phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | masked cross-modal repetition priming in word recognition— “In the current study we examined ERP masked repetition priming both within and between modalities.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “These results therefore confirm the first prediction derived from the bi-modal interactive-activation model, namely that lexical-level pathways dominate cross-modal transfer.” | |
| method — evidence | — “We report three experiments that combine the masked priming paradigm with the recording of event-related potentials in order to examine the time-course of cross-modal interactions during word recognition.” | |
| mechanism | A visual prime activates whole-word orthographic representations, which pass activation on to the corresponding whole-word phonological representations, so cross-modal transfer travels the slower lexical route and shows up only in the N400.— “Activation engendered by a visual prime word reaches whole-word orthographic representations (giving rise to within-modality priming) and is sent on to corresponding whole-word phonological representations.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Lengthening prime exposure lets activation reach whole-word phonological units sooner and accumulate to a higher level, which shifts the cross-modal N400 effect earlier and makes it bigger.— “suggests that the longer prime duration allowed activation to reach whole-word phonological representations earlier and therefore to build up to higher levels than at the shorter prime duration” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | An inhibitory reset of modality-specific representations, triggered when prime and target are perceived as separate events, reduces within-modality priming at longer prime durations.— “One plausible mechanism for such inhibitory effects is that the word recognition system needs to be reset in order to correctly process new upcoming words.” | mechanisms[2] |
| replicates | Grainger et al. (2003) behavioural cross-modal masked priming result— “Experiment 1 successfully replicated the behavioral pattern of within and cross-modality masked repetition priming obtained in prior studies using the lexical decision task and similar stimulus presentation conditions (i.e., 50 ms visual primes, Grainger et al., 2003 ).” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Holcomb and Grainger (in press), the N250 component— “In line with the results of Holcomb and Grainger (in press) , in Experiment 1 we also found evidence for visual-visual repetition effects starting as early as 200–300 ms post-target onset that resulted in a clear negative-going peak at 250 ms (see Figure 4 ).” | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | the second prediction of the bimodal interactive-activation model (early, pre-N400 cross-modal effects at 67 ms primes)— “However, contrary to this prediction we failed to find any evidence for standard priming effects (i.e., reduced negativity in the related condition) in early ERP components (i.e., the N250) with auditory targets at the longer prime duration of Experiment 3.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | THEY CONSIDER Holcomb2005'S DISTINCTION FOR THIS CASE AND DECLINE IT - AND Holcomb AND Grainger ARE AUTHORS ON BOTH PAPERS. The obvious extension of `pre-activation versus establishing connections` is that cross-modal priming, being slower and later, is the connection-building kind. `However, we would argue that while semantic priming may indeed require the conscious linking of related representations, such a mechanism would be superfluous for cross-modal repetition priming since the visual prime and auditory target presumably have the same semantic representation.` The argument is that the distinction does not APPLY here, not that it is wrong - a author group declining to extend its own account into the case it most obviously fits— “However, we would argue that while semantic priming may indeed require the conscious linking of related representations, such a mechanism would be superfluous for cross-modal repetition priming since the visual prime and auditory target presumably have the same semantic representation” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THEY BACK THE REFUSAL WITH AN EMPIRICAL DISCRIMINATOR RATHER THAN LEAVING IT AS REASONING: the Holcomb et al. (2005) semantic effect `was mainly evident on the middle portion and trailing edge of the N400, while cross-modal repetition priming was evident on the rising edge of the N400 at the longest prime duration of the present study.` Different position within the same component, so the two effects are not one phenomenon wearing two names. That is a much harder claim to make than a verbal distinction, and it is the kind of evidence a corpus of definitions should be able to retrieve: two papers, one lab, one component, and a measurable difference in WHERE on the waveform each effect sits— “Furthermore, the semantic priming effect that emerged with longer prime durations in the Holcomb et al. (2005) study was mainly evident on the middle portion and trailing edge of the N400, while cross-modal repetition priming was evident on the rising edge of the N400 at the longest prime duration of the present study” | senses[1] |
