phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | masked semantic priming (N400)— “In two experiments, it was investigated whether masked semantic priming effects can be modulated by temporal attention to the prime using a cueing procedure.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “The present results show that temporal attention to the prime is a prerequisite for obtaining masked N400 priming effects.” | |
| method — evidence | — “ERPs were recorded while subjects performed a primed lexical decision task.” | |
| mechanism | Temporal attention amplifies the activation of the masked prime's stimulus representation, and this amplification is what allows an unconsciously perceived prime to trigger the automatic semantic process indexed by the N400— “Attention is thought to amplify the activation of the stimulus representation.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Attentional amplification acts on conscious and unconscious stimuli alike, so attention and awareness are separable— “We therefore propose that attention is able to enhance the processing of both consciously and unconsciously perceived stimuli.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | A temporal window of attention opened around the predicted target boosts processing of primes falling close to it in time— “Temporal attention is assumed to amplify the processing of the masked primes that were presented temporally close to the targets.” | mechanisms[2] |
| extends | Naccache, Blandin & Dehaene (2002)— “The Naccache et al. (2002) study provides supportive evidence for an attentional modulation of unconscious, automatic processes, but also has some limitations.” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Schneider & Shiffrin (1977); Posner & Snyder (1975)— “These results therefore challenge the classical view of automatic processes to occur autonomously and independent of attentional influences (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977; Posner & Snyder, 1975).” | claim_relations[1] |
| replicates | Deacon et al. (2000); Kiefer & Spitzer (2000); Brown & Hagoort (1993)— “The dependency of masked N400 priming effects on the prime–target SOA in Experiment 1 is in line with findings from earlier ERP priming studies demonstrating reliable masked N400 priming effects at very short SOAs (i.e., <200 msec) (Deacon et al., 2000; Kiefer & Spitzer, 2000), but not at SOAs of 200 msec and longer (Kiefer &… | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | THE DEFINITIONAL CLAIM IS QUOTED HERE VERBATIM AND THEN CONTRADICTED BY THE SAME PAPER. `In classical theories of attentional control, independence of capacity-limited attention is a defining feature of automatic processes (Posner & Snyder, 1975).` If independence from attention is what makes a process automatic, and the process turns out not to be independent of attention, then either it is not automatic or the definition is wrong. The paper takes the second option and keeps the word - which is precisely the move this corpus exists to make visible, and it is made in an introduction without comment— “In classical theories of attentional control, independence of capacity-limited attention is a defining feature of automatic processes” | senses[0] |
| sense | THE RESULT, AND `PREREQUISITE` IS A STRONGER WORD THAN `MODULATES`: `The present results show that temporal attention to the prime is a prerequisite for obtaining masked N400 priming effects.` Not amplified, not enhanced - required. Without attention in the prime's time window there is no masked N400 priming at all. neely1977 built a design to separate the automatic component from the attentional one; this says the separation does not hold at the boundary— “The present results show that temporal attention to the prime is a prerequisite for obtaining masked N400 priming effects.” | senses[1] |
| sense | AND THE CONTROL THAT MAKES IT INTERESTING IS ONE CLAUSE IN THE HYPOTHESIS: masked priming is amplified when attention is directed to the stimulus stream in the prime's time window, `even in the absence of any prime awareness.` Attention moves; awareness stays at zero. Without that clause the result reads as `attending made the prime visible` - a different and far less interesting paper. Same manoeuvre as marcel1983's second mask and eckstein2007's awareness measures. Sixth record running where the instrument turns out to be part of the phenomenon, and the first where the thing being modulated is the definition itself— “We hypothesized that masked priming is amplified when attention is directed to the stimulus stream in the time window of masked prime presentation, even in the absence of any prime awareness.” | senses[2] |
| control | a CONTROL EXPERIMENT identical to Experiment 1 except that the cue stimulus was not task-relevant and did not direct attention — held — rules out that the modulation follows from the cue's physical presence rather than from the attention it directs— “We therefore conducted a control experiment in which the experimental design was the same as in Experiment 1 except that the cue stimulus was not task-relevant and did not prompt subjects to attend to the stimulation stream.” | controls[0] |
| control | filler trials at an intermediate cue-prime interval were included — held — rules out that subjects learn the trial-length structure and prepare differently for short and long intervals— “Filler trials with an intermediate CPI were also included in order to have smoother transitions between trial lengths.” | controls[1] |
| effect direction (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | temporal attention —causes→ N400 — increases | concept_edges[0] |
| note | temporal attention —causes→ N400 — 'PREREQUISITE' IS WHY THIS IS 0.95 AND WHY 'increases' UNDERSTATES IT. The enforced axis vocabulary offers increases / reduces / eliminates / no-change, and the claim here is stronger than any of them: without temporal attention the effect does not occur. The nearest available value is 'increases' and it is recorded with that gap stated rather than papered over. A fifth value - 'is-required-for' - would be the honest one, and that goes to Shir with the other schema items rather than being invented here. Both endpoints named as words, the sentence is a results statement, no hedge to preserve.— “The present results show that temporal attention to the prime is a prerequisite for obtaining masked N400 priming effects.” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | temporal attention —causes→ N400 — 0.95— “The present results show that temporal attention to the prime is a prerequisite for obtaining masked N400 priming effects.” | concept_edges[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The cueing manipulation may have been too weak to fully disengage temporal attention from the prime, which could explain why behavioural priming was unaffected.— “Alternatively, although a significant RT effect of the cue–prime intervals suggests an effective manipulation of attention, our cueing procedure could have been less powerful to disengage temporal attention from the masked prime compared to the unattended condition in the Naccache et al. study.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Some backward priming from target to prime cannot be entirely ruled out in Experiment 2.— “Although this effect was not significant and none of our subjects verbally reported awareness of the masked primes in the priming experiment, it cannot be entirely excluded that some backward priming might have occurred, which could have modulated masked priming effects.” | limitations[1] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | The masked N400 priming effect was strongest when the cue interval and the SOAs were short.