phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | subliminal affective priming of facial expression perception— “The SAFFIMAP test assesses the effect of subliminally-presented affective priming images on the perception of a target-face expression (neutral or angry).” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Priming images containing a face compared to those not containing a face significantly impaired performance on neutral or angry targetface evaluation.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Subjects responded to the emotion portrayed in a pixelated target-face by indicating via key-press if the expression was angry or neutral.” | |
| mechanism | faces in the prime are processed preferentially, and the perceived prime face then competes with and interferes with perception of the target face— “This suggest that processing of faces occurs preferentially to the processing of non-face containing images, and that the face perceived in the priming image interferes with the ability to perceive the target-face expression.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | a face in the prime sets up an expectation of an emotionally charged target, which speeds and biases the response toward 'angry'— “Taken together these results suggest that the face in the prime image prompts the viewer to expect an emotionally charged target-face, which quickens (see Supplement D) and biases the response towards the angry rather than neutral-target face.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | an egocentric vantage-point recruits action-preparation processes, which lower the priority given to affect processing and so degrade angry-face recognition— “From this result, we suggest that, because of the direct relevance of the egocentric vantage-point to the viewer, the egocentric prime image may engage a series of processes relevant to potential action preparation, which could weaken the priority of affective processing, and thus interfere with the ability to recognize the angry target-face… | mechanisms[2] |
| extends | Vaina, Rana, Cotos Cheng, Huang, & Podea (2014) preliminary study of affective subliminal priming in schizophrenic subjects— “Using the same experimental protocol as in our previous study (Vaina et al., 2014), here we investigate in young healthy subjects how the affective content of the priming image, the presence of a face or the vantage-point of the prime content (image centricity) impact the effect of affective subliminal priming on the identification of… | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Andrews, Lipp, Malan, & Könjg (2011)— “This result is at odds with the findings of Andrews et al. (2011), who reported that there was no subliminal affective priming effect when priming with emotional facial expressions (Andrews, Lipp, Malan, & Könjg, 2011).” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | Kemps, Erauw, and Vandierendock (1996)— “This result is in agreement with Kemps, Erauw, and Vandierendock (1996) finding that facial expressions influenced the liking rating of Korean ideographs at exposure duration of 30 ms and longer, while pictures without faces did not elicit an affective reaction until they were presented for at least 100 ms.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | A NAMED HYPOTHESIS GIVEN A BOUNDARY CONDITION RATHER THAN A VERDICT: `the affective primacy hypothesis which predicts that affective information can be accessed automatically, preceding conscious cognition, holds true in subliminal priming only when the priming image contains a face.` Not confirmed, not refuted - restricted. And the condition is a property of the STIMULUS, where the ambiguity condition is a property of the outcome situation and Holcomb2005's is a property of the observer. Three different places a priming effect can be conditional, and a corpus that records only `X primes Y` loses all three— “Our results suggest that, first, the affective primacy hypothesis which predicts that affective information can be accessed automatically, preceding conscious cognition, holds true in subliminal priming only when the priming image… | senses[0] |
| sense | THE PRIME MAKES THE TASK HARDER, WHICH IS THE CASE THE STANDARD DEFINITION EXCLUDES. `subliminally priming with a face-containing image significantly impairs the subjects' ability to perceive the emotional expression of the target-face.` Minton2017 quotes McNamara defining priming as `an IMPROVEMENT in performance` and then strikes the word out, because `priming can also involve a change in performance that is neutral or results in POORER performance`. This record is the counterexample that correction needed - a real interference effect, in a different literature, from a paper that never mentions the definitional dispute | senses[1] |
| sense | IT CONTRADICTS A NAMED STUDY AND SAYS SO PLAINLY: `This result is at odds with the findings of Andrews et al. (2011), who reported that there was no subliminal affective priming effect when priming with emotional facial expressions.` And it offers the reconciling detail rather than leaving the disagreement bare - `the emotional expression of a face in a prime can be processed, at least partially, during a 16 ms exposure`. A null and a positive on the same manipulation, with an exposure duration between them Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[2] |
| sense | AND THE CONGRUENCY EFFECT IS ITSELF CONDITIONAL, WHICH IS THE SECOND `only when` IN ONE PAPER: `we found that specifically the incongruency of the pleasant prime and the angry expression of the target-face lead to worse performance ... Differing from these studies, we found that this effect occurred only when the prime image contained a face.` So the paper reports an affective congruency effect, agrees it is the known one, and then restricts it - twice qualifying a borrowed finding rather than claiming a new 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. | senses[3] |
| control | prime and mask both subtending 12.5 by 12.5 degrees and presented at the same central location — held — rules out a size or position difference between prime and mask, which would make the masking incomplete in a way that varies with the 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. | controls[0] |
