phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | priming-induced performance costs and benefits in picture naming— “The present study examined the effect of divided attention on priming-induced performance costs and benefits in a speeded picture-naming task.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Experiment 1 shows that the costs, but not the benefits, are eliminated by division of attention at encoding.” | |
| method — evidence | — “In the implicit memory task, attention at encoding (full vs. divided) was manipulated between groups, and study condition (old vs. new vs. lure) was manipulated within groups.” | |
| mechanism | A lure picture activates the perceptually similar studied item as a competing incorrect response alongside the correct one, so naming requires selection among alternatives.— “By contrast, the lure condition (which elicits the cost) resembles production priming tasks in that it entails response competition at test: Because participants have studied a picture that is perceptually similar to the test cue, it is likely that the test cue elicits activation of that (incorrect) response, as well as the correct (but… | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Because only the cost involves response competition at test, only the cost depends on attention at encoding, in line with the identification-production account.— “Thus, the absence of an attentional effect for the benefit, and the presence of such an effect for the cost, may be linked to the absence or presence of response competition at test, respectively, in accord with the identification-production account.” | mechanisms[1] |
| contradicts | unitary-source accounts of priming costs and benefits (Rouder, Ratcliff & McKoon, 2000; Marsolek, 2008)— “The present finding that costs and benefits in priming are differentially affected by divided attention therefore poses a challenge to both theories insofar as it suggests that the source of these two effects, or the process by which they are manifested, is not identical.” | claim_relations[0] |
| replicates | Gabrieli et al. (1999) on divided attention not reducing the picture-naming priming benefit— “This aspect of our results is consistent with prior findings in a picture-naming task ( Gabrieli, et al., 1999 ).” | claim_relations[1] |
| replicates | Cave & Squire (1992) and Verfaellie et al. (1996) on normal picture-naming priming benefits in amnesia— “Prior studies have shown that the priming-induced performance benefit in picture naming is normal in amnesia ( Cave & Squire, 1992 ; Verfaellie, Gabrieli, Vaidya, Croce, & Reminger, 1996 ), and we expected to replicate that finding in Experiment 2.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | PRIMING WITH THE SIGN REVERSED, and a field-level gap named in the abstract: the literature has focused EXCLUSIVELY on priming effects that are beneficial and has OVERLOOKED those that are costly, `wherein performance is harmed by prior exposure to task stimuli`. Nearly every other priming record in this corpus reports a facilitation. If `priming` is defined as an influence of prior exposure rather than as a benefit, then half the phenomenon has gone unstudied because of what the word suggests— “This work, however, has focused exclusively on priming effects that are beneficial in nature (wherein performance is enhanced by prior exposure to task stimuli), and has overlooked priming effects that are costly in nature (wherein performance is harmed by prior exposure to task stimuli)” | senses[0] |
| sense | cost and benefit as a SYMMETRIC PAIR of operationalisations - both are response times against the same NEW baseline, in the same task, from the same study phase: benefit = faster to OLD than to new, cost = slower to LURE than to new. Because the two share a baseline and differ only in the relation between studied and test item (identical versus merely similar), a dissociation between them cannot be explained by task or by measure— “The performance benefit in this task is manifested as faster response times in the test phase to old than to new pictures, and the cost as slower response times to lure than to new pictures” | senses[1] |
| sense | the amnesia control, and it is chosen for the ALTERNATIVE IT KILLS. Dividing attention damages explicit memory as well, so eliminating the cost that way leaves open that the cost was explicit all along. Amnesic participants have no explicit memory to lose and the costs are INTACT - so the Experiment 1 result cannot be an artifact of reduced explicit memory. A population used as a control condition rather than as a subject of study— “Experiment 2 shows that the costs (as well as the benefits) in this task are intact in amnesic participants, demonstrating that the elimination of the cost in the divided attention condition in Experiment 1 was not an artifact of the reduced availability of explicit memory in that condition” | senses[2] |
| sense | attention required WHERE A SELECTION MUST BE MADE - the paper's account of why one effect needs attention and the other does not is not about strength or depth but about whether the test cue leaves a CHOICE. The lure activates a wrong response alongside the right one; the old item points at a single correct response. Offered as a suggestion (`We suggest`, `may be linked`), and weighted here as one— “Thus, the absence of an attentional effect for the benefit, and the presence of such an effect for the cost, may be linked to the absence or presence of response competition at test, respectively, in accord with the identification-production account” | senses[3] |
| control | three FILLER PICTURES resembling none of the critical stimuli placed at the beginning and end of the study list — held — rules out that memory for the critical items is inflated or depressed by primacy and recency— “Three filler items (pictures that did not resemble any of the critical stimuli) appeared at the beginning and end of the list to blunt any primacy and recency effects on later memory for the stimuli.” | controls[0] |
| control | items counterbalanced across participants so each pair appeared equally often in the old, lure and new conditions — held — rules out that a condition effect is an item effect - that the old, lure and new sets simply contain different pictures— “Across participants, items were counterbalanced across conditions such that each pair appeared equally often in the old, lure, and new conditions.” | controls[1] |
| control | which member of each pair became the target and which the mate was decided at random — held — rules out that the target items are systematically more memorable than their mates— “(See sample stimuli in Figure 1 .) We randomly designated one member of each pair as the “target” item (which was the item that was always presented in the test phase) and the other member as the “mate.” The 30 pairs were divided into three lists of 10 for purposes of counterbalancing across the old, new and lure conditions.” | controls[2] |
| differs in | costs —distinct-from→ benefits — WHETHER ATTENTION AT ENCODING IS REQUIRED - dividing attention eliminates the cost and leaves the benefit intact. Same task, same study phase, same participants, so the difference cannot be attributed to materials or measure 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[0] |
| note | costs —distinct-from→ benefits — THE RESULT. Two effects that a corpus would file under one word, separated by an experimental manipulation rather than by definition. Confidence 0.95 - this is the paper's own headline, stated in its abstract, not my reading of a discussion. 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[0] |
