phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | masked priming and the N400— “In these studies, the prime stimulus is presented very briefly and is then immediately obscured by either a pattern mask (e.g., a series of letters or symbols occupying the same location on the screen as the prime) or the target word itself.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Taken together, these findings provide strong evidence that the N400 repetition effects at 40 ms in this experiment were due in large part to automatic unconscious processes and were not strictly the result of conscious leakage from consciously perceived primes.” | |
| method — evidence | — “In two experiments, the effect of the duration (40, 80 and 120 ms) of pattern masked prime words on subsequent target word processing was measured using event-related potentials.” | |
| mechanism | Form information is extracted from the prime automatically while semantic extraction consumes capacity-limited attentional resources, so prime visibility gates semantic but not repetition priming— “The complete pattern of priming effects obtained in the present study can be explained if one assumes that form information can be extracted automatically (i.e., without attention-demanding resources), while the extraction of semantic information is either not automatic at all and depends on the allocation of capacity-limited resources or… | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Repetition priming works by pre-activating shared representations whereas semantic priming works by establishing post-target connections between related representations, the latter requiring attention— “One way to avoid this relatively ad-hoc assumption would be to argue that the critical difference between repetition and semantic priming is that repetition priming is driven primarily by the pre-activation of representations that are shared by prime and target, while semantic priming involves, to a greater extent, establishing connections… | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | The N400 indexes a resonance process at a form–meaning interface in which prime-derived form or meaning information helps the lexical processor settle on one form–meaning association— “Improving the processing of either form or meaning will help the lexical processor settle on a single form–meaning association via a resonance process involving the activation of similar form and similar meaning representations.” | mechanisms[2] |
| contradicts | Brown and Hagoort— “The pattern of results observed in these experiments would seem to call into question the interpretation of the functional significance of the N400 offered by Brown and Hagoort [ 2 ] and others who have maintained that the N400 is exclusively sensitive to post-lexical semantic processes.” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Deacon et al. and Kiefer et al. reports of unconscious masked semantic priming— “Moreover, these findings draw into question previous reports of masked semantic priming that have claimed that the effects are due to unconsciously processed primes [ 6 , 14 , 15 ].” | claim_relations[1] |
| replicates | Misra and Holcomb; Schnyer et al.— “Like several previous studies [ 21 , 31 ], robust effects of repetition in the region of the N400 component were found for target words preceded by very briefly displayed masked prime words.” | claim_relations[2] |
| extends | Misra and Holcomb— “One limitation with the Misra and Holcomb [ 21 ] study was that their unmasked (identifiable) and masked (unidentifiable) priming data for immediate repetitions (i.e., the trials with the largest effects) were collected in different experiments in different participants.” | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | THE DISSOCIATION IS MADE OF CORRELATIONS, NOT OF MEANS, AND THAT IS THE DESIGN. One measure (the N400), one design, two kinds of priming, and the question is whether each effect's size tracks how well the individual participant could see the prime: `unlike repetition priming in Experiment 1, for semantic priming in Experiment 2, visibility of primes at 40 ms ... predicted the N400 effect`. Individual differences are the instrument - a median split on d-prime - so the NULL in Experiment 1 is the informative half, not the weak one. It is also the paper's defence against its own worst confound: if repetition priming ran on conscious leakage, the participants who leaked more would prime more, and they do not— “So, unlike repetition priming in Experiment 1, for semantic priming in Experiment 2, visibility of primes at 40 ms (as measured by button presses to probe items) predicted the N400 effect for targets following very briefly presented primes” | senses[0] |
| sense | THE AUTOMATIC/CONTROLLED LINE MOVES OFF THE REPRESENTATION AND ONTO THE MECHANISM: `it is not the type of representation (form or meaning) that determines the automaticity of priming effects, but rather the type of mechanism utilized (pre-activation versus establishing connections).` The older account - form is automatic, meaning is not - would have to say the repetition effect is mostly form, and the authors call that assumption AD HOC in their own words rather than defending it. What replaces it is a distinction between raising the activation of a shared representation and building a link between two different ones, and only the second needs attention— “One way to avoid this relatively ad-hoc assumption would be to argue that the critical difference between repetition and semantic priming is that repetition priming is driven primarily by the pre-activation of representations that are shared by prime and target, while semantic priming involves, to a greater extent, establishing connections… | senses[1] |
| sense | THEY NAME THE RESULT THAT WOULD REFUTE THEM, which almost nothing else in this corpus does: `finding evidence of N400 priming effects on masked targets would strengthen the case for the N400 being a direct reflection of automatic processing and would force those of us who have assumed that it reflects a post-lexical stage of comprehension to rethink our position.` A named observation, a design that would produce it (mask the target instead of the prime), and the authors' own position placed at risk by it. The corpus holds many predictions; this is a stated disconfirmer— “On the other hand, finding evidence of N400 priming effects on masked targets would strengthen the case for the N400 being a direct reflection of automatic processing and would force those of us who have assumed that it reflects a post-lexical stage of comprehension to rethink our position” | senses[2] |
