phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | visuomotor response priming with natural images— “We tested this theory in a visuomotor priming task in which speeded pointing responses were performed toward one of two target images containing a prespecified stimulus (e.g., animal vs. nonanimal, ellipse vs. rectangle).” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Our data indicate that prime and target signals remained strictly sequential throughout all processing stages, meeting unprecedentedly stringent behavioral criteria for feedforward processing (rapid-chase criteria).” | |
| method — evidence | — “We compared four tasks in two experiments to demonstrate rapid-chase processing of natural images.” | |
| mechanism | The prime's feedforward wave arrives at motor areas first and drives the movement alone until the target's wave arrives and takes over; a longer SOA gives the prime a longer unopposed drive, which is why priming grows with SOA.— “Priming effects increase with prime–target SOA because the prime has more time to drive the response on its own when the target is further delayed.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | When no overt detour appears, opposing prime- and target-driven response tendencies conflict covertly and must be resolved before the movement can start, which shows up as a delayed onset instead.— “Even in the absence of detours, the delay of pointing onset probably reflects a covert conflict of opposing response tendencies from prime and target signals that must be resolved before movement onset can occur” | mechanisms[1] |
| extends | the authors' own rapid-chase theory of response priming (Schmidt et al., 2006; Vath & Schmidt, 2007)— “Our results extend our rapid-chase theory of response priming to the domain of natural image processing, linking visuomotor priming to feedforward processing of images (Schmidt et al., 2006; Vath & Schmidt, 2007).” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | rapid natural-scene categorisation studies (Bacon-Macé et al., 2007; Kirchner & Thorpe, 2006; Thorpe et al., 1996; VanRullen & Koch, 2003; VanRullen & Thorpe, 2001, 2002)— “Our data strongly support the conclusion from previous studies (e.g., Bacon-Macé et al., 2007; Kirchner & Thorpe, 2006; Thorpe et al., 1996; VanRullen & Koch, 2003; Van- Rullen & Thorpe, 2001, 2002) that natural scenes can be classified on the basis of an initial feedforward sweep of processing (Bullier, 2001; Lamme &… | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | the claim that natural image classification is "ultra-rapid" (Kirchner & Thorpe, 2006; VanRullen & Thorpe, 2001)— “These differences considered, there is no indication here that natural image classification is extraordinarily fast, or “ultra-rapid” (Kirchner & Thorpe, 2006; VanRullen & Thorpe, 2001), when compared with even more basic tasks such as simple shape classification.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | THREE NAMED CRITERIA, EACH WITH ITS JOB STATED - THE CLEAREST `a tool must be checkable` IN THIS CORPUS: `(1) Prime rather than target signals should determine the onset and initial direction of the response (initiation criterion); (2) target signals should be able to influence the response before it is completed (takeover criterion); and, crucially, (3) response kinematics should initially depend exclusively on prime characteristics and be independent of all target characteristics (independence criterion).` Numbered, named, and separately falsifiable - a dataset can meet 1 and 2 and fail 3, which is exactly what happens in one of this paper's four tasks. Compare jitendra2016, which grades a literature against someone else's published checklist: same discipline, applied to a mechanism instead of a field— “1) Prime rather than target signals should determine the onset and initial direction of the response (initiation criterion); (2) target signals should be able to influence the response before it is completed (takeover criterion); and, crucially, (3) response kinematics should initially depend exclusively on prime characteristics and be… | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE CLAIM IS EQUIVALENCE, NOT IDENTITY, STATED BY THE AUTHORS IN THEIR OWN CONCLUSION: `our data indicate a rapid-chase system ... that is behaviorally equivalent to a feedforward system with high temporal resolution.` They say elsewhere that the criteria `do not guarantee that a stimulus-response system is strictly feedforward in all its substages`. A behavioural test that names the limit of what behaviour can establish. Most records in this corpus infer a mechanism from a behavioural measure; this one declines to, and says which claim the method does support instead— “our data indicate a rapid-chase system (Schmidt et al., 2006; Vath & Schmidt, 2007) that is behaviorally equivalent to a feedforward system with high temporal resolution” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE PAPER CONTAINS ITS OWN BOUNDARY CONDITION - ONE OF FOUR TASKS FAILS: `Only in the large-small task, with its tardy response dynamics and small priming effects, does it become difficult to evaluate whether the independence criterion is met.` And the diagnosis is offered rather than withheld: `It rather seems that the large-small classification cannot be performed in a single feedforward sweep and requires more extensive, recurrent processing.` Same images, same participants, same apparatus - only the classification rule changed, and the account stops applying. A scope limit measured inside the paper rather than conceded to a critic later— “Only in the large–small task, with its tardy response dynamics and small priming effects, does it become difficult to evaluate whether the independence criterion is met” | senses[2] |
