phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | cross-modal semantic priming (picture-word)— “The aim of the current study was to investigate between‐ (picture–word) and within‐modality (word–word) neural processing using semantic priming.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Our results indicate that cross‐modal and unimodal processing share a common neural network within the bilateral fronto‐temporal cortex.” | |
| method — evidence | — “The present study examined the neural correlates of uni‐ and cross‐modal priming using fMRI with a word–word and picture–word semantic priming task.” | |
| mechanism | Presentation of a prime activates its concept, and that activation spreads automatically along associative pathways in the semantic network to related concepts, so the related target is already pre-activated when it appears.— “The priming effect is explained by an automatic “spread of activation” between related word representations within the semantic network that occurs at short stimulus onset asynchrony [SOA < 400 ms; see Neely, 1991 for a review].” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | The haemodynamic decrease for related pairs arises because pre-activation lowers the demand on semantic memory retrieval and selection, so less neural work is needed than for unrelated pairs.— “Hence, the response suppression is caused by reduced demands for the semantic memory retrieval or is the result of selection caused by the automatic spread of activation [Matsumoto et al., 2005 ; Tivarus et al., 2006 ].” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | The shared right fronto-temporal deactivation is attributed to the easier semantic processing of associatively related concepts, an ease that does not depend on which modality delivered the prime.— “we assume that the deactivation of the right fronto‐temporal regions for related pairs reflects the ease of semantic processing for associatively related concepts that is independent of modality” | mechanisms[2] |
| builds-on | Caramazza et al. [1990] (Organized Unitary Conceptual Hypothesis)— “Thus, our data support an amodal semantic system based on the hypothesis of Caramazza et al. [ 1990 ] rather than the hypothesis of multiple semantic systems [e.g., Paivio, 1991 ].” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Paivio, 1991 (multiple semantic systems)— “Thus, our data support an amodal semantic system based on the hypothesis of Caramazza et al. [ 1990 ] rather than the hypothesis of multiple semantic systems [e.g., Paivio, 1991 ].” | claim_relations[1] |
| replicates | Caramazza et al., 1990; Vandenberghe et al., 1996— “First of all, similar to other studies we found no difference between cross‐modal and unimodal priming on a behavioral or neural level [Caramazza et al., 1990 ; Vandenberghe et al., 1996 ].” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | A NULL WHERE THE DESIGN EXPECTED A DIFFERENCE: `The comparison of both modalities revealed no differences between uni‐ and cross‐modal semantic priming.` A picture priming a word behaves like a word priming a word. Set beside Chen2018, tagged earlier tonight - which separated two cross-modal primes by their time courses - this says the modality BOUNDARY itself costs nothing, while what crosses it still can— “The comparison of both modalities revealed no differences between uni‐ and cross‐modal semantic priming. In contrast, common regions of deactivation were found within bilateral fronto‐tempo‐parietal regions. The extensive involvement of the right‐lateralized fronto‐temporal clusters during semantic processing has been demonstrated in some… | senses[0] |
| sense | THE SHORT SOA IS A CONTROL AND THE ALTERNATIVE IS NAMED: `In order to avoid strategic influence or expectancy which can affect priming‐specific patterns of activation ... we wanted to use fast, automatic, implicit processing, i.e., semantic priming with an short stimulus onset asynchrony.` The SOA is not a parameter, it is a fence - it makes strategy impossible rather than unlikely. Eighth record this sitting where a time course is load-bearing, and the first where it is used as a CONTROL rather than reported as a result— “In order to avoid strategic influence or expectancy which can affect priming‐specific patterns of activation [Grossman et al., 2006 ], we wanted to use fast, automatic, implicit processing” | senses[1] |
| sense | `response suppression` DEFINED BY SCOPE rather than by mechanism: it is `a special form of BOLD response deactivation, response enhancement a special form of BOLD activation in the context of semantic priming experiments in an fMRI SETTING`. The definition carries its own boundary - the same neural word means this only here - which is exactly the move this corpus exists to record— “Thus, response suppression is a special form of BOLD response “deactivation”, response enhancement a special form of BOLD “activation in the context of semantic priming experiments in an fMRI setting” | senses[2] |
| sense | A SAMPLING DECISION WITH ITS REASON, AND ITS COST: `To minimize the variance and increase homogeneity within our sample, only male subjects were measured.` The rationale is stated and is statistical rather than theoretical - homogeneity bought at the price of generalising to half the population. Worth a row because the trade is made explicit rather than left to be noticed by a reader— “To minimize the variance and increase homogeneity within our sample, only male subjects were measured. Three experimental conditions were compared while brain activation was measured with a 3 T fMRI scanner” | senses[3] |
| control | a PRE-TEST established that the word pairs really were strongly related — held — rules out that a null or weak priming effect is a failure of the materials rather than of the hypothesis— “To ensure that the word‐pairs had a strong relationship a pre‐test was conducted.” | controls[0] |
| control | four pseudo-randomised versions of the experiment counterbalanced across subjects — held — rules out that the conditions systematically influence one another through their order— “Four pseudo randomized versions of the experiment were counterbalanced across subjects to avoid a systematic effect of conditions on each other.” | controls[1] |
| audit | cross‐modal —distinct-from→ unimodal — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span reports priming for both cross-modal and unimodal pairs; distinct-from is loose.— “Behavioral data revealed a priming effect for cross‐modal and unimodal word‐pairs. On a neural level, the unimodal condition revealed response suppression in bilateral fronto‐parietal regions” | concept_edges[0] |
