phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | short-term repetition priming— “Short-tenn implicit memory was examined for mixed auditory (A) and visual (V) stimuli.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “These modality differences suggest that short-tenn priming has a perceptual locus, with the phonological lexicon maintaining stimuli active longer than the ortho graphic lexicon and treating pseudowords as potential words.” | |
| method — evidence | — “In lexical decision, words and nonwords were repeated at lags of 0, 1, 3, and 6 intervening trials, in four prime target combinations (yV, VA, AV, AA).” | |
| mechanism | because continuous speech is ambiguous and many apparent nonwords later resolve into words, the phonological lexicon must keep pseudoword-status items active as long as word-status items, producing slow auditory decay for both— “The phonologicallexi con, therefore, has need to hold items assigned pseudo word status active for as long as those assigned word sta tus: In continuous speech, many "nonwords" will later turn out to be real words.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | because the written signal is far less ambiguous, the orthographic lexicon can discard a nonword as soon as the next item arrives, producing the fast visual nonword decay— “The orthographic lexicon can afford, therefore, to rapidly discard a non word when the next item is presented.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | each stimulus is obligatorily recoded into the other perceptual form, and the secondary trace left by that recoding supports the weak cross-modal short-term priming— “The results sug gest that each stimulus undergoes obligatory recoding into the alternative perceptual form (i.e., orthographic to phonological and, more interestingly, vice versa), and that a secondary trace of this recoding can contribute to short-term priming.” | mechanisms[2] |
| replicates | McKone (1995)— “First, the results of McKone (1995) were replicated when both presentations were visual, although the list used here contained mixed auditory and visual stimuli.” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | Kirsner and Smith (1974)— “Our experiment was similar to that ofKirsner and Smith, but specifically targeted the region in which the lag X lexicality interaction is found with visual presentation.” | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | Kirsner and Smith (1974)— “Few studies have used auditory targets, but we note that our small ef fect appears to conflict with Kirsner and Smith's (1974) large cross-modal reduction in long-term priming in lex ical decision (83 vs. - 14 msec, for words at lags 15 and 63).” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | short-term implicit memory - a name chosen by ANALOGY OF DURATION with explicit short-term memory, not by a claim about mechanism— “We refer to this effect as short-term implicit memory, where the label short-term was chosen to reflect its similarity in duration to that of standard ex plicit short-term or "working" memory” | senses[0] |
| sense | short-term implicit memory - and the commitment the name would carry is DECLINED in the next sentence: separate stores are explicitly not assumed— “We do not assume that different stores sub serve short- and long-term priming. Our preferred theo retical interpretation is of two mechanisms operating within a common system” | senses[1] |
| sense | priming - operationalised as the difference from the mean of ALL unprimed trials of matching lexicality and modality, after the first-versus-second-presentation definition was rejected— “Instead, we followed the procedure of Kirsner and Smith (1974) in choosing the baseline for priming to be the mean of all unprimed trials of the appropriate lexicality and modal ity.” | senses[2] |
| sense | implicit memory - automatic retrieval of the target's initial presentation, defined by CONTRAST with the deliberate conscious retrieval required for explicit memory— “where implicit memory refers to auto matic retrieval of the target's initial presentation and is contrasted with the deliberate conscious retrieval re quired for explicit memory” | senses[3] |
| control | lexical decision times below 300 or above 1,700 msec excluded, along with incorrect responses - 1.3 per cent of reaction times — held — rules out anticipations and lapses of attention dominating a mean, with the exclusion rate reported so a reader can see how much was removed— “Lexical decision times were excluded if they fell below 300 or above 1,700 msec (1.3% ofRTs), or ifan incorrect response was given to either presentation of the item (6.2% ofRTs).” | controls[0] |
| edge | implicit memory —contrasted-with→ explicit memory | concept_edges[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the orthographic locus assumed in the authors' earlier accounts of short-term priming: they state there is no direct evidence for it and that words and pseudowords also differ phonologically and in semantic familiarity | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — any comparison of these priming magnitudes with a study that measures priming as first-versus-second presentation: this paper rejects that definition and uses the mean of all unprimed trials of matching lexicality and modality as the baseline Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| replication | replicated | |
