phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | repetition priming— “Repetition priming is a form of implicit memory that typically manifests as a facilitation in re-processing recently experienced stimuli or as a bias in completing fragments with recently encountered items when test instructions do not make any reference to prior events.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “A straightforward result of the present study is that auditory-to-auditory within-modality and auditory-to-visual cross-modality stem completion priming are associated with distinct patterns of rCBF changes as detected by PET.” | |
| method — evidence | — “A positron emission tomography (PET) study was conducted to investigate the neurofunctional correlate of auditory within-modality and auditory-to-visual cross-modality stem completion priming.” | |
| mechanism | The left inferior temporal/fusiform region mediates interaction between phonological and orthographic word codes, and this shared abstract code is what carries facilitation across modalities— “In particular, it suggests that this cortical region might be involved in the complex interactions between the phonological and orthographic codes of words which ultimately allow for the cross-modality facilitation in verbal stimulus re-processing.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Right prefrontal increases arise from post-retrieval awareness that the generated word was recently encountered (involuntary conscious memory), not from deliberate episodic search driving the completions— “The substantially low level of the completion rate and the lack of an increase in priming magnitude across successive study-test blocks suggest that the contribution of such mechanisms is more in eliciting post-retrieval awareness of a recent encounter with the generated word than in actual support for active retrieval.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Left prefrontal increases reflect more efficient access to output lexical representations of recently encountered words rather than generic word-fluency demand— “Rather, rCBF changes in this region should be considered as the expression of more efficient access to output representations of recently encountered words prompted by either phonological or semantic cues.” | mechanisms[2] |
| contradicts | Badgaiyan et al. (1999); Badgaiyan et al. (2001)— “This is in contrast with previous reports in the literature which showed rCBF decreases in the lateral occipital cortex (BA 19) during auditory stem completion priming (Badgaiyan et al., 1999; Badgaiyan et al., 2001).” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Carlesimo, Marfia, Loasses, & Caltagirone (1996); Graf et al. (1985)— “Previous behavioural studies consistently reported significantly larger within-modality than cross-modality stem completion priming (e.g. Carlesimo, Marfia, Loasses, & Caltagirone, 1996; Graf et al., 1985).” | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | Badgaiyan et al. (1999); Schacter et al. (1999)— “However, the conclusion that cross-modality priming is more exposed to contamination by explicit retrieval strategies than within-modality priming is not supported by neuropsychological evidence.” | claim_relations[2] |
| builds-on | Buckner et al. (2000)— “Support for the view that regions in the left inferior temporal cortex can modulate their neural activity in response to verbal stimuli independent of stimulus-driven perceptual processes comes from an fMRI study by Buckner et al. (2000).” | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | THE ASYMMETRY IS STATED AS SETTLED BACKGROUND, AND THREE YEARS LATER IT IS AN ARTEFACT. `In most cases, the magnitude of the priming effect is LARGER when the same modality of stimulus presentation is used for study and testing than when it differs (Graf, Mandler, & Haden, 1982).` Written as review, not as a claim under test - which is what makes it worth tagging. lukatela2007 minimised study-test asymmetries across five experiments and found EQUAL magnitudes, with the conventional advantage returning only in a within-subjects design. Kirsner1986 reasons from the asymmetry; this record goes looking for its brain basis; lukatela2007 dissolves it. Three records, one day, none citing the others— “In most cases, the magnitude of the priming effect is larger when the same modality of stimulus presentation is used for study and testing than when it differs (Graf, Mandler, & Haden, 1982).” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE NEURAL RESULT IS A DISSOCIATION IN DIRECTION, NOT JUST IN LOCATION: cross-modal priming gave a larger rCBF DECREASE in left inferior temporal and fusiform cortex - regions tied to modality-independent lexical retrieval - while `within-modality auditory priming was associated with a bilateral pattern of prefrontal rCBF increase.` Different regions and opposite signs. Whatever the behavioural asymmetry turns out to be, these two conditions are not one process running at two strengths in this data - which is a constraint that survives even if lukatela2007 is right that the behavioural difference is a design artefact— “Instead, within-modality auditory priming was associated with a bilateral pattern of prefrontal rCBF increase.” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE DEFINITION PUTS THE CRITERION IN THE INSTRUCTIONS, WHICH IS EASY TO READ PAST: repetition priming manifests as facilitation or a completion bias `when test instructions do not make any reference to prior events.` Not `when the subject is unaware`, not `when memory is not consciously used` - when the experimenter did not mention it. The construct is operationalised by what was said to the participant, and the 90%% discussion of this same paper concedes that `involuntary conscious memory` may occur anyway when the study context is reinstated. The definition and the caveat are in the same paper— “Repetition priming is a form of implicit memory that typically manifests as a facilitation in re-processing recently experienced stimuli or as a bias in completing fragments with recently encountered items when test instructions do not make any reference to prior events.” | senses[2] |
| control | the 30-word stimulus sets were counterbalanced across subjects so each occurred equally often in the within- and cross-modality conditions and in the priming and baseline scans — held — rules out that a condition difference is a difference between the word sets— “The stimuli were counterbalanced across subjects so that each 30-word set occurred equally often in the within and cross-modality condition, priming and baseline scans.” | controls[0] |
| control | condition and scan order counterbalanced across blocks and subjects in a LATIN SQUARE design — held — rules out that the effect is an order effect across the scanning session— “The order of within and cross-modality conditions as well as priming and baseline scans was also counterbalanced across blocks and subjects (Latin square design).” | controls[1] |
| control | a postscan debriefing asked whether subjects had noticed that some stems came from the study list - and NEARLY ALL OF THEM HAD — failed — rules out that the priming is implicit - the control was run to establish that subjects were unaware, and it established the opposite— “Moreover, informal assessment of subjects during postscan debriefing revealed that nearly all subjects in both withinand cross-modality conditions were aware of the fact that some of the stems came from the study list.” | controls[2] |