| sense | A METHODOLOGICAL CRITERION FOR WHETHER AN ERP COMPONENT EXISTS AT ALL, cited to a standard and RANKED BY STRENGTH: `Third, the most compelling evidence for component independence is when components show differential sensitivity to experimental variables (Rugg & Coles, 1995).` The first two pieces of evidence are morphological - two peaks with a positivity between them, different scalp distributions - and the authors say plainly that the functional one beats them. A component is real when something moves it that does not move its neighbour, and that is a rule about how to individuate a measure, not a finding about words— “Third, the most compelling evidence for component independence is when components show differential sensitivity to experimental variables” | senses[2] |
| sense | THE PAPER'S OWN DISSOCIATION SUPPLIES THAT CRITERION, AND IT IS A DOUBLE ONE: `within-modality priming revealed an early N250 effect that was absent in the cross-modality condition. On the other hand, priming effects in the region of the N400 appeared to be just as strong cross-modalities as within-modalities in this experiment.` One variable moves the early component and not the late one; the other moves both. So the N250's null in the cross-modal condition is not a weak result - it is the evidence that the N250 is a component rather than a shoulder of the N400— “In the current series of studies such a dissociation occurred in the comparisons of within and across modality priming in Experiment 3 where within-modality priming revealed an early N250 effect that was absent in the cross-modality condition. On the other hand, priming effects in the region of the N400 appeared to be just as strong… | senses[3] |
| sense | THE MODEL IS TESTED ON TWO PREDICTIONS AND THE PAPER REPORTS BOTH OUTCOMES, INCLUDING THE FAILURE. The first holds - `The present results are compatible with the FIRST prediction of the bimodal interactive-activation model, that lexical-level pathways dominate cross-modal transfer.` The second does not: `However, contrary to this prediction we failed to find any evidence for standard priming effects ... in early ERP components (i.e., the N250) with auditory targets at the longer prime duration.` They then explain the failure within the model - the sublexical units get only one source of activation where whole-word units get two - and mark that explanation as owing a test: whether another small increase in prime duration would produce the effect `remains to be seen in further research`— “However, contrary to this prediction we failed to find any evidence for standard priming effects (i.e., reduced negativity in the related condition) in early ERP components (i.e., the N250) with auditory targets at the longer prime duration of Experiment 3” | senses[4] |
| control | the response hand for the 'oui' and 'non' keys was counterbalanced across subjects AND across lists — held — rules out that the cross-modal priming effect is a hand or key preference, or bound to a particular stimulus list— “The ‘oui’ and ‘non’ response hand was counterbalanced across subjects and lists.” | controls[0] |
| differs in | within-modality priming —contrasted-with→ cross-modal priming — BOTH THE KIND OF DIFFERENCE AND ITS SIZE - the two words are the paper's own. Qualitatively: within-modality priming moves the early N250 and cross-modal priming does not, so they engage different processing stages rather than the same stage to different degrees. Quantitatively: at 50 ms prime exposures the cross-modal N400 effect is much the weaker of the two, though at 67 ms it is not— “However, as with Experiment 1, the cross-modal priming effects were both qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from within-modality priming”— “the cross-modal priming effects were both qualitatively” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | within-modality priming —contrasted-with→ cross-modal priming — GROUNDED ON THE RESULT RATHER THAN ON THE INTERPRETATION, AND THAT WAS A CORRECTION. The span I first chose here - 'whereas priming…' - states an account the authors DECLINE two sentences later. Grounding the contrast on it would have recorded a position as this paper's when it is the one being argued against. That reasoning is in the sense rows instead, with the refusal attached to it.— “However, as with Experiment 1, the cross-modal priming effects were both qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from within-modality priming” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | within-modality priming —contrasted-with→ cross-modal priming — 0.9— “However, as with Experiment 1, the cross-modal priming effects were both qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from within-modality priming” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | prime duration —causes→ cross-modal priming — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but 'it remains to be seen' whether a longer prime generates cross-modal effects; causes is hedged.— “Thus, it remains to be seen in further research whether another small increase in prime duration is all that is necessary to generate cross-modal priming effects in pre-N400 components” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | prime duration —causes→ cross-modal priming — WEIGHT 0.6 BECAUSE THIS IS AN OPEN QUESTION THE AUTHORS FLAG, NOT A RESULT - 'it remains to be seen in further research', and the hedge is the first clause of the quote. The established half of this relation (50 ms to 67 ms made the cross-modal N400 effect earlier and larger) is already on the record as content_tags.findings[2]; what is added here is the part the paper does NOT know - whether the same dial reaches the pre-N400 components its model predicted and Experiment 3 failed to find. No effect direction: a conditional has no measured sign.— “Thus, it remains to be seen in further research whether another small increase in prime duration is all that is necessary to generate cross-modal priming effects in pre-N400 components” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | prime duration —causes→ cross-modal priming — 0.6— “Thus, it remains to be seen in further research whether another small increase in prime duration is all that is necessary to generate cross-modal priming effects in pre-N400 components” | concept_edges[1] |