| audit | egocentric —causes→ subliminal priming — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says vantage point impacts the priming effect; 'egocentric causes subliminal priming' drops the 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. | concept_edges[1] |
| note | egocentric —causes→ subliminal priming — NO effect direction. Vantage-point is a two-level CATEGORY (egocentric or allocentric), not a quantity, so 'increases' and 'reduces' are both meaningless - what the paper reports is that the two levels DIFFER, and in which direction for which target. And what this edge cannot carry is the sharpest part: the centricity effect holds 'REGARDLESS of whether…', which makes it the one route here that does NOT need the affective content. That sentence never says 'subliminal priming', so it is on the 'centricity' concept row instead. 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[1] |
| weight | egocentric —causes→ subliminal priming — 0.85 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| evidential status | mechanism — the paper's own words: we suggest that 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. | mechanisms[2] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The design cannot separate the emotion of the depicted scene from the emotion of the facial expression within the prime; the authors state they will add further prime dimensions to do so. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Priming images that contained a face impaired subsequent identification of the target face's expression relative to primes without a face. 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 | Pleasant primes containing a face selectively damaged recognition of angry target-face expressions. 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 | After an egocentric prime, neutral target expressions were recognised significantly better than angry 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. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Among face-containing primes, neutral ones produced better target-face performance than either aggressive or pleasant 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. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | The authors conclude that the affective primacy hypothesis survives in subliminal priming only in the special case where the prime image contains a face. 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 face-versus-non-face prime difference reached significance only for aggressive prime content. 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 | 16 ms — exposure duration of the subliminal prime image, followed by a 100 ms mask 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 | Thirty-three subjects — number of participants, with their sex split and mean age 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 | 120 trials — total number of trials in the SAFFIMAP 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.quantities[2] |
| evidence status note | quantity — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 74.20% vs 78.00% — mean accuracy on target-face evaluation after face primes versus non-face 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.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 73.4% vs 81.0% — mean accuracy after aggressive primes with a face versus aggressive primes without a face 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 | 81.64% vs 77.31% — mean accuracy on neutral target faces after egocentric versus allocentric 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.quantities[5] |
| variable | presence or absence of a face in the priming image (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 | centricity (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 | percent correct (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 | subject variability (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 | congruency 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 | affective primacy hypothesis 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 | SAFFIMAP 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.definitions[2] |
| definition | centricity 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 | subliminal priming — not defined in this paper's own words; a 16 ms image the subject cannot report - and here it makes the task HARDER rather than easier, which is the case the field's standard definition of priming excludes by using the word 'improvement' 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 | affective primacy — not defined in this paper's own words; the named hypothesis under test - that affective information is reached automatically, BEFORE conscious cognition - and this paper neither confirms nor refutes it but RESTRICTS it to primes containing a face 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 | centricity — not defined in this paper's own words; the unusual variable: the VANTAGE POINT of the primed image - egocentric or allocentric - and it acts whether or not a face is present, which separates it from the affective route 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 | egocentric — not defined in this paper's own words; the vantage point that puts the viewer inside the scene, and the one that interferes selectively with recognising anger 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] |
| generalized linear mixed model | as written: General Linear Mixture Model (GLMM) 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] |
| Wilcoxon signed-rank test z | as written: Wilcoxon Signed-Rank (WSR) 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] |
| false discovery rate correction | as written: FDR-corrected at a false discovery rate of 0.05 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| power analysis | as written: a priori power analysis using G*Power 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] |
| F-test F | as written: F(1,2976) = 6.186, p = 0.013 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] |
| evidence status note | F-test — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| standard error se | as written: se 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] |
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