phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | response priming— “Response priming refers to a situation in which a participant is reacting to a target stimulus as quickly and accurately as possible.” | |
| claim-type | method— “Our intention here is to give an introduction to methodological issues involved in response priming.” | |
| method — evidence | — “We discuss the major opportunities of the paradigm and give specific recommendations (e.g., tracing the time-course of priming in parametric experiments).” | |
| transfer | from clinical trials (intention-to-treat reasoning): the argument against discarding subjects who fail an awareness check is made by analogy with a clinical trial: excluding those subjects is like removing from the analysis the patients the drug killed— “Actually, the practice is analogous to eliminating all the patients from a clinical trial that have died from the drug under investigation.” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | The prime activates the response mapped to it, and the longer the delay before the target arrives the longer the prime alone can drive that response, which is why priming grows with SOA— “Such data suggest that the prime activates a response assigned to it, and has more time to drive the response on its own the more time elapses between prime and target.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Backward masking works by disrupting recurrent processing, which is what awareness depends on, while priming rides the earlier feedforward sweep and is therefore left intact— “Because backward masking works through disruption of recurrent processing (cf. DiLollo, Enns, & Rensink, 2000 ; Fahrenfort, Scholte, & Lamme, 2007 ; Lamme, Zipser, & Spekreijse, 2002 ), it does not affect response priming effects resulting from feedforward activation.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Participants guess prime identity from perceived flicker, and because flicker itself grows with prime-target SOA, this strategy produces the SOA-dependent reversal of bias in prime identification— “However, the amount of flicker is in fact driven primarily by the prime-target SOA, with more flicker at longer SOAs.” | mechanisms[2] |
| builds-on | existing theories of response priming: direct parameter specification (Neumann, 1990), the action trigger account (Kunde, Kiesel, & Hoffmann, 2003) and rapid-chase theory (Schmidt et al., 2006)— “In our opinion, the basic mechanisms of response priming are now reasonably well understood and have led to detailed and successful theories (e.g., the principle of direct parameter specification by Neumann, 1990 ; the action trigger account by Kunde, Kiesel, & Hoffmann, 2003 ; and the rapid-chase theory by Schmidt et al., 2006 ).” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | the direct/indirect task-matching recommendations of Schmidt and Vorberg (2006)— “Following the recommendations by Schmidt and Vorberg ( 2006 ) , we strongly recommend that direct and indirect tasks be matched with respect to (a) the stimuli, (b) the features to be judged, and (c) the assignment of those features to motor responses.” | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | the zero sensitivity criterion for masked priming research— “In fact, the common preconception of many researchers (and many reviewers) that masked priming experiments require zero sensitivity for the prime is a fallacy, because double dissociations are invariably more informative, more powerful, and less assumption-ridden.” | claim_relations[2] |
| builds-on | the feedforward sweep account of Lamme and Roelfsema (2000)— “Applied to response priming, this theory can explain why response priming effects remain intact under visual backward masking of the prime: Because backward masking works through disruption of recurrent processing (cf. DiLollo, Enns, & Rensink, 2000 ; Fahrenfort, Scholte, & Lamme, 2007 ; Lamme, Zipser, & Spekreijse, 2002 ), it… | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | evidence as a SHAPE rather than a LEVEL - the double dissociation replaces `awareness must be zero` with `awareness and priming must move in opposite directions across SOAs`. If a range of prime-mask SOAs shows visibility DECREASING while priming INCREASES, then the two cannot both be driven by one source of conscious information. The criterion needs a time-course, not a threshold - the sixth time this sitting that a time course is the load-bearing variable— “courses of priming and prime visibility can form a double dissociation where both variables develop in opposite directions ( Schmidt & Vorberg, 2006 ; also see Merikle & Joordens, 1997a , 1997b ). For instance, if response priming is combined with type-B masking, there will be a range of prime-mask SOAs that lead to decreasing… | senses[0] |
| sense | A DESIGN FLAW THAT MANUFACTURES THE CORRELATION IT IS USED TO SHOW: `varying the prime's duration while leaving the prime-target ISI constant` confounds prime duration with SOA and `creates a spurious correlation between priming and prime visibility by two mechanisms` - a stronger prime gives stronger priming, and a longer SOA gives stronger priming. The fix is to leave the prime intact and control visibility by varying the MASK. A confound that produces apparent evidence for a link between priming and awareness out of the timing alone— “Unless variation of the prime is of theoretical interest, it is therefore crucial to leave the prime intact and control its visibility by variation of mask attributes only (e.g., its stimulus contrast). With higher mask energy, visual awareness for the prime should diminish ( Breitmeyer & Ömen, 2006 ). This way, visual awareness can be… | senses[1] |
| sense | the paradigm's power located in PARAMETRIC VARIATION rather than in a single contrast: response priming effects are `numerically large ... and pretty stable across individuals`, so the recommendation is to trace them across a range of SOAs. `the paradigm unfolds its true power only in parametric experiments` - a methods paper telling its field that one comparison is not the way to use its own tool— “This makes response priming well suited for parametric variation of the independent va-riables, and in fact the paradigm unfolds its true power only in parametric experiments” | senses[2] |
| sense | THE ZERO SENSITIVITY CRITERION, AND WHY IT IS UNMEETABLE - not `too strict`, but resting on an instrument that does not exist: it `requires an exhaustive measure of visual awareness which is guaranteed to never miss a change in visual awareness, however tiny`. A standard whose satisfaction cannot be established, which is a different failing from a standard that is hard to reach. Second record in a row retiring a criterion on this ground (see Kiefer2012)— “double-dissociations overcome the problem of the traditional zero sensitivity criterion , which demands that priming effects must be demonstrated under conditions where sensitivity to the prime is exactly zero (i.e., when the prime is “invisible”). This criterion is seemingly strict but implies strong measurement assumptions which are not… | senses[3] |