| note | repetition priming —is-a→ implicit memory — THE CLEANEST 'is-a' I HAVE CUT THIS SESSION, AND THEY ARE RARE. 'Repetition priming is a form of implicit memory' - the relation is the sentence's main verb, both endpoints are named as words, and there is no hedge to preserve. Weight 0.95. Most taxonomy in this literature has to be inferred from how terms are used together; here it is asserted directly, in an introduction, as the thing the reader is expected to already accept.— “Repetition priming is a form of implicit memory that typically manifests as a facilitation in re-processing recently experienced stimuli or as a bias in completing fragments with recently encountered items when test instructions do not make any reference to prior events.” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | repetition priming —is-a→ implicit memory — 0.95— “Repetition priming is a form of implicit memory that typically manifests as a facilitation in re-processing recently experienced stimuli or as a bias in completing… | concept_edges[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — failed | controls[2] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The cross-modality parietal and temporal activations cannot be attributed a specific role because the interaction contrasts were not significant. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The left prefrontal activation specific to within-modality priming is only suggestive, again because the interaction failed. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The comparability of the two priming effects may be an artefact of a chance difference in the auditory baseline completion rate. 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 | Auditory-to-visual cross-modality priming produced a significantly larger blood-flow decrease at the left inferior temporal/fusiform boundary than within-modality auditory 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.findings[0] |
| finding | The interaction analysis confirmed the deactivation difference was specific to the cross-modality condition in left BA 37/20. 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 | Within-modality auditory priming was accompanied by bilateral prefrontal blood-flow increases. 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 | Right middle frontal activation was significantly greater for within-modality than for cross-modality 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.findings[3] |
| finding | Within- and cross-modality priming effects were of comparable size behaviourally (4.4 and 3.9). 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 | The magnitude of the left inferior temporal deactivation tracked each subject's behavioural cross-modality priming, tying the imaging effect to behaviour. 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 | No blood-flow decrease related to within-modality priming reached the threshold used. 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] |
| finding | Priming size did not change across successive study-test blocks. 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[7] |
| quantity | Eight — number of participants scanned (male college students aged 20-27) 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 | 12 scans — number of PET scans per subject, three in each of the four conditions 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 | 360 — number of common Italian target words making up the stem-completion materials 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 | 6.51 per million — mean lexical frequency of the target words in Italian 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 | 7.7 versus 3.5 — mean number of stems completed with target words in priming versus baseline scans 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 | 4.4 and 3.9 — size of the within-modality and cross-modality priming effects, which did not differ reliably 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 | F = 42.2; P < 0.001 — main effect of condition (priming versus baseline) on stem completion 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] |
| quantity | Z = 2.59 — sub-threshold deactivation peak in right BA 19 for within-modality auditory priming, found only in an exploratory analysis 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[7] |
| quantity | Z = 2.0; P = 0.02 — strength of the correlation between left BA 37/20 deactivation and behavioural cross-modality 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[8] |
| variable | modality of stem presentation (auditory versus visual) (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[0] |
| variable | regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) (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 | percentage of target words (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[3] |
| variable | foil lists (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[4] |
| 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 | cross-modality 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 | stem completion paradigm 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 | within-modality priming effect 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 | basal temporal language area 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] |
| definition | involuntary conscious memory 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[5] |
| concept | repetition priming — not defined in this paper's own words; DEFINED HERE IN ONE SENTENCE AND THE DEFINITION IS DOING REAL WORK: 'a facilitation in re-processing recently experienced stimuli or as a bias in completing fragments with recently encountered items when test instructions do not make any reference to prior events.' That final clause is the whole operational content - it is what separates this from recall, and it is a fact about the INSTRUCTIONS, not about the subject 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 | implicit memory — not defined in this paper's own words; the category repetition priming belongs to. Its evidence in this literature is dissociation from episodic memory in amnesia - patients with mesio-temporal or diencephalic damage show normal priming and severely impaired episodic performance - which is a claim about populations, not about a mechanism 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 | within-modality — not defined in this paper's own words; study and test in the same modality. The condition with a bilateral PREFRONTAL rCBF INCREASE - increase, where the priming literature's standard neural signature is a decrease. That inversion is the finding 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 | modality — not defined in this paper's own words; whether study and test used the same sense. Stated here as established that priming is 'larger when the same modality ... is used for study and testing than when it differs' - and lukatela2007, three years later, shows the difference disappears once study-test asymmetries are equalised. This record inherits the asymmetry as background 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: three-way 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] |
| F-test F | as written: F = 16.8; P < 0.01 with d.f. = 1, 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. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| t-test t | as written: the t statistic 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] |
| z-score Z | as written: Z score maps (SPM{Z}) 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] |
| general linear model | as written: the general linear model 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] |
| random effects analysis | as written: random effect analysis 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] |
| p-value P | as written: statistical threshold one-tailed, P < 0.001 uncorrected 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] |
| correlation | as written: significant negative correlation 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[7] |
| meta-analysis | as written: a meta-analysis of the activation and de-activation patterns 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[8] |
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