phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | repetition priming between pictures and printed words— “In summary, Experiment 1 was designed to determine the presence and the extent of transfer between pictures and words under repetition priming conditions.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “The most important result from the series of experi ments reported here is that repetition priming is observed when a test word is preceded by a line drawing of the same concept.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Four experiments were conducted to evaluate the proposition that although prior exposure to a printed word facilitates identification of a corresponding picture, exposure to a picture does not facilitate subsequent word recognition (Durso & Johnson, 1979).” | |
| mechanism | Repetition priming arises because processing an item changes the system, and the change facilitates later identification in proportion to how many of the same processes are re-invoked at test.— “The firstof these assumptions is thatrepetition priming reflects changes in the system resulting from processing of an item, changes that facilitate subsequent identification to the extentthat the sameset of processes are invoked dur ing the studyand test presentations.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Pictures prime words because task demands lead subjects to treat the drawings as linguistic objects, engaging word-structure processes even without alphabetic input.— “If the task demands encourage people to invoke processes that reflect word structure, then that is what peo ple will do, even when no alphabetic information is present.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Variability in relative priming is produced by sense (nuance) matching: priming is complete only when the same sense is accessed at study and test.— “The proposition is, in brief, that repetition priming is sense-specific, and that sense dominance is mode- and, to a lesser extent, modality-specific.” | mechanisms[2] |
| contradicts | Durso & Johnson (1979) and Morton (1984) accounts of asymmetric picture-word transfer— “This outcome is inconsistent with several accounts of the relationship between word and picture identification processes (e. g., Durso & Johnson, 1979; Morton, 1984).” | claim_relations[0] |
| replicates | Scarborough, Gerard and Cortese (1979, Experiment 3) episodic recognition experiment— “Given the dis crepancy between the results of the repetition priming ex periments reported here and those reported by Scar borough et al. (1979, Experiments 1 and 2), we designed the fifth experiment as a replication of their episodic ex periment.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | A REVERSAL BETWEEN TWO TASKS ON THE SAME MATERIAL, WHICH IS WHY DIFFICULTY CANNOT EXPLAIN IT: `Intramodal performance was superior in word identification, WHEREAS INTERMODAL (i.e. picture-word) performance was superior in episodic recognition, A REVERSAL which suggests that episodic recognition involves access to a DISTINCT MEMORY TRACE.` Word-word beats picture-word when the task is identification; picture-word beats word-word when the task is recognition. The sign flips, so no account in which one condition is simply weaker can survive - the same structural move as Finkbeiner2011's colour-versus-identity and Schmidt2010's brightness-versus-contrast, and the strongest form of dissociation evidence in this corpus— “whereas intermodal (i.e. picture-word) performance was superior in episodic recognition, a reversal which suggests that episodic recognition involves access to a distinct memory trace” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND IT CONTRADICTS THE PROPOSITION IT SET OUT TO TEST. Durso and Johnson (1979) held that although a printed word facilitates identification of a corresponding picture, a picture does NOT facilitate later word recognition. This paper finds that it does: `repetition priming of words by prior pictures is found with the PEST procedure, in which the dependent variable is accuracy of word identification.` An asymmetry claimed in the literature turns out to be an artefact of the measure - the authors say they used identification rather than naming latency `in order to avoid the range limitations in adult reading data`, and the effect appears— “First, repetition priming of words by prior pictures is found with the PEST procedure, in which the dependent variable is accuracy of word identification (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) or the identification threshold” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE FIFTH EXPERIMENT EXISTS ONLY TO CROSS THE TWO TASKS, AND THAT IS THE DESIGN: `Following Scarborough, Gerard, and Cortese (1979), a fifth experiment compared word identification and episodic recognition.` Four experiments establish the effect in one task; the fifth puts both tasks on the same footing so their ordering can be compared. A crossover is only available to a design that runs both tasks - and the earlier literature, which ran them separately, could not have found it however many subjects it used— “Following Scarborough, Gerard, and Cortese (1979), a fifth experiment compared word identification and episodic recognition” | senses[2] |
