phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | repetition priming of face recognition— “Repetition priming is defined as a gain in item recognition after previous exposure.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “1. Repetition priming can be demonstrated for faces shown on advertising posters (Experiments 1-4), although it was reduced in magnitude, as compared with that found for faces encountered in the lab (Experiments 2-4).” | |
| method — evidence | — “As in all other experiments in this series, the task at test was a speeded familiarity decision task made to a series of famous and unfamiliar faces.” | |
| mechanism | Repeated exposure strengthens the connections between face recognition units and person identity nodes, so later familiarity decisions are reached faster— “According to Burton et al.'s (1990) interactive activation (structural) account, repetition priming of faces arises as a result of the strengthening of connections between/ace recognition units (nodes responding to particular individual faces) and person identity nodes (multimodal nodes re sponding to faces, voices, etc.), the proposed… | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | The same link-strengthening process that produces priming is the process by which new faces are learned and stored representations of familiar faces are updated by new exemplars— “On this account, then, repetition priming taps the same pro cess that underlies the perceptual learning of faces and is the same mechanism by which new faces are learned and representations of familiar faces are modified through encounters with new exemplars.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Priming reflects the ongoing operation of a system that develops and updates the representations used to identify faces, rather than retrieval of the priming episode— “For the moment, however,we maintain our current hypothesis that priming does reflect the operation of a system mediating the development and updating of the representations used to identify faces.” | mechanisms[2] |
| replicates | Bruce (1982)— “The sim ilar performance on same and different exemplars of fa miliar faces replicates Bruce (1982) and probably reflects a ceiling effect.” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | Flude (1993) Quotation withheld — our stored copy of this sentence carries a text-extraction fault (two words run together), so it is not what the paper says. The tag itself stands; the sentence is being re-fetched. | claim_relations[1] |
| extends | Burton et al.'s (1990) interactive activation account— “However, the interactive activation account, as currently articulated, would not readily accommodate the effects of changes in environ mental context, and, to the extent that priming is, in gen eral, robust from the posters, this supports the model.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | THE PRIME WAS NOT ADMINISTERED - IT WAS A POSTER IN A CORRIDOR. Faces on subject recruitment advertisements primed laboratory face recognition, `even when the advertisements make no specific mention of experiments involving face recognition` and even when subjects `were not obliged to look at them`. This is the only record in the corpus where the exposure happened outside the experiment: dijksterhuis1998 doses by duration, Schmidt2009 by the prime-target gap, bargh1996 by a scrambled-sentence task, and every one of them is delivered by an experimenter to someone who has already consented. Here it happened to people who did not yet know they were in a study— “Repetition priming was found for both poster and lab faces, although the priming effect was smaller from the poster faces” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE DISSOCIATION IS IN THE DERIVATIVE, NOT THE LEVEL, WHICH IS A SHARPER CLAIM: `there is little evidence that repeated or extended exposure to items influences repetition priming at all ..., whereas it is clear that increase in exposure duration and/or frequency does affect explicit memory for the items.` More exposure buys explicit memory and buys priming nothing. Two systems that differ in whether they respond to MORE, rather than in whether they respond - which cannot be explained by one measure being less sensitive, the objection that sinks a difference in means— “there is little evidence that repeated or extended exposure to items influences repetition priming at all (see Roediger & McDermott's 1993 review), whereas it is clear that increase in exposure duration and/or frequency does affect explicit memory for the items” | senses[1] |
| sense | AND THE THEORETICAL GAP IS NAMED AND LEFT OPEN: `As currently formulated, however, there is no obvious way for structural accounts to explain contextual influences on repetition priming.` They say what their own result does to the account they favour, and stop. Second record running to decline to close its own gap - hesselmann2016 reports its surviving effect as `difficult to reconcile` with the obvious model. A corpus that only held resolved claims would hold neither, and the unresolved version is what a later paper actually picks up— “As currently formulated, however, there is no obvious way for structural accounts to explain contextual influences on repetition priming” | senses[2] |
| sense | AND THE CAREFUL CONCLUSION IS CAREFUL IN A SPECIFIC DIRECTION: `What we can say, however, is that repetition priming of familiar faces is not trivially bound to the superficial aspects of context that have been found to influence memory for pictures of faces.` A negative claim about what the effect is NOT bound to, rather than a positive claim about what carries it. `What we can say, however` is the authors marking the edge of their evidence inside the sentence that states it— “What we can say, however, is that repetition priming of familiar faces is not trivially bound to the superficial aspects of context that have been found to influence memory for pictures of faces” | senses[3] |
| control | the test list mixed primed faces with unprimed famous faces, unfamiliar faces and six additional familiar filler items — held — rules out that the priming effect is recognition of fame or familiarity rather than the priming exposure— “The test list comprised a random sequence of the poster faces, the lab faces, and the unprimed faces, plus six additional familiar filler items.” | controls[0] |