| weight | costs —distinct-from→ benefits — 0.95 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[0] |
| effect direction | divided attention —causes→ costs — eliminates 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. 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 | divided attention —causes→ costs — 'eliminated', not reduced - the paper's own word, and the vocabulary has the exact term for it. Experiment 2 is what licenses reading this as a fact about the cost rather than about explicit 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. | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | divided attention —causes→ costs — 0.9 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. | concept_edges[1] |
| audit | response competition —causes→ costs — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the authors 'SUGGEST' the role of attention is linked to response competition; causes is hedged. 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] |
| effect direction | response competition —causes→ costs — 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. 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] |
| note | response competition —causes→ costs — Weight 0.7, the lowest here, and the paper's hedges are the reason: 'We suggest', 'may be linked', 'it is likely that'. The mechanism is an interpretation offered after the result, not something the experiments manipulated. 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 | response competition —causes→ costs — 0.7 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. | 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] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[2] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The small amnesic sample forced a within-subject design in Experiment 2, unlike the between-subjects design of Experiment 1. 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 | Amnesic participants' longer and more variable RTs complicate the between-group comparison, requiring z-score transformation. 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] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Dividing attention at encoding wiped out the priming-induced cost in speeded picture naming while leaving the priming-induced benefit untouched. 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 | Amnesic patients showed a normal performance cost despite explicit memory impairment comparable to that produced by divided attention. 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 | Costs and benefits in this task therefore arise from at least two separable implicit-memory mechanisms with different attentional requirements. 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 | The dissociation is a problem for existing unitary-source models of priming costs and benefits (decision-node weighting and superimpositional representation accounts). 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] |
| quantity | F (1, 106) = 82.44, p < .001 — overall priming benefit (old vs. new pictures) in Experiment 1 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 | t (53) = 2.12, p = .02, d = .24 — the priming-induced cost, significant only under full attention (p = .12 under divided attention) 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 | F (1, 106) = 5.68, p = .019 — attention x study condition interaction showing the cost differed between full and divided attention 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 | 132 msec / 89 msec — size of the priming benefit under divided versus full attention (numerically larger under divided attention) 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 | t (22) = 5.09, p < .001, d = 2.16 — impairment of corrected recognition in the amnesic group relative to controls in Experiment 2 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 | F (1, 24) = 4.22, p = .051 — the performance cost in Experiment 2, which did not differ between amnesic and control groups 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 | 54 — participants per attention group in the Experiment 1 implicit memory 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[6] |
| quantity | 11 — amnesic participants tested in Experiment 2 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 | attention at encoding (full vs. divided) (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 | study condition (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 | mean RT (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 | corrected recognition (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[4] |
| variable | age (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] |
| variable | education (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[7] |
| variable | WAIS-III Verbal IQ (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[8] |
| definition | 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 | priming-induced performance cost 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 | performance benefit 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 | identification-production distinction 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 | costs — not defined in this paper's own words; PRIMING THAT MAKES PERFORMANCE WORSE - slower naming of a picture that merely RESEMBLES one studied earlier. The half of the phenomenon the paper says its field has overlooked entirely, and it is an ordinary priming effect with the sign reversed 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 | benefits — not defined in this paper's own words; the familiar half - faster naming of a picture identical to a studied one. Same study phase, same participants, same task as the cost, which is what makes the dissociation between them worth having 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 | divided attention — not defined in this paper's own words; the manipulation that separates them: applied AT ENCODING, it eliminates the cost and leaves the benefit standing. An attentional requirement that one effect has and the other does not 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 | response competition — not defined in this paper's own words; the proposed explanation for the asymmetry - a lure cue activates the wrong response alongside the right one, so a SELECTION has to be made, and selection is what needs attention. The old condition points at one response and needs none 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 | implicit memory — not defined in this paper's own words; the category both effects are claimed to belong to - and the abstract's opening sentence simply EQUATES it with priming, in a parenthesis, while reporting that attention's role in it is 'more variable' than in explicit 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. | concepts[4] |
| ANOVA F | as written: 2-way mixed factorial ANOVA Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| t-test t | as written: one-tailed t -tests 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] |
| power analysis | as written: power analysis ... power of .80 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] |
| effect size d | as written: d = .24 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] |
| partial eta squared η p 2 | as written: η p 2 = .051 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] |
| standard deviation SD | as written: more than 2 SD above the participant’s mean 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] |
| z-score standardization | as written: converted RT scores to z-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