phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | auditory repetition priming— “Auditory priming occurs when a response to a repeated spoken word is facilitated without intentional recollection (Church & Schacter, 1994).” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “In conclusion, the results of this study demonstrate that the signifi cance ofhuman voice in implicit memory is dependent on both the level of processing required by the task and the acoustic environment.” | |
| method — evidence | — “To emphasize the subword level, the present study employed a phoneme-monitoring task at both encoding (study) and retrieval (test).” | |
| mechanism | Processing an increasingly varied and less familiar set of voices consumes additional perceptual operations, and those extra operations break the ability of voice-plus-word repetition to speed the response.— “The additional operations required to process an increas ingly varied and progressively less familiar acoustic en vironment (Mul1enix & Pisoni, 1990) disrupted the abil ity of voice and word repetition to sustain priming.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | When encoding must handle different and progressively less familiar voices, repetition of voice and word stops being sufficient to support priming.— “when the encoding of acoustic information required the processing of different and progressively less familiar voices, voice and word repetition were not sufficient to support priming.” | mechanisms[1] |
| extends | Schacter & Church (1992)— “The absence of an effect ofword frequency on priming strengthened the idea that implicit memory for spoken words, at the level of processing entailed by pho neme monitoring, is based on surface processing rather than word-level processing (see Schacter & Church, 1992, for additional qualifications).” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Mullenix & Pisoni (1990)— “The additional operations required to process an increas ingly varied and progressively less familiar acoustic en vironment (Mul1enix & Pisoni, 1990) disrupted the abil ity of voice and word repetition to sustain priming.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | THE CONCLUSION IS ABOUT THE INSTRUMENT, NOT ABOUT MEMORY: `the significance of voice in implicit memory is dependent on the level of processing required by the task and the acoustic environment.` Whether voice matters to implicit memory has no answer on its own - it has an answer per task. So two studies of `auditory priming` that used different tasks are not measuring the same thing, and a corpus that pools their effect sizes is pooling answers to different questions. The paper was designed to demonstrate exactly this: it swapped the task and the role of voice changed— “This study demonstrates that the significance of voice in implicit memory is dependent on the level of processing required by the task and the acoustic environment” | senses[0] |
| sense | THE PRIOR LITERATURE ALREADY DISAGREED WITH ITSELF, BY TASK, AND THIS PAPER NAMES IT: `a voice change between a spoken word and its repetition has been shown to have a detrimental effect on auditory priming in stem completion and word identification ... but not in lexical decision.` Three tasks, all called auditory priming, two showing an effect of voice and one not. That is the observation the whole study is built on - not a puzzle to be resolved but a clue about what the tasks measure— “In fact, a voice change between a spoken word and its repetition has been shown to have a detrimental effect on auditory priming in stem completion and word identification (Church & Schacter, 1994; Goldinger, 1992; Schacter & Church, 1992), but not in lexical decision” | senses[1] |
| sense | VOICE REPETITION TURNS OUT TO BE NECESSARY, NOT MERELY HELPFUL: `Voice changes between study and test, which eliminated acoustic repetition, also abolished priming.` Word repetition was intact in that condition - the same words came back - and priming did not. At the level this task works on, repeating the word is not enough; the voice has to repeat too, which is a much stronger claim than voice being one contributor among several— “Voice changes between study and test, which eliminated acoustic repetition, also abolished priming” | senses[2] |
| sense | THE DOSE-RESPONSE HAS A CROSSING VARIABLE, WHICH IS WHY THE DESIGN NEEDED A SECOND ROUND. Priming appeared `only in the one- and two-speaker conditions` and vanished at three and four - but voice FAMILIARITY falls as the number of speakers rises, so the two are confounded by construction. When familiarity was equated by pre-training, priming came back at three voices. `Number of speakers` is therefore not the variable it appears to be, and the paper takes it apart rather than reporting the monotone result it could have | senses[3] |
| sense | AND THE TASK WAS CHOSEN TO DEFEAT A RESPONSE BIAS, WHICH IS AN ARGUMENT ABOUT MEASUREMENT RATHER THAN ABOUT MEMORY. The introduction's charge against the standard tasks is that requiring participants to report whole words `renders priming dependent on the activation of whole words while focusing performance away from the acoustic component` - so the instrument was producing the word-level answer it kept finding. Phoneme monitoring forces attention below the word, and the result changes. A methodological objection of the same shape as Holcomb2005's against Kiefer, in a different literature 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. | senses[4] |