| sense | A SECOND, SHARPER TEST IS SPECIFIED WITH ITS DISCRIMINATING PREDICTION: translation equivalents in bilinguals (arbre-TREE). `Modulation of the N400 by priming with translation equivalents should not be sensitive to prime visibility since the same semantic representation would be pre-activated by the translation equivalent in the other language.` That separates the two accounts cleanly - a translation equivalent is semantically related but shares no form, so the form-versus-meaning account predicts it behaves like semantic priming while the pre-activation account predicts it behaves like repetition priming. The prediction is stated in the direction that would embarrass the authors' preferred story if it failed— “Modulation of the N400 by priming with translation equivalents should not be sensitive to prime visibility since the same semantic representation would be pre-activated by the translation equivalent in the other language” | senses[3] |
| sense | THIS IS THE STUDY THAT CONTROLLED WHAT Kiefer DID NOT, AND Kiefer2012 IS IN THIS CORPUS - tagged tonight, four records earlier. `Neither the Deacon et al. nor the Kiefer studies controlled prime processing and therefore it is not clear whether their participants allocated similar attentional resources to primes in their various conditions.` The go/no-go animal-probe task exists to hold attention on the prime epoch constant across durations, because otherwise a shorter prime is also a less-attended one and the two are confounded. So the corpus now holds Kiefer's gating account, this paper's methodological objection to the evidence for it, and both papers' own hedges— “Neither the Deacon et al. nor the Kiefer studies controlled prime processing and therefore it is not clear whether their participants allocated similar attentional resources to primes in their various conditions” | senses[4] |
| control | four participants were excluded, three for excessive artifact and one for experimenter error — held — rules out that the averaged waveform is dominated by a few contaminated recordings— “We excluded four of these participants due to excessive artifact (three) and experimenter error (one).” | controls[0] |
| control | response hand was counterbalanced across participants — held — rules out that a lateralised effect is a motor effect of the responding hand— “As in Experiment 1, the animal names served as probe items in a go/no-go semantic categorization task and response hand was counterbalanced.” | controls[1] |
| differs in | repetition priming —contrasted-with→ semantic priming — WHETHER THE EFFECT TRACKS HOW WELL THE PRIME WAS SEEN. Semantic priming correlates with prime visibility across participants; repetition priming does not. Same measure, same design, so the difference is in the priming and not in the instrument - and on the authors' account it is a difference of MECHANISM (pre-activation versus establishing connections) rather than of representation— “If we further hypothesize that it is precisely the allocation of attention-demanding resources that determines the level of visibility of prime stimuli, then we can explain why prime visibility correlated highly with semantic priming and not with repetition priming”— “prime visibility correlated highly with semantic priming and not with repetition priming” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | repetition priming —contrasted-with→ semantic priming — THE PAPER'S CENTRAL RESULT. Grounded on the sentence that states BOTH arms so a reader cannot take half of it, and the conditional 'If we further hypothesize' is left in because the correlation is the finding while the resource account is the interpretation.— “If we further hypothesize that it is precisely the allocation of attention-demanding resources that determines the level of visibility of prime stimuli, then we can explain why prime visibility correlated highly with semantic priming and not with repetition priming” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | repetition priming —contrasted-with→ semantic priming — 0.9— “If we further hypothesize that it is precisely the allocation of attention-demanding resources that determines the level of visibility of prime stimuli, then we can explain why prime visibility correlated highly with semantic priming and not with repetition priming” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | prime visibility —causes→ semantic priming — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but prime visibility 'LIKELY played a role' in semantic priming; causes is hedged.— “This suggests that, unlike the repetition priming effects obtained in Experiment 1, prime visibility likely played a role in the semantic priming effects obtained at the shortest prime durations of Experiment 2” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | prime visibility —causes→ semantic priming — WEIGHTED 0.8 AND 'causes' IS DOING MORE WORK THAN THE DATA DO. This is a CORRELATION ACROSS PARTICIPANTS - nothing was manipulated between the people who saw more and the people who saw less - and the paper's own words are 'likely played a role', which is in the quote. The vocabulary has no 'covaries-with', so the note carries what the type cannot. No effect direction: see the comment above this edge.— “This suggests that, unlike the repetition priming effects obtained in Experiment 1, prime visibility likely played a role in the semantic priming effects obtained at the shortest prime durations of Experiment 2” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | prime visibility —causes→ semantic priming — 0.8— “This suggests that, unlike the repetition priming effects obtained in Experiment 1, prime visibility likely played a role in the semantic priming effects obtained at the shortest prime durations of Experiment 2” | concept_edges[1] |
| audit | pre-activation —causes→ repetition priming — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says 'one way ... would be to argue' repetition priming is driven by pre-activation; causes is hedged.— “One way to avoid this relatively ad-hoc assumption would be to argue that the critical difference between repetition and semantic priming is that repetition priming is driven primarily by the pre-activation of representations that are shared by prime and target, while semantic priming involves, to a greater extent, establishing connections… | concept_edges[2] |
| effect direction | pre-activation —causes→ repetition priming — increases— “One way to avoid this relatively ad-hoc assumption would be to argue that the critical difference between repetition and semantic priming is that repetition… | concept_edges[2] |
