phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | subliminal priming— “A subliminal priming effect is obtained when undetectable prime stimuli modulate targetrelated processes in some way.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Thus, we conclude that subliminal priming effects can be observed even when taking the steps necessary to guard against the task-difficulty artifact.” | |
| method — evidence | — “To address the concerns with Pratte and Rouder’s (2009) procedure for controlling task difficulty, the primes in the present experiment were presented in color (red or green) in both the targetand prime-classification tasks.” | |
| mechanism | using a backward mask that is visually similar to the prime (a letter string masking a letter-string prime) suppresses prime identity strongly enough to reach chance-level identification at durations that still produce priming, whereas dissimilar and repeated masks let the prime pop out— “This decision, along with their use of identical forward and backward masks, which causes the prime to “pop out” or appear in relief, contributed to the lack of effective masking in their experiment.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | differences in masking procedure, rather than differences in control of task difficulty, are what drive the opposite conclusions of the two studies— “We suggest that our findings stand in contrast to those of Pratte and Rouder (2009) because of important differences in the masking procedures between the two studies.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | when primes and targets share a stimulus set, learned stimulus-response mappings can be triggered automatically by an unseen prime, so apparent above-chance prime classification may reflect nonconscious motor activation rather than awareness— “then above-chance performance in the prime-classification task may index nonconsciously elicited motor processes— not visual awareness.” | mechanisms[2] |
| contradicts | Pratte and Rouder (2009)— “But Pratte and Rouder’s conclusion that controlling for the task-difficulty artifact eliminates subliminal priming lacks empirical support.” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Pratte and Rouder (2009)— “We suggest that our findings stand in contrast to those of Pratte and Rouder (2009) because of important differences in the masking procedures between the two studies.” | claim_relations[1] |
| replicates | Finkbeiner & Forster (2008); Kouider & Dehaene (2007)— “These results (see Fig. 3a) replicate several findings reported in the literature (cf. Finkbeiner & Forster, 2008; Kouider & Dehaene, 2007, for reviews), although this is the first demonstration of masked congruence priming that we are aware of with distinctly colored prime stimuli.” | claim_relations[2] |
| builds-on | Morey et al. (2008) mass-at-chance (MAC) model— “The prime-classification data from the present experiment were analyzed using the one-parameter MAC model (Morey et al., 2008), which is available as a package for the R language (http://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/massatchance/).” | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | THE CRITERION STATED AS AN IF-THEN, WHICH IS WORTH HOLDING VERBATIM: `If, in a separate task that assesses PRIME AWARENESS, subjects are not able to identify the prime stimuli at BETTER THAN CHANCE levels (i.e., d' is not statistically different from zero), then subliminal priming is said to have occurred.` `is said to have occurred` - the phenomenon is the conjunction of two measurements, and the paper is explicit that the word is licensed by the second one. dehaene1998 and holcomb2005 argue about WHAT was processed without awareness; this record is about what licenses the word `subliminal` at all, which is the prior question and the corpus had no clean statement of it— “If, in a separate task that assesses prime awareness, subjects are not able to identify the prime stimuli at better than chance levels (i.e., d′ is not statistically different from zero), then subliminal priming is said to have occurred” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE CRITIQUE IT ANSWERS IS AN ATTACK ON THE MEASUREMENT, NOT ON THE EFFECT: `In a recent critique of subliminal priming, Pratte and Rouder (2009) suggested that previous claims of subliminal priming may have been due to A failure to control the task difficulty between the experiment proper and the prime-classification task.` If the certifying task is simply harder, chance performance on it certifies nothing. That is the strongest form of methodological criticism - it does not dispute a result, it disputes what the result is evidence OF - and a corpus that records priming findings without recording this cannot represent why the literature is contested— “In a recent critique of subliminal priming, Pratte and Rouder (Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1276–1283, 2009) suggested that previous claims of subliminal priming may have been due to a failure to control the task difficulty between the experiment proper and the prime-classification task” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE ANSWER IS BUILT INTO THE STIMULUS RATHER THAN ARGUED IN A DISCUSSION - PRINT THE PRIMES IN COLOUR: `In the prime-classification task, subjects reported the color of the primes very accurately, indicating almost perfect control of task difficulty, but they could not identify the primes.` 92.1% on colour, chance on identity, same stimulus, same trial, within subject. The colour report proves the task was easy and the subject was attending, so the identity failure cannot be blamed on difficulty. A control made of the stimulus, not of an argument - and the cleanest reply to an artifact objection I have tagged— “In the prime-classification task, subjects reported the color of the primes very accurately, indicating almost perfect control of task difficulty, but they could not identify the primes” | senses[2] |
| sense | AND A FOOTNOTE CARRIES THE STRONGEST SENTENCE IN THE PAPER: `The primes that were presented for 40 to ~60 ms were VISIBLE (d' > 2.0); the primes presented for LESS THAN 40 ms were NOT VISIBLE (d' not different from zero), and yet they produced reliable priming effects.` Visible primes prime and invisible primes prime. So the priming function and the awareness function are separable, and a study that finds priming has learned nothing about awareness until it measures awareness separately - which is the whole argument of this paper, stated in a footnote about a different experiment— “The primes that were presented for 40 to ~60 ms were visible (d′ > 2.0); the primes presented for less than 40 ms were not visible (d′ not different from zero), and yet they produced reliable priming effects” | senses[3] |
| control | the letters in the backward mask were randomly repositioned on every trial — held — rules out that the masking effect is specific to one mask arrangement rather than to masking as such— “The forward mask always appeared as it is depicted in Table 1; the letters in the backward mask were randomly assigned to different positions on each trial.” | controls[0] |
| note | subliminal priming —distinct-from→ task-difficulty artifact — THE RESULT, AND 'distinct-from' IS DOING REAL WORK HERE. The artifact was proposed as an ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION of subliminal priming; this record separates them by controlling the artifact and keeping the effect. So the edge records not that two concepts differ, but that one was offered as the other and failed. Weight 0.9 rather than 0.95 because the paper itself attributes the contrast with Pratte and Rouder to 'important differences…' - which is a second unresolved difference between the labs, stated by the author.— “Thus, we conclude that subliminal priming effects can be observed even when taking the steps necessary to guard against the task-difficulty artifact” | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | subliminal priming —distinct-from→ task-difficulty artifact — 0.9— “Thus, we conclude that subliminal priming effects can be observed even when taking the steps necessary to guard against the task-difficulty artifact” | concept_edges[2] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| evidential status | mechanism — the paper's own words: We suggest that— “We suggest that our findings stand in contrast to those of Pratte and Rouder (2009) because of important differences in the masking procedures between the two studies.” | mechanisms[1] |