| note | repetition priming —distinct-from→ explicit memory — THE DISSOCIATION IS IN HOW THEY RESPOND TO DOSE, AND THAT IS WHY IT IS STRONG. Not 'priming is smaller than explicit memory' - a difference in means, always answerable with a sensitivity argument - but 'more exposure moves one and not the other'. The quote carries both halves and the 'whereas'. Weight 0.9 rather than 0.95: the claim is attributed to Roediger & McDermott's 1993 review inside the sentence, so it is the literature's finding that this paper builds on, not this paper's measurement.— “there is little evidence that repeated or extended exposure to items influences repetition priming at all (see Roediger & McDermott's 1993 review), whereas it is clear that increase in exposure duration and/or frequency does affect explicit memory for the items” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | repetition priming —distinct-from→ explicit memory — 0.9— “there is little evidence that repeated or extended exposure to items influences repetition priming at all (see Roediger & McDermott's 1993 review), whereas it is clear that increase in exposure duration and/or frequency does affect explicit memory for the items” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | repetition priming —contrasted-with→ episodic memory — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but half the subjects did the repetition-priming experiment and half the episodic-memory test; contrasted-with is loose.— “Half of these subjects were tested on the repetition priming experiment, and half were tested on the test of interference in episodic memory” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | repetition priming —contrasted-with→ episodic memory — A DESIGN SENTENCE, AND IT IS DELIBERATELY THE GROUNDING FOR THIS EDGE. The two memories are contrasted here by being measured on split halves of the same subject pool from the same poster exposure - which is what makes the later finding (episodic memory weak, priming present) a dissociation rather than a comparison across studies. Weight 0.8: the quote establishes the contrast operationally and not its outcome; the outcome is in the senses and in the record's findings.— “Half of these subjects were tested on the repetition priming experiment, and half were tested on the test of interference in episodic memory” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | repetition priming —contrasted-with→ episodic memory — 0.8— “Half of these subjects were tested on the repetition priming experiment, and half were tested on the test of interference in episodic memory” | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | replicated | |
| limitation | Exposure duration and frequency for poster faces were uncontrolled, so absolute priming magnitudes for poster versus lab faces are not directly comparable. Quotation withheld — our stored copy of this sentence carries a text-extraction fault (two words run together), so it is not what the paper says. The tag itself stands; the sentence is being re-fetched. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Experiment 3 could not counterbalance items across conditions, leaving only four items per cell and an underpowered items analysis.— “As there were only four items in each cell and counterbalancing was not possible, the items analysis for this experiment lacks power and is not reported.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The poster-versus-lab comparison in Experiment 1 was severely underpowered.— “However, the power of this comparison within this exper iment was very low (0.22, assuming a medium effect size, as defined by Cohen, 1977).” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The contextual manipulation used cues known to matter for unfamiliar-face memory, but may not have changed the functional context relevant to identifying familiar faces.— “However, some caution should also be exercised over these findings, since, although the contextual manipulation in these experiments encompassed changes found to in fluence memory for unfamiliar faces, it is not clear to what extent similar variations capture the functional aspects of the context that are important for the identification of… | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Faces first encountered on subject-recruitment posters outside the laboratory produced measurable repetition priming of laboratory familiarity decisions, even when the poster never mentioned face recognition.— “Here we show that gains in face recognition in the laboratory are found from faces initially seen in a rather different context on subject recruitment posters, even when the advertisements make no specific mention of experi ments involving face recognition.” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Poster priming was reliable across all four experiments but smaller in magnitude than priming from faces seen in the laboratory.— “1. Repetition priming can be demonstrated for faces shown on advertising posters (Experiments 1-4), although it was reduced in magnitude, as compared with that found for faces encountered in the lab (Experiments 2-4).” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Priming occurred even when the poster faces were seen incidentally and participants were not required to look at them.— “2. Repetition priming was found even when the faces were presented quite incidentally and subjects were not obliged to look at them (Experiments 2 and 3).” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Changing the pictured exemplar between prime and test reduced priming by about the same amount in the poster and laboratory conditions, so exemplar change and context change acted additively rather than interactively.— “3. Changing the pictorial exemplar between the prime and test phases affected priming similarly in lab and on the poster (Experiments 3 and 4). Thus, the effect ofreduced priming after a change ofview is additive with reductions observed after a change in the environmental context within which the faces were primed.” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Changing the background colour behind the face between prime and test had no detectable effect on the size of the priming effect.— “5. A change in the background color on which the faces were presented had no measurable effects on the amount of priming (Experiment 4).” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Explicit episodic memory for the poster faces was very poor: they neither interfered as distractors nor were recognised at anything like the rate of laboratory faces.— “6. Episodic memory for the faces shown on the poster was weak (Experiments 3 and 4). These faces did not give rise to a sense of familiarity that interfered with their re jection as distractors in a test of memory for faces seen in the lab, and they were recognized very much less well than faces seen in the lab when instructions requested… | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | The authors conclude that face priming does not require reinstating the environmental context of the priming episode, since medium, venue, experimenter presence and task all differed.— “At a theoretical level, we have demonstrated convinc ingly that repetition priming of faces does not require the reinstatement of the environmental context specifically associated with the experiment itself. The faces on the posters were seen on different material (on paper), in a dif ferent venue, without the experimenter present, and, in… | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | A methodological consequence drawn is that researchers testing famous-face recognition must screen out participants who saw those faces in any earlier, apparently unrelated study.— “Although we cannot conclude that priming will transcend changes in all kinds of context (as we discuss below), our observation of substantial priming even from the posters presenting faces incidentally suggests that… | content_tags.findings[7] |
| quantity | 622 msec / 611 msec / 737 msec — Experiment 1 mean familiarity-decision times for poster-primed, lab-primed and unprimed famous faces | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 773 msec / 678 msec / 822 msec — Experiment 2 mean response times for incidentally poster-primed, lab-primed and unprimed faces, showing significant but weaker poster priming | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | F(l,46) = l7.45, p < .001 — Experiment 3 effect of same versus different pictorial exemplar on the amount of 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.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 51% — Proportion of poster faces that participants recognised as previously seen in the direct test of episodic memory, against 95% for lab faces 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 | 95% / 33% / 15% — Replication hit rates for lab faces and poster faces plus the false-positive rate, confirming very weak explicit memory for poster faces 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] |
| variable | background color (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[1] |
| variable | wording on the posters (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[2] |
| variable | place of priming (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[5] |
| variable | exemplar (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[6] |
| definition | repetition 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 | episodic account of 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[1] |
| definition | structural models of repetition 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[2] |
| definition | context 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] |
| concept | repetition priming — not defined in this paper's own words; DEFINED AS A GAIN IN RECOGNITION, not as a change in a representation - the paper's own opening sentence puts the phenomenon in the measurement and leaves the mechanism for the discussion, which is where it then declines to settle 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. | concepts[0] |
| concept | explicit memory — not defined in this paper's own words; the system that DOES respond to more exposure - and the contrast is in the derivative rather than the level: duration and frequency move explicit memory and leave repetition priming where it was 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 | episodic memory — not defined in this paper's own words; measured separately here and found WEAK for the poster faces, while the priming from them was present. The dissociation is collected rather than assumed 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 | context — not defined in this paper's own words; the corridor against the laboratory - and the variable this paper exists to move. A structural account of priming has no room for it, which is the gap the discussion names 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] |
| ANOVA F | as written: An analysis of variance (ANOVA) 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] |
| t-test t | as written: t = 2.84 by subjects, t= 2.4 by items 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] |
| p-value p | as written: p < .001 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] |
| mean | as written: The mean times to make familiarity decisions 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] |
| standard deviation SD | as written: SD= 88 msec 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] |
| statistical power / effect size | as written: the power of this comparison ... assuming a medium effect size, as defined by Cohen, 1977 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] |
| confidence interval | as written: the within-subjects confidence interval (Loftus & Masson, 1994) 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] |
| evidence status note | confidence interval — PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THIS QUOTE - the page number '508' at its end. The sentence before it is printed twice in the paper (two figure legends), so the number stays to keep the quote unique; read the quote without it. | 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