— “Most importantly, this masked N400 priming effect was strongest when the cue interval and the stimulus onset asynchronies were short.” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Temporal attention to the prime is a prerequisite for masked N400 priming.— “The present results show that temporal attention to the prime is a prerequisite for obtaining masked N400 priming effects.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | With a task-irrelevant cue, N400 priming was considerably reduced and no longer modulated by the cue-prime interval.— “Thus, compared to Experiment 1, N400 priming effects were considerably reduced and were not modulated by the CPI.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Masked behavioural priming was significant but did not vary with the cue-prime interval.— “Masked behavioral priming was significant, but did not differ as a function of the CPI.” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Prime visibility was at chance for the analysed participants, supporting the claim that the primes were unconscious.— “For the remaining 16 participants, identification performance was distributed around the chance level of 50%, which is expected by mere guessing.” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Regression found no significant correlation between priming effects and prime identification scores.— “However, for both behavioral and N400 priming effects, regression analysis did not yield any significant correlations, neither at the short CPIs (all ps > .15) nor at the long CPIs (all ps > .09).” | content_tags.findings[5] |
| quantity | F(1,15) = 31.064, MSE = 948, p < .0001 — Main effect of semantic relatedness on lexical decision reaction time in Experiment 1— “Analysis of the RT data yielded reliable priming effects [main effect semantic relatedness, F(1,15) = 31.064, MSE = 948, p < .0001]” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | F(1,15) = 34.405, MSE = 17.83, p < .0001 — Main effect of semantic relatedness on N400 amplitude in the 400-599 msec window of Experiment 1— “Analysis again yielded a highly significant main effect of semantic relatedness [F(1,15) = 34.405, MSE = 17.83, p < .0001].” | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 16 subjects, mean age 25.1 years — Analysed sample of Experiment 1 after excluding three participants whose prime identification exceeded chance— “The remaining 16 subjects (6 men and 10 women) had an average age of 25.1 years (range 18–32 years).” | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 49.45% and 49.38% — Masked prime identification accuracy in the short and long cue-prime interval conditions, both at the 50% chance level— “Accuracy of word identification did not differ between the CPI conditions (short: 49.45%, long: 49.38%; p > .95).” | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 67 msec or 200 msec — The two prime-target stimulus onset asynchronies used to track the time course of masked priming— “In order to track the time course of masked priming, the prime–target SOA was either short (67 msec) or long (200 msec).” | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 33.5 msec — Duration of the masked prime word presentation— “In either case, the random letter string was followed by the prime word, which was shown for 33.5 msec.” | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| quantity | 800 trials — Total trials per participant, split into five blocks of 160— “The total number of 800 trials (640 experimental and 160 filler trials) was divided in five blocks of 160 trials each.” | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| quantity | 0.97% versus 1.79% — Lexical decision error rates for semantically related versus unrelated word pairs in Experiment 1— “Subjects performed lexical decisions more accurately on trials with related word pairs (0.97%) than with unrelated word pairs (1.79%).” | content_tags.quantities[7] |
| variable | SOA (independent)— “In order to track the time course of masked priming, the prime–target SOA… | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | cue relevance (independent) | content_tags.variables[3] |
| variable | N400 amplitude (dependent) | content_tags.variables[4] |
| variable | objective measure of prime identification (control) | content_tags.variables[6] |
| variable | RT (dependent) | content_tags.variables[8] |
| variable | ER (dependent) | content_tags.variables[9] |
| definition | 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.definitions[0] |
| definition | masked priming procedure 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 | N400 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[2] |
| definition | cue prime interval 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 | stimulus onset asynchrony 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 | automatic processes — not defined in this paper's own words; DEFINED BY A NEGATIVE, AND THE NEGATIVE IS WHAT THIS PAPER REMOVES: 'independence of capacity-limited attention is a defining feature of automatic processes (Posner & Snyder, 1975).' Not a property automatic processes happen to have - the property that makes them automatic. neely1977 built its whole design to isolate this component of the same 1975 theory 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 | temporal attention — not defined in this paper's own words; attention directed to a moment rather than a place, manipulated by a cue that arrives either just before the masked prime or long before it. The manipulation is on the TIMING of attention, not on its target - which is what lets awareness stay at zero while attention moves 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 | masked priming — not defined in this paper's own words; a prime the subject cannot report, followed by a target. Here it is the dependent variable rather than the tool: the question is not what masked primes do but whether what they do can be turned up and down from outside 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 | N400 — not defined in this paper's own words; the event-related potential component that indexes semantic mismatch - 'Unrelated prime-target pairs elicited a larger N400 than related pairs'. An electrophysiological measure sidesteps the reporting problem that bounds every behavioural record on this axis in the corpus: it does not ask the subject anything Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| ANOVA F | as written: Repeated-measures 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] |
| F-test / main effect F | as written: main effect semantic relatedness, F(1,15) = 31.064, MSE = 948, p < .0001 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] |
| post hoc multiple comparison test | as written: Fisher’s LSD post hoc 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[2] |
| Huynh-Feldt correction for sphericity | as written: degrees of freedom were adjusted according to the method of Huynh-Feldt 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] |
| signal detection sensitivity (d-prime) d0 | as written: d0 sensitivity measures ... calculated from hit rates ... and false alarm rates 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] |
| regression | as written: a regression analysis on masked priming effects 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] |
| between-subjects factor in mixed ANOVA | as written: entered as a between-subject 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[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