| replication | contested | |
| limitation | Even with 240 prime-classification trials the design remains open to the low-power criticism levelled at subliminal priming studies.— “But the present study, despite including 1.5 times as many trials in the prime-classification task (N = 240) as the targetclassification task (N = 160), is still susceptible to the criticism that Rouder, Morey, and colleagues have persuasively leveled against many subliminal priming studies (cf. Morey, Rouder, & Speckman, 2008, 2009… | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The prime-classification measure used here may itself have been insufficiently sensitive to prime awareness.— “The third possibility, which is related to the second, is that the prime-classification measure in the present experiment may not have been sufficiently sensitive.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The .95 posterior criterion used to declare subliminality may be too strict, and the priming result is also reported under a relaxed .90 criterion.— “It should be noted that the criterion of .95 is very strict, and may be too strict for this application (Jeff Rouder, personal communication).” | limitations[2] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Reliable masked congruence priming was obtained at both 40 ms and 50 ms prime durations.— “The planned comparisons revealed significant priming effects with both 40-ms primes… | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Presenting primes in colour let subjects report the prime's colour almost as accurately as they classified targets, which the author takes as successful equating of difficulty across the two tasks. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Prime identification was 51.8%, not above chance, with 40-ms primes and 55.6%, above chance, with 50-ms primes. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Subliminality was confirmed for 16 of 21 subjects with 40-ms primes but for only 1 with 50-ms primes. 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 | Restricting the priming analysis to only those subject-by-duration cells whose subliminality was confirmed still yielded a significant 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.findings[4] |
| finding | The priming effect did not decrease as the criterion for subliminality increased. 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 authors conclude subliminal priming can be observed even when guarding against the task-difficulty artifact. 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 | M = 92.1% — mean accuracy of reporting the prime's colour in the prime-classification task 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 | both greater than 90% — colour-report accuracy and target-classification accuracy, showing the two tasks were matched for difficulty 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 | 51.8% ... 55.6% — prime identity accuracy at 40 ms and at 50 ms prime durations 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 | 16 of the 21 — subjects judged to be performing at chance on prime identity with 40-ms primes by the MAC 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.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 21 — number of participants in the experiment 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 | Bayes factor of 0.26 — Bayes factor for the priming effect among subliminality-confirmed cells, i.e. the alternative is 3.85 times more likely than the null 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 | 9:1 ... 16:1 — odds in favour of subliminality and the resulting odds in favour of priming under the relaxed .90 criterion 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 | approximately 570 — prime-classification trials that would be needed, at n = 21 and 52% true performance, to keep the chance of wrongly accepting the null below 5% 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] |
| variable | prime duration (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 | prime type (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 | RTs (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 | Prime Color (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] |
| variable | prime–target SOA (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[6] |
| definition | subliminal 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[0] |
| definition | target-classification task 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 | task-difficulty artifact 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 | mass-at-chance 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.definitions[3] |
| definition | null-sensitivity problem 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 | subliminal priming — not defined in this paper's own words; DEFINED BY THE OUTCOME OF A SEPARATE MEASUREMENT, and the paper says so in the sentence that introduces it: if d' on a prime-awareness task is not distinguishable from zero, then the priming that was observed 'is said to have occurred' subliminally. The phenomenon is a conjunction of two results, not a property of a stimulus 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 | prime-classification task — not defined in this paper's own words; THE TASK THAT CERTIFIES A PRIME AS UNSEEN, and therefore the load-bearing part of every subliminal claim - which is exactly why Pratte and Rouder attacked it rather than the priming effect itself 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 | task difficulty — not defined in this paper's own words; the confound: if the certifying task is simply HARDER than the experiment, poor performance on it measures the task rather than the subject's access to the prime, and every subliminal claim built on it is unsafe 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 | task-difficulty artifact — not defined in this paper's own words; the confound given a name and a guard - long-duration primes were the field's existing answer, and this paper replaces them with a colour dimension that can be reported independently of identity 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] |
| repeated-measures ANOVA F | 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] |
| one-sample t-test t | as written: traditional one-sample t test 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] |
| paired-samples t-test t | as written: paired-samples t test (twotailed) 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] |
| Bayes factor | as written: Bayes factor calculator 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] |
| hierarchical Bayesian model | as written: hierarchical model within the Bayesian framework 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] |
| posterior probability | 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] |
| null-hypothesis significance testing | as written: standard null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST) 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] |
| signal-detection sensitivity (d-prime) d′ | as written: d′ 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] |
| LOESS local regression | as written: fitted polynomial (LOESS) 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] |
| confidence interval | as written: 95% confidence intervals 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[9] |
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