| limitation | Because no lags beyond 6 were tested, the authors cannot show that the long-term asymptote had actually been reached for auditory items. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The orthographic locus previously assumed for visual short-term priming was never established directly, since words and pseudowords also differ phonologically and semantically. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The locus assumed in the authors' own earlier explanations is stated to have no direct evidence, and a confound is named in the same sentence. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The obvious definition of the measured quantity is rejected outright, because unprimed response times differ by modality, and a different baseline is substituted. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | With visual stimuli, short-term priming decayed faster for nonwords than for words (a lag by lexicality interaction), whereas with auditory stimuli both item types decayed smoothly and slowly. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Short-term priming lasted longer when both presentations were spoken than when both were written. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Auditory nonword priming survived at least three intervening trials (about 8 seconds), while visual nonword priming fell to its long-term level after a single intervening item. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Switching modality between prime and target reduced short-term priming but never abolished it, for words and nonwords alike. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Cross-modal short-term priming persisted to lag 1 for word targets but disappeared after one intervening item for nonwords. 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[4] |
| finding | Weak cross-modal short-term priming for words and nonwords indicates recoding between perceptual forms. 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] |
| finding | Modality mismatch significantly reduced priming for visual targets (31 vs. 2 msec) but not for auditory targets (36 vs. 27 msec). 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[6] |
| finding | Error rates fell from first to second presentation (words 11.3% to 6.0%; nonwords 5.9% to 5.7%). Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[7] |
| finding | Unprimed lexical decisions were roughly 320-350 msec faster for written than for spoken items. 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[8] |
| finding | First-presentation responses were consistently faster when the preceding trial was in the same 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.findings[9] |
| finding | The main locus of short-term priming is the perceptual subsystem in which the item was presented: orthographic for written items, phonological for spoken ones. 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[10] |
| quantity | V = 620 msec, A = 966 msec — unprimed lexical decision times for visual versus auditory words 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 | F(3,63) = 2.76, MSe = 2,416, P < .05 — the lag by lexicality interaction for same-modality visual 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.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 31 vs. 2 msec, t(21) = 3.57, p < .005 — same-modality versus cross-modality long-term priming at lag 6 for visual targets 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 | 11.3% to 6.0% — word error rates on first versus second presentation 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 | 22 — number of subjects tested 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 | 1,500 trials in five blocks of 300 — length of the trial list each subject completed 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 | 32 priming conditions ... with 20 items in each — design size: crossings of lexicality, prime modality, target modality and lag, with items per cell Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| quantity | 1.3% ofRTs / 6.2% ofRTs — proportion of responses discarded as outliers and as errors respectively Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[7] |
| variable | lag (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 | lexical status (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 | first presentation 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[2] |
| variable | second presentation 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[3] |
| 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[4] |
| variable | error rate (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[6] |
| variable | order of priming conditions (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[10] |
| definition | short-term implicit memory Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | long-term implicit memory Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | pseudoword 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 | orthographic lexicon 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 | phonological lexicon 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 | implicit memory Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | explicit memory Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | short-term implicit memory Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | baseline for 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. | concepts[3] |
| ANOVA F | as written: repeated measures two-way analysis of variance (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] |
| mean squared error MSe | as written: MSe 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] |
| planned contrasts (Helmert) | as written: Helmert contrasts 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] |
| t-test t | as written: t(21) = 3.57 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] |
| three-way ANOVA F | as written: A three-way 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[4] |
| four-way ANOVA with alpha level alpha | as written: A four-way ANOVA revealed no significant in teractions (alpha = .05) 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] |
| mean | as written: the mean of all unprimed trials 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