| differs in | cross‐modal —distinct-from→ unimodal — WHERE IN THE BRAIN, NOT HOW MUCH - both produce a behavioural priming effect and the comparison of the two revealed NO behavioural difference, while the neural suppression sits in bilateral fronto-parietal regions for unimodal and in the right inferior frontal gyrus for cross-modal— “Behavioral data revealed a priming effect for cross‐modal and unimodal word‐pairs. On a neural level, the unimodal condition revealed response suppression in bilateral fronto‐parietal regions”— “a priming effect for cross‐modal and unimodal word‐pairs” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | cross‐modal —distinct-from→ unimodal — Weighted 0.85 rather than higher because the distinction is NEUROANATOMICAL ONLY - behaviourally the paper reports no difference at all, and an edge read without that qualifier would overstate the separation. The null has its own sense row.— “Behavioral data revealed a priming effect for cross‐modal and unimodal word‐pairs. On a neural level, the unimodal condition revealed response suppression in bilateral fronto‐parietal regions” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | cross‐modal —distinct-from→ unimodal — 0.85— “Behavioral data revealed a priming effect for cross‐modal and unimodal word‐pairs. On a neural level, the unimodal condition revealed response suppression in bilateral fronto‐parietal regions” | 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 | replicated | |
| limitation | The sample was restricted to male subjects, so gender effects on the reported lateralisation and language processing are untested here.— “We restricted our sample to male subjects due to the ongoing debate about gender specific effects for almost all types of cognitive demands, including language processing and lateralization [Baxter et al., 2003 ; Bermeitinger et al., 2008 ; Laws, 1999 ; Lloyd‐Jones and Humphreys, 1997 ].” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Only artifact (man-made object) concepts were used, so the findings may not extend to natural/living concepts or to manipulable versus non-manipulable relations.— “In the current study, we used only artifacts to investigate the influence of different visual modalities on the processing of semantic associations.” | limitations[1] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | A significant behavioural priming effect was obtained in both the picture-word and the word-word conditions.— “In both modalities, subjects were faster in the related compared to the unrelated condition (cross‐modal condition: t (15) = 2.92, P < 0.01; unimodal condition: t (15) = 2.66, P < 0.05).” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The size of the cross-modal priming effect was statistically indistinguishable from the unimodal one.— “A further t ‐test of priming effect sizes in cross‐modal and unimodal conditions revealed that the picture–word priming effect did not differ from the word–word priming effect ( t (15) = −0.45, P = 0.66; see Table III for mean… | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Unimodal word-word priming produced response suppression across bilateral fronto-parietal cortex. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Cross-modal picture-word priming produced response suppression confined to the right inferior frontal gyrus. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | The direct contrast between the two modalities yielded no significant modality-specific clusters. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | The authors conclude their data support an amodal semantic system rather than multiple semantic systems. 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 — number of participants scanned (all male) 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 | 350 ms — stimulus onset asynchrony chosen to keep processing automatic rather than strategic 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, 15) = 14.73, P < 0.005 — main effect of relatedness on reaction time (the behavioural 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.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 638.54 ... 39.13 (53.69) — mean reaction time on cross-modal related trials and the resulting cross-modal priming effect in milliseconds 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 (15) = −0.45, P = 0.66 — test comparing cross-modal and unimodal priming effect sizes, showing no difference 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 | 3.9% — proportion of reaction time trials removed as outliers before analysis 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 | 1 (= unrelated) to 7 (= highly‐related) — rating scale used in the norming pre-test to select strongly related word pairs 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] |
| variable | modality (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 | relation (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 | reaction time (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[2] |
| variable | percentage of errors (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 | session (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 | lexical frequency (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 | word length (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 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 | response suppression 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 | response enhancement 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 | association 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 | Organized Unitary Conceptual 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[4] |
| definition | automatic 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.definitions[5] |
| concept | semantic priming — not defined in this paper's own words; the effect, and the paper leans on its AUTOMATICITY: the SOA is chosen precisely so that strategy and expectancy cannot contribute, which makes the design a claim about which process is being measured 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 | cross‐modal — not defined in this paper's own words; a picture priming a word - prime and target arrive in different formats, and the question is whether crossing that boundary costs 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[1] |
| concept | response suppression — not defined in this paper's own words; the neural index, and the paper defines it by what it is a special case OF: a BOLD deactivation, scoped explicitly to semantic priming experiments in an fMRI setting rather than offered as a general term 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 | lexical decision — not defined in this paper's own words; the task the priming is measured through - and its presence is what makes the SOA choice meaningful, since the participant is doing something other than judging relatedness 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 | unimodal — not defined in this paper's own words; the comparison condition - word priming word - and the one the modality contrast is drawn against 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: repeated measure 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: paired‐sample 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] |
| standard deviation S.D. | as written: S.D. = 3.4 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] |
| outlier trimming by standard deviations | as written: eliminating responses exceeding the mean of every condition by more than two standard deviations 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] |
| Monte Carlo simulation | as written: Monte‐Carlo simulation of the brain volume 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] |
| maximum likelihood estimation | as written: restricted maximum likelihood (ReML) 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] |
| multiple comparison correction / type I error rate P | as written: individual voxel type I error of P < 0.00005 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