| differs in | N250 —distinct-from→ N400 — WHAT MOVES THEM. Within-modality priming moves the N250; cross-modality priming does not; both move the N400 equally. That is differential sensitivity to an experimental variable, which the authors name as the most compelling evidence for component independence - stronger than the two morphological arguments (two peaks with an intervening positivity, different scalp distributions) that precede it— “In the current series of studies such a dissociation occurred in the comparisons of within and across modality priming in Experiment 3 where within-modality priming revealed an early N250 effect that was absent in the cross-modality condition. On the other hand, priming effects in the region of the N400 appeared to be just as strong…— “Together these data strongly suggest that the N250 and N400 are at least partially distinct and emanate from non-identical neural sources” | concept_edges[2] |
| note | N250 —distinct-from→ N400 — 'at least PARTIALLY distinct' and 'strongly SUGGEST' are the hedges and both are inside the quote. The claim is that two measures are two things - an unusual thing for a concept edge to carry, and the reason this record is worth its senses.— “In the current series of studies such a dissociation occurred in the comparisons of within and across modality priming in Experiment 3 where within-modality priming revealed an early N250 effect that was absent in the cross-modality condition. On the other hand, priming effects in the region of the N400 appeared to be just as strong… | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | N250 —distinct-from→ N400 — 0.9— “In the current series of studies such a dissociation occurred in the comparisons of within and across modality priming in Experiment 3 where within-modality priming revealed an early N250 effect that was absent in the cross-modality condition. On the other hand, priming effects in the region of the N400 appeared to be just as strong… | concept_edges[2] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | replicated | |
| limitation | The post-experiment mask-effectiveness test probably overstates how visible the primes were during the ERP experiment itself.— “Note, however, that as in Experiment 1, the mask-effectiveness test is likely to have over estimated the visibility of primes during the ERP experiment as it focused attention on detecting the masked items themselves ( Kahan, 2000 ).” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The larger, earlier cross-modal effect at 67 ms may reflect removal of an early reversed priming effect rather than a genuinely larger N400; the authors cannot yet decide between these.— “One admittedly speculative possibility for the different size and time-course of priming effects across experiments is that the reversal effect in the first two experiments blocked or obscured the earlier phase of the N400 seen in Experiment 3 and that the resulting larger and somewhat earlier effect in Experiment 3 is more a reflection of… | limitations[1] |
| limitation | That alternative explanation is untested in the present data and awaits further experiments.— “Testing of this hypothesis will have to await further experimentation.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Cross-study comparison of effect magnitude is difficult; the auditory priming effect obtained here is small and late relative to a previous cross-modal study.— “Although direct between-study comparisons are difficult to make, it is worth noting that the current 1.2 microvolt auditory priming effect at Cz between 500 and 750 ms is relatively late and somewhat small compared to at least one previous cross-modal priming study.” | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Behaviourally, masked visual primes speeded lexical decisions to both visual and auditory targets by roughly equal amounts, with no modality-by-repetition interaction.— “Simple effects ANOVAs revealed that the repetition effect was reliable for visual words (39ms effect, F(1,23) = 20.176, p < 0.001), and auditory words (40ms effect, F(1,23) = 14.957, p < 0.001), but no interaction between target modality and repetition (F(1,23) = 0.004, p < 0.947).” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | In the ERPs, within-modality repetition effects appeared early and spanned the N250 and N400, while cross-modal effects only emerged on the trailing edge of the N400 after the visual effect had ended.— “While the visual ERP repetition effects started early (200–300 ms) and continued through the traditional N400 epoch (300–500 ms), a comparable effect in the auditory modality was not significant until the offset phase of the typical N400 (550–750 ms), a time period by which the visual effect had completely dissipated.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Raising the prime duration from 50 ms to 67 ms made the cross-modal N400 priming effect both earlier and substantially larger.