| sense | AND THE DOSE-RESPONSE COMES WITH ITS MECHANISM ATTACHED, WHICH IS RARE: `Priming effects increase with prime-target SOA because the prime has more time to drive the response on its own when the target is further delayed.` The `because` is not decoration - it is the rapid-chase model making the prediction, and the effect size is a duration rather than a strength. dijksterhuis1998 doses by prime DURATION and gets a bigger effect; this doses by the GAP and gets a longer unopposed run - two different quantities that both look like `more priming` in a results table— “Priming effects increase with prime–target SOA because the prime has more time to drive the response on its own when the target is further delayed” | senses[3] |
| control | eight sessions per participant, four in each task, with task order counterbalanced — held — rules out that a difference between the two tasks is an order effect— “In each experiment, the participants took part in eight experimental sessions, four in each of the two respective tasks, with task order counterbalanced across participants.” | controls[0] |
| note | feedforward —operationalised-as→ rapid-chase criteria — THE WHOLE PAPER IN ONE EDGE, AND 'would show in the time course of the response' IS THE OPERATIONALISATION. A claim about neuronal signal flow is turned into three tests on a pointing trajectory. Weight 0.95: the criteria are named, numbered and separately checkable, and the authors state in the same passage that meeting them establishes BEHAVIOURAL EQUIVALENCE and not strict feedforward - so the edge is exactly as strong as the paper says it is, which is why it earns 0.95 rather than being hedged down.— “The feedforward properties of the system would show in the time course of the response and meet the following rapid-chase criteria” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | feedforward —operationalised-as→ rapid-chase criteria — 0.95— “The feedforward properties of the system would show in the time course of the response and meet the following rapid-chase criteria” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | independence criterion —part-of→ rapid-chase criteria — THE THIRD OF THREE, and the quote carries all three in order with their names. Recorded separately because it is the one that FAILS in the large-small task - a corpus that holds only 'rapid-chase criteria' as one node cannot express that a system met two of them. Weight 0.95: the membership is explicit in the enumeration.— “The feedforward properties of the system would show in the time course of the response and meet the following rapid-chase criteria: (1) Prime rather than target signals should determine the onset and initial direction of the response (initiation criterion); (2) target signals should be able to influence the response before it is completed… | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | independence criterion —part-of→ rapid-chase criteria — 0.95— “The feedforward properties of the system would show in the time course of the response and meet the following rapid-chase criteria: (1) Prime rather than target signals should determine the onset and initial direction of the response (initiation criterion); (2) target signals should be able to influence the response before it is completed… | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The paper does not claim that the rapid classification is driven by image semantics specifically.— “However, we make no claim here that classification is based exclusively on the semantic content of the images.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | In the slow large-small task the independence criterion could not be clearly evaluated.— “Only in the large–small task, with its tardy response dynamics and small priming effects, does it become difficult to evaluate whether the independence criterion is met.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | In Experiment 1 the raw trajectories did not show the initiation criterion; the conclusion rests on the derived spatial priming functions.— “Admittedly, these issues are less clear in Experiment 1, in which both tasks failed to meet the initiation criterion, at least when judged by looking only at the raw trajectories (Figure 2).” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Meeting the rapid-chase criteria shows behavioural equivalence to a feedforward system, not that every processing substage is feedforward.— “Importantly, note that the rapid-chase criteria do not guarantee that a stimulus– response system is strictly feedforward in all its substages (and they… | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | In the animal-versus-object task, the time course of spatial priming matched the pattern the rapid-chase model predicts. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Spatial priming curves for every prime-target SOA first followed one identical trajectory and branched off only later, in order of increasing SOA, in line with the independence criterion. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | The large-versus-small size-judgement task was the one case where the independence criterion could not be assessed, because its responses were slow and its priming effects small. 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 | The authors attribute the slowness of the size-judgement task to its needing recurrent processing rather than a single feedforward sweep. 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 | There was no indication that natural-image categorisation is extraordinarily fast, or 'ultra-rapid'. 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 | When prime and target categories conflicted, the pointing hand physically veered into the quadrant indicated by the prime before reversing toward the correct 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.findings[5] |
| finding | Pointing errors occurred almost only on inconsistent trials and grew with prime-target SOA, showing prime influence reaches the motor level. 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 | The authors conclude that visuomotor priming reads out the first pass of information through the visuomotor system, before recurrent processing contributes. 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] |
| quantity | 380 msec — time after prime onset at which the hand began moving on consistent trials in the large-small task (versus roughly 300 msec in the animal-object task) 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] |
| evidence status note | quantity — THE QUOTE CONTINUES A SENTENCE THAT THIS COPY CUTS IN TWO - a running head and the caption of Figure 3 stand between it and the words it follows, which read 'roughly 300 msec after prime onset in the'. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 280 msec / 220 msec — movement onset times after prime onset in the toy-animal-object and ellipse-rectangle tasks of Experiment 2 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 | 160 msec — lag of priming-effect onset in the large-small task relative to the ellipse-rectangle task 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 | 33, 50, 67, 83, or 100 msec — the five prime-target stimulus onset asynchronies used, with primes shown for 33 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.quantities[3] |
| quantity | Twelve — total participants, six in each of the two experiments 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 | 1.14% and 1.73% — trials discarded by the exclusion rules in Experiments 1 and 2 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 | about 80 msec — how much earlier spatial priming onset occurred in the animal-object task than in the large-small task Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| variable | prime–target SOA (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 | pointing trajectories (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 | rates of response 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[4] |
| definition | feedforward 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[0] |
| definition | rapid chase 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 | rapid-chase criteria 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 | independence criterion 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 | spatial priming function 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] |
| concept | rapid-chase criteria — not defined in this paper's own words; THREE NAMED, NUMBERED, INDIVIDUALLY FALSIFIABLE TESTS - initiation, takeover, independence - each with its own stated job. A reader can check a dataset against the third without accepting the first, which is what makes this a tool rather than a verdict 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 | feedforward — not defined in this paper's own words; defined for this paper's purposes at the level of a single cell: passing activation on BEFORE integrating any feedback about that signal. The behavioural criteria are then built to test what such a system would look like from outside 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 | independence criterion — not defined in this paper's own words; THE STRICTEST OF THE THREE, and the one that fails: response kinematics must depend EXCLUSIVELY on the prime and be independent of ALL target characteristics. It is the criterion that establishes strict sequentiality, and the large-small task cannot meet it 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 | priming effects — not defined in this paper's own words; the dependent measure, read off pointing trajectories rather than reaction times - and the paper's mechanism predicts their size directly: the longer the target is delayed, the longer the prime drives the response alone 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] |
| F-test / ANOVA F | as written: F tests Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| jackknife | as written: jackknifing methods 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] |
| arcsine transformation | as written: arcsine-transformed error rates 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] |
| data smoothing filter | as written: T4253H filter 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 error | as written: corrected for between-subjects 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[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