| differs in | response priming —distinct-from→ visual awareness — WHETHER ONE CAN BE READ OFF THE OTHER - masked stimuli 'can influence…', so the motor effect does not track what was seen. That independence is what the paper calls the paradigm's useful feature rather than a nuisance— “A fascinating feature of response priming is its independence of visual awareness. The relationship between both can be investigated by combining response priming with methods of visual masking: If primes are rendered invisible by presentation of another stimulus in close temporal proximity (the mask ), priming effects typically remain…— “independence of visual awareness.” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | response priming —distinct-from→ visual awareness — Re-grounded off the zero-sensitivity passage, which never names 'response priming'. This sentence pair names both endpoints, is free of brackets, and states the separation as the paradigm's defining property. Weighted 0.9: the paper is a methods review reporting an established feature, not an experiment establishing it here.— “A fascinating feature of response priming is its independence of visual awareness. The relationship between both can be investigated by combining response priming with methods of visual masking: If primes are rendered invisible by presentation of another stimulus in close temporal proximity (the mask ), priming effects typically remain… | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | response priming —distinct-from→ visual awareness — 0.9— “A fascinating feature of response priming is its independence of visual awareness. The relationship between both can be investigated by combining response priming with methods of visual masking: If primes are rendered invisible by presentation of another stimulus in close temporal proximity (the mask ), priming effects typically remain… | concept_edges[1] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The recommendations are deliberately not to be followed dogmatically; deliberately violating them can be theoretically informative.— “It shouldn’t be observed too dogmatically: Even though it is wise to avoid certain mistakes and artifacts, in some situations it will be of… | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The dos-and-don'ts list is explicitly incomplete. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The recommendation to separate direct and indirect tasks into blocks rests on evidence that is missing for direct measures. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Guidance on three-stimulus (prime-mask-target) designs is limited by unresolved knowledge about motor activation in that situation. 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 | Response priming effects are among the numerically largest in reaction-time research, accounting for 25% or more of the total response time. 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 | Priming effects grow the longer the interval between prime and target onset, because the prime has more time to drive the response before the target takes over motor 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.findings[1] |
| finding | Priming effects can keep increasing while the prime becomes less visible. 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 | In any design that modifies visibility by varying the prime, the direct and indirect measures are always confounded. 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 | Computing d' separately for consistent and inconsistent trials confounds sensitivity with response bias. 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 | Excluding participants whose prime identification is above chance is a sampling fallacy, since dropping observations does not alter the population the sample came from. 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 | Prime identification performance carries an SOA-dependent bias: participants lean toward the target's direction at short SOAs and away from it at long SOAs. 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 recommend varying prime-target SOA in at least three steps across the whole range of interest, roughly 0 to 100 ms, rather than testing a single SOA. 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 | About 60 trials per condition per participant has proved a reasonable number for reliable data patterns with small standard errors. 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 | The authors strongly recommend matching direct and indirect tasks on the stimuli, the features judged, and how those features map onto motor responses. 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 | Priming effects in error rates matter as much as those in response times and should be analysed just as carefully. 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] |
| finding | The earliest phase of response activation is determined by prime information alone and is independent of all target information. 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[11] |
| quantity | 25% — Share of overall response time that response priming effects can account for 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 | 60 — Recommended number of trials per condition per participant 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 | three steps — Minimum number of SOA levels the authors recommend sampling, over a 0-100 ms range 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 | 100 ms — SOA below which the prototypical, approximately linear priming function is obtained 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 | 12 ms — Fixed prime presentation duration in the typical experiment illustrated 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 | 50 ms — Approximate prime-mask SOA at which prime visibility is lowest under type-B masking 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] |
| variable | 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 | priming effect (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[1] |
| variable | prime visibility (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[2] |
| variable | prime energy (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] |
| definition | response 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 effect 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 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[2] |
| definition | interstimulus interval 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 | 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.definitions[4] |
| definition | metacontrast masking Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| definition | type-A masking Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[6] |
| definition | type-B masking 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[7] |
| definition | prime identification 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.definitions[8] |
| definition | zero sensitivity 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[9] |
| concept | zero sensitivity criterion — not defined in this paper's own words; the standard being retired: priming must be shown where sensitivity to the prime is EXACTLY ZERO. Rejected not for strictness but because it presupposes an EXHAUSTIVE awareness measure - one guaranteed never to miss any change, however tiny - which nobody has 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 | double dissociation — not defined in this paper's own words; the replacement, and it is a PATTERN rather than a threshold: priming rising while prime visibility falls, across a range of SOAs. No absolute invisibility is needed - the opposite slopes carry the argument 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 | prime visibility — not defined in this paper's own words; the direct measure that must be shown to move OPPOSITE to priming - and the confound section is entirely about designs that make it move together with priming by accident 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 | response priming — not defined in this paper's own words; the paradigm, and the paper's claim for it is that its power is TEMPORAL - large stable effects that repay parametric variation, so that the shape of the effect over time becomes the evidence rather than a single contrast 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 | visual awareness — not defined in this paper's own words; the thing the old criterion demanded be measured to zero, and the reason it could not be: an exhaustive measure of it is required and none exists 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] |
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