| control | the speaker's voice assigned to each word was counterbalanced across participants so that every word was uttered equally often by each of the four speakers — held — rules out that an auditory priming effect belongs to a particular voice rather than to the word 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. | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | untested |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Auditory priming was significant only in the one- and two-speaker conditions, not with three or four speakers. 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 | With voice familiarity equated to the one-speaker reference, the harmful effect of acoustic variability on priming was confined to the four-speaker condition. 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 | Changing the voice of a studied word at test abolished priming, showing voice information to be a critical component of auditory 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.findings[2] |
| finding | Word frequency did not interact with priming, so the memory traces supporting auditory priming were independent of a word-level factor such as frequency. 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 | High-frequency words were responded to 25 msec faster on average than low-frequency 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.findings[4] |
| finding | Words beginning with the monitored phoneme b were responded to 55 msec faster than words beginning with another phoneme. 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 | At the surface level of processing this task demands, repeating the word only produces priming if the voice is repeated too. 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] |
| quantity | 280 — number of college students who took part 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 | 98.65% — overall mean accuracy of phoneme monitoring after preliminary training 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 | 4.41% — proportion of trials discarded as latency outliers beyond 2 SD of each participant's 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.quantities[2] |
| quantity | F(l,124) = 34.79, MSe = 720.09,p < .0001 — main effect of priming across the four same-speaker baseline 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.quantities[3] |
| quantity | F(l,62) = 1.72 — non-significant test of whether priming magnitude differed between the one- and two-speaker 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.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 55 msec — speed advantage for words beginning with the monitored phoneme b 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 | 25 msec — speed advantage for high-frequency over low-frequency 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[6] |
| quantity | 48 — number of monosyllabic English word stimuli, split into two sets of 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.quantities[7] |
| variable | number of speakers (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 | voice (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 | word frequency (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 | response latency (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 | length of the study and test 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[4] |
| variable | number of exposures (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[5] |
| definition | auditory priming Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | priming Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | priming score 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] |
| concept | auditory priming — not defined in this paper's own words; defined by what is ABSENT as much as by what happens - facilitation on a repeated spoken word WITHOUT intentional recollection, which is what makes it a measure of implicit rather than 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[0] |
| concept | implicit memory — not defined in this paper's own words; the thing auditory priming is taken to index - and the relation is stated as an INFERENCE rather than an identity: priming is a behavioural CORRELATE of it, not the thing itself 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 | phoneme monitoring — not defined in this paper's own words; THE INSTRUMENT, chosen to change the answer: word-level tasks force attention onto whole words and away from the acoustic signal, so this task listens below the word instead 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 | voice — not defined in this paper's own words; the surface property under test - the speaker's acoustic identity, carried along with the word and normally discarded by word-level tasks 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 | acoustic variability — not defined in this paper's own words; the manipulated quantity - how many different voices the words arrive in - and the paper's own analysis says it is CONFOUNDED with familiarity, so the number of speakers is not the variable it looks like 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 | word frequency — not defined in this paper's own words; the control that decides the level question: if priming ran on whole words, frequent and infrequent words would prime differently. It affected reaction times and NOT priming, which is what places the effect below the word 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] |
| ANOVA F | as written: 4 X 2 analysis of variance (AN OVA) 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] |
| one-way ANOVA F | as written: A one-way ANOVA, with number of speakers as factor Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| post hoc pairwise comparison (Fisher's LSD) | as written: post hoc LSD pairwise comparisons 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] |
| standard deviation SD | as written: 2 standard deviations above and below each partic ipant's 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[3] |
| mean M | as written: overall mean accuracy 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] |
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