| control | a PEST staircase (Parameter Estimation by Sequential Testing) held every subject at approximately the same level of difficulty — held — rules out that a group difference is a difference in task difficulty rather than in priming— “Second, a derivative of PEST (parameter Estimation by SequentialTesting: Pent land, 1980) was used to ensure that subjects were tested at approximately the same level of difficulty, and that the chosen level of difficulty was suitable for an examination of repetition priming effects.” | controls[0] |
| control | the item subsets were counterbalanced across subjects so each appeared equally often under each of the three priming treatments — held — rules out that a treatment effect is an item-subset effect— “The subsets were then counterbalanced across subjects so that each one appeared equally often under each of the three priming treat ments.” | controls[1] |
| note | word identification —contrasted-with→ episodic recognition — THE CONTRAST IS THE INSTRUMENT, NOT THE SUBJECT. These two tasks are crossed so that the ORDERING of intramodal against intermodal priming can be compared between them, and the reversal is what the fifth experiment was built to detect. Weight 0.95: the comparison is explicit and it is the paper's design. The reversal itself is quoted whole in the first sense, because it names 'intramodal' and 'intermodal' - which are not nodes here, since the staged text breaks 'inter modal' in most of its occurrences.— “Following Scarborough, Gerard, and Cortese (1979), a fifth experiment compared word identification and episodic recognition” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | word identification —contrasted-with→ episodic recognition — 0.95— “Following Scarborough, Gerard, and Cortese (1979), a fifth experiment compared word identification and episodic recognition” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | repetition priming —operationalised-as→ word identification — THE MEASURE WAS CHOSEN TO AVOID A KNOWN CEILING AND THAT CHOICE PRODUCED THE RESULT. The authors state they used word identification rather than naming latency 'in order to avoid…' - and the effect Durso and Johnson could not find appears. Weight 0.9: the operationalisation is explicit, and the quote names both the procedure (PEST) and the two dependent variables (accuracy, threshold). An operationalisation that changes the answer is worth an edge of its own, because the disagreement in the literature is about the measure and not about the phenomenon.— “First, repetition priming of words by prior pictures is found with the PEST procedure, in which the dependent variable is accuracy of word identification (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) or the identification threshold” | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | repetition priming —operationalised-as→ word identification — 0.9— “First, repetition priming of words by prior pictures is found with the PEST procedure, in which the dependent variable is accuracy of word identification (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) or the identification threshold” | concept_edges[2] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| replication | contested | |
| limitation | Equal relative-priming values do not entail that the same underlying processes are involved in each stimulus-class combination.— “It should be noted, of course, that the equivalence of two RP values does not logically demand the conclusion that the same processes are involved in each case.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The strategy-insensitivity result rests on a single dissociation and inherits its inferential weakness.— “This result is, of course, subject to the inferential limita tions associated with single dissociation.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The account cannot explain the observed variability in relative priming across experiments and experimenters.— “Perhaps the weakest link in our analysis involves the observed variability in RP.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The estimated picture-word priming value may hold only when pictures are treated as linguistic objects; treated as pictures, priming may vanish.— “We accept the possibility, then, that when pictures are treated as pic tures, RP will be reduced or eliminated.” | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Repetition priming occurred when a test word was preceded by a line drawing of the same concept.— “The most important result from the series of experi ments reported here is that repetition priming is observed when a test word is preceded by a line drawing of the same concept.” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Intermodal (picture-word) priming is real but smaller in magnitude than intramodal (word-word) priming.— “Second, the magnitude of repetition priming under intermodal con ditions is less than that observed under intramodal condi tions, an outcome which is consistent with the modality data (Experiments 1 and 4).” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | The size of picture-to-word priming is unaffected by whether subjects encoded the pictures by naming or by referential size judgment, i.e. it is insensitive to study-phase strategy.— “Third, the magnitude of prim ing under intermodal conditions does not vary according to whether subjects study the initial pictures with size judg ment or naming (Experiment 2).” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Word frequency modulates only the intermodal component of priming; the extra facilitation attributable to intramodal repetition is frequency-independent.