that recognises the primes but shows no priming is a dissociation running the other way.— “Thus, priming is cognitively distinct from explicit memory, long-lasting, early… | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | priming —distinct-from→ explicit memory — 0.9 | concept_edges[1] |
| audit | repetition suppression —causes→ priming — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but repetition suppression is 'THEORIZED TO UNDERLIE' priming; causes is hedged. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| note | repetition suppression —causes→ priming — Weight 0.7 - the LOWEST on this record, and deliberately. The paper reports this as a theorised mechanism it is about to find fault with: the neural signature is present in monkeys and the behavioural effect is not. Recorded as the literature's claim, not as this paper's. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | repetition suppression —causes→ priming — 0.7 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| differs in | recognition —distinct-from→ classification — WHETHER MEMORY FOR AN IMAGE REACHES THE PROCESS AT ALL - the same remembered image supports recognition and does nothing for classification, which the paper reads as cognitive encapsulation between the two Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[3] |
| note | recognition —distinct-from→ classification — THE RESULT, stated as a relation between two tasks rather than as an effect size. The paper's last word on it is 'presents a puzzle', and the weight says so. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[3] |
| weight | recognition —distinct-from→ classification — 0.85 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[3] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The study may simply have failed to identify the conditions under which priming would appear in monkeys. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Despite exploring many manipulations, the critical conditions for producing a memory effect on classification may have been missed. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The one significant priming effect obtained (Experiment 5, blur mask) is treated by the authors as unreliable and possibly a Type I error. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Across eleven experiments rhesus monkeys showed no priming: previously seen images conferred no reliable advantage when degraded versions had to be classified. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The same monkeys did recognise the prime images, both masked and unmasked, at the same memory interval at which no priming appeared. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | The single significant priming result (the blur-mask experiment) failed to replicate under stronger conditions and is interpreted as a Type I error. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Scrambling the masked images significantly lowered classification accuracy compared with intact masked images. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | The classification was based on global form, exactly the kind of process that memory for the intact image should have facilitated. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | A close methodological replication of the only positive nonhuman priming study (in pigeons) produced no priming in monkeys. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | The combination of intact recognition with absent facilitation constitutes a dissociation between remembering an image and classifying it. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| quantity | six — number of adult male rhesus monkeys tested throughout the study Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 288 / 288 — primed and unprimed trials collected per monkey in Experiment 1 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 3.1% — the absolute accuracy advantage for primed images in the one experiment that reached significance, later attributed to Type I error Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 80% / 81% — the occlusion level required in the pigeon-replication and the accuracy it produced Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 98% — the monkeys' accuracy on the cats-versus-cars discrimination by the final training session Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | t (5) = 0.6, p = .6 — the null test of primed versus unprimed classification accuracy in Experiment 1, typical of the paper's null results Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| quantity | d = 1.9 — effect size for recognition of unmasked primes, the effect that was present while priming was absent Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| variable | classification accuracy (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | latency (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[2] |
| variable | image quality (color, grayscale, line drawings) (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[4] |
| variable | category control images (control) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[5] |
| definition | perceptual priming Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | specific searching image Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | perceptual closure Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | accuracy Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | latency Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| concept | perceptual priming — not defined in this paper's own words; the construct under test, and it is specified by DISSOCIATIONS rather than by a mechanism: distinct from explicit memory, long-lasting, early developing, and running on different neural systems. A list of what it is not and what it survives Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | priming — not defined in this paper's own words; the general memory-system construct, as the theory passages use it - the thing that is dissociated from explicit memory, survives amnesia, and is therefore argued to be old. NOT the visual effect this paper measures; that is 'perceptual priming' Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | explicit memory — not defined in this paper's own words; the contrast class the whole definition leans on - priming is identified by being separable from this, in amnesia, in development, and in the brain Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | recognition — not defined in this paper's own words; the control that turns a null into an argument: the same monkeys, the same primes, tested for memory of them. Without it the absence of priming would be indistinguishable from the animals never having encoded the images Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | classification — not defined in this paper's own words; the task priming was expected to speed up - categorising a degraded photograph by content - and the one that showed no benefit whatever from having seen the image before Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | repetition suppression — not defined in this paper's own words; the theorised neural mechanism, and the load-bearing step in the phylogenetic argument: it has been recorded in monkeys, so the machinery for priming is taken to be present in them Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | search image — not defined in this paper's own words; the animal-behaviour neighbour the paper separates itself from BY MEASUREMENT rather than by assertion - a facilitation that is short lived and destroyed by divided attention, therefore attentional rather than perceptual Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| t-test t | as written: Paired t-tests ... one-sample t-tests Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| arcsine transformation | as written: arcsine transformed Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| significance level (alpha), two-tailed testing α | as written: two-tailed with α = .05 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| effect size (Cohen's d) d | as written: d = 1.8 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| p-value p | as written: t (5) = 0.6, p = .6 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| median | as written: the median time from onset of the sample Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| Type I error | as written: a Type I error Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[6] |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824