| note | pre-activation —causes→ repetition priming — THE PROPOSED MECHANISM, AND THE HEDGES ARE THE FIRST WORDS OF THE QUOTE: 'One way to avoid…'. This is the authors' preferred account offered as an alternative to one they have just called ad hoc, not a result. Weight 0.8 for that reason - it is the lowest-evidenced row on this record and the most interesting one. 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 | pre-activation —causes→ repetition priming — 0.8 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. | concept_edges[2] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| replication | contested | |
| limitation | The 40 ms condition is acknowledged to be partly contaminated by trials on which the prime was consciously perceived. 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 | Conscious leakage can never be fully eliminated by shortening prime duration. 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 data do not show that the process the N400 reflects is itself exclusively automatic, only that it is sensitive to automatic 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. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The columnar analysis strategy multiplies the number of statistical comparisons. 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[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Robust N400 repetition effects were found for targets preceded by very briefly displayed masked 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[0] |
| finding | For repetition priming, individual prime visibility was unrelated to the size of the N400 effect at the shortest prime duration, arguing against conscious leakage as its source. 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 | For semantic priming, by contrast, prime visibility at 40 ms did predict the size of the N400 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[2] |
| finding | Direct between-experiment comparison showed repetition priming produced a larger N400 effect than semantic 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 | There was no clear evidence of a repetition effect on the post-N400 late positivity, unlike earlier unmasked studies. 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 authors conclude that previously reported masked semantic priming effects were plausibly driven by conscious leakage on a subset of trials rather than by unconscious processing. 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] |
| quantity | n = 22 (18 analysed) — participants recruited for Experiment 1 (four later excluded) 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 | 63% vs. an expected 23% — size of the 40 ms N400 repetition priming effect relative to the 120 ms effect, versus what conscious leakage alone predicts 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 | 42% vs. an expected 25% — same comparison for semantic priming in Experiment 2, where the gap was not significant 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 | r 2 = 0.434, P = 0.006 — relationship between 40 ms prime visibility (d-prime) and the semantic N400 relatedness effect at Cz 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 | 18% — proportion of masked animal probes detected at 40 ms, the authors' estimate of conscious leakage 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 | ~1 µV (vs. ~4 µV previously) — difference in N400 repetition priming between masked and visible primes in this study compared with Misra and Holcomb 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] |
| 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 | repetition (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 | relatedness (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 | mean target amplitude (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 visibility (moderator) 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 | 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[5] |
| definition | masked 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 | conscious leakage 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] |
| concept | repetition priming — not defined in this paper's own words; the half of the dissociation that is INDEPENDENT of how well the prime was seen - which is what licenses calling it automatic, and what rules out conscious leakage as its source 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 | semantic priming — not defined in this paper's own words; the half that TRACKS prime visibility, and therefore the half the authors treat as needing attention-demanding resources - the reason they doubt previous claims of unconscious masked semantic 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 | prime visibility — not defined in this paper's own words; THE INSTRUMENT OF THE DISSOCIATION, and it is used as an INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE rather than as a condition: participants are split by d-prime at 40 ms, and the question is whether the split predicts the size of their 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. | concepts[2] |
| concept | conscious leakage — not defined in this paper's own words; the confound that dogs the whole literature, named and defined by these authors - residual conscious processing of the prime on some proportion of trials. The visibility correlation is what tests for it, and Experiment 1 comes back negative 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 | N400 — not defined in this paper's own words; the single measure both experiments read, which is what makes the comparison a dissociation rather than two studies - and the component whose functional interpretation the results are aimed at 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 | pre-activation — not defined in this paper's own words; the mechanism the authors assign to repetition priming, and the one that needs no attention: the prime simply raises the activation of representations the target already shares, as against building a new link between two different ones 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] |
| ANOVA F | as written: analyses of variance (ANOVAs) 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] |
| mixed-design 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[1] |
| t-test t | as written: t = 9.2, P < 0.001 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] |
| correlation r | as written: The correlation between target probe hits and 40 ms prime probe hits 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] |
| regression / coefficient of determination r 2 | as written: the r 2 with 40 ms d-prime as the predictor variable 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] |
| d-prime (signal detection sensitivity) d-prime | as written: D-prime was calculated from the proportion of hits 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] |
| median split | as written: a median split of their d-prime scores 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