— “Fourth, when repe tition effects for low-frequency and high-frequency words are compared, when the prime is either a picture or a word, there is a frequency difference for intermodal prim ing, but the additional priming attributable to intramodal effects does not vary with frequency (Experiments 3 and 4).” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | In episodic recognition the ordering of conditions reverses, with picture-word better than word-word, the opposite of the perceptual identification result.— “Fifth, when episodic recognition is tested, the rela tionship between the intra- and intermodal conditions is reversed, and the picture-word treatment is superior in regard to speed and accuracy (Experiment 5).” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| quantity | 0.57 — relative priming value for picture-to-word transfer obtained in Experiment 1— “The RP value for these data is 0.57.” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | .35 (SD = 0.22, N = 9) — mean relative priming for picture-word transfer averaged over the nine previously published studies the authors compiled— “the studies yielded a mean picture-word value of .35 (SD = 0.22, N = 9)” | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 55.3 % and 61.6 % vs 46.8% — word identification accuracy in the picture-word and word-word conditions compared with the new word baseline in Experiment 1— “Mean accuracy for the new word treatment was 46.8%, a satisfactory outcome, given an expected value of 50% correct following parameter estimation. The cor responding values for the picture-word and word-word conditions were 55.3 %and 61.6 %correct, respectively, suggesting that intermodal as well as intramodal facilita tion was present.” | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 14 msec (range 7 to 33) — mean PEST-derived stimulus onset asynchrony threshold for the 24 retained subjects in Experiment 1— “The mean SOA for the 24 subjects included in the final analysis was 14 msec, with individual values ranging from 7 to 33 msec.” | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 15.4 msec (SD = 3.2) and 12.9 msec (SD = 4.3) — 50% identification thresholds for low- and high-frequency words that had previously been seen as line drawings (Experiment 4) | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 48.1 % and 0.30 sec — accuracy and reaction time advantage of the picture-word over the word-word condition in the episodic recognition test | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| variable | repetition status (independent) | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | word frequency (independent) | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | accuracy of word identification (dependent) | content_tags.variables[6] |
| variable | identification threshold (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[7] |
| definition | relative priming (RP) 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 | primary 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[1] |
| definition | secondary 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[2] |
| definition | remote repetition conditions 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 | mode 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] |
| definition | modality 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[6] |
| concept | repetition priming — not defined in this paper's own words; the facilitation from a prior exposure, measured here as accuracy of identification rather than as naming latency - deliberately, to avoid the range limitations the authors say adult reading data imposes on latency measures 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 | word identification — not defined in this paper's own words; the dependent measure of the first four experiments, and the task where INTRAMODAL (word-word) priming wins. Chosen over naming latency on purpose 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 | episodic recognition — not defined in this paper's own words; the fifth experiment's task - and the one where the ordering REVERSES: picture-word beats word-word, which is what licenses the inference that a different memory trace is being read 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 | memory trace — not defined in this paper's own words; what the reversal is taken to imply: not that one task is harder, but that the two tasks reach DIFFERENT stored representations. A crossover cannot be produced by a single trace read with more or less sensitivity 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: one-way analysis of variance 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] |
| post hoc multiple comparison test | as written: Comparisons conducted according to Newman-Keuls Quotation withheld — our stored copy of this sentence carries a text-extraction fault (two words run together), so it is not what the paper says. The tag itself stands; the sentence is being re-fetched. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| ANOVA interaction test F | as written: the interaction between word frequency and repetition status 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] |
| repeated measures ANOVA F | as written: analysis of variance conducted on the accuracy data 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] |
| standard deviation SD | as written: SD = 0.22, N = 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. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| meta-analysis | as written: descriptive meta-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.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