— “Our between-experiment analyses showed an earlier and much larger modulation of N400 amplitude in cross-modal repetition priming in Experiment 3 compared to Experiment 2.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | The model's prediction that a longer prime would produce cross-modal effects in pre-N400 components was not supported: no N250 priming appeared for auditory targets even at 67 ms.— “However, contrary to this prediction we failed to find any evidence for standard priming effects (i.e., reduced negativity in the related condition) in early ERP components (i.e., the N250) with auditory targets at the longer prime duration of Experiment 3.” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Within-modality (visual-visual) priming became smaller, not larger, as prime exposure increased from 50 to 67 ms. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | At the short prime duration a small reversed (inverse) priming effect appeared in the cross-modal condition in the 200-300 ms window. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| quantity | 39ms / 40ms — size of the behavioural repetition priming effect for visual and auditory word targets in Experiment 1 | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | d' = 0.11 — prime visibility (sensitivity) in the Experiment 1 mask-effectiveness forced-choice test, not different from zero 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 | 64% — proportion of masked primes correctly reported in the post-experiment visibility test with the longer 67 ms prime of Experiment 3 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 | 1.2 microvolt — amplitude of the late auditory (cross-modal) priming effect at Cz 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[3] |
| quantity | 50 ms to 67 ms — the single manipulated change in prime exposure duration between Experiments 2 and 3 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] |
| variable | repetition (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 | target 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[1] |
| variable | prime exposure duration (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 | counter-balanced lists (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 | mean reaction times (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[8] |
| 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[9] |
| definition | N250 component 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 | N400 amplitude 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 | prime and target 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 | masked priming variant 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 | cross-modal priming — not defined in this paper's own words; a visual prime and an AUDITORY target of the same word - so the prime and target share a meaning and a lexical identity but no perceptual form at all, which is what makes the comparison with within-modality priming a clean test of where the transfer happens 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 | within-modality priming — not defined in this paper's own words; the visual-visual comparison condition, and the one the authors call more automatic - the prime pre-activates the very representations the target will use 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 | N250 — not defined in this paper's own words; the early component whose very EXISTENCE this paper argues for, and the argument is what makes the row interesting: a component is established as real by showing it responds differently from its neighbour to an experimental 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. | concepts[2] |
| concept | N400 — not defined in this paper's own words; the later component, and here it is the CONTROL in the dissociation rather than the finding: it moves equally for within- and cross-modality priming, which is what makes the N250's failure to move for cross-modality priming informative 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 | bimodal interactive-activation model — not defined in this paper's own words; the model under test, and it is tested on TWO predictions rather than one - the first confirmed (lexical-level pathways dominate cross-modal transfer), the second refuted (early pre-N400 cross-modal effects), and the paper reports both 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] |
| concept | prime duration — not defined in this paper's own words; the dial, and a very short one: 50 ms to 67 ms is a 17 ms difference, and it moves the cross-modal N400 effect from weak-and-late to as strong as the within-modality equivalent 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[5] |
| repeated measures ANOVA F | as written: repeated measures analyses of variance (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] |
| Geisser-Greenhouse sphericity correction | as written: The Geisser-Greenhouse (1959) correction 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] |
| t-test t | as written: did not significantly differ from zero (t(23)=1.19, p =0.24) 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[2] |
| signal-detection sensitivity (d-prime) d’ | as written: The average d’ value 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] |
| mean and standard error of the mean | as written: mean reaction times, percentage of errors, and standard error of the 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[4] |
| z-score normalisation | as written: normalized using a z-score 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.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