phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | long-term semantic priming— “In two experiments, we used different semantic content – word meaning versus category membership – to investigate the mechanisms accountable for long-term semantic priming.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “Evidence from the two experiments suggests that long-term semantic priming effects are due to different memory processes for different semantic content.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Two priming experiments were designed to be as structurally similar as possible, with one containing category exemplar and feature stimuli and the other containing synonym and antonym stimuli.” | |
| mechanism | The memory process supporting long-term priming shifts with how the relevant part of semantic memory is organised associatively— “we propose that the memory processes underlying long-term semantic priming effects differ as a function of the associative organization of semantic memory for the stimulus domain in use.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Because categories are hierarchically organised under a shared label, a prime trial and a target trial repeat the very same label-retrieval and comparison operation, and that repetition is what speeds the target— “The repetition of this operation performed relative to the same category is likely to play a substantial role in the target trial facilitation compared to unprimed category trials.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Synonyms and antonyms have no superordinate label to re-retrieve, so priming there can only come from incremental strengthening of the abstract semantic features the words share— “depends on increments of strength in abstract semantic representations that partially overlap for synonyms and antonyms.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | Operation-specific facilitation appears only in the category domain because of the hierarchical structure of category knowledge— “That is, operation-specific facilitation is uniquely found in the category domain because of the hierarchical structure of that knowledge.” | mechanisms[3] |
| builds-on | Woltz (2010) and Woltz et al. (2015)— “This is consistent with findings by Woltz (2010) and Woltz et al. (2015).” | claim_relations[0] |
| replicates | Woltz and Was (2007)— “Our findings support the conclusion that semantic priming of category comparisons is partly operationspecific, and this is similar to findings by Woltz and Was (2007).” | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | Woltz and Was (2007)— “This differs from earlier findings by Woltz and Was (2007), and suggests that some facilitation reflects a generalized increase in availability of category information regardless of category operation.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | TWO RIVAL MECHANISMS, TWENTY YEARS APART, STATED AS ALTERNATIVES: `The first explanation is that long-term semantic priming effects rely upon the incremental strengthening of abstract semantic memory representations. The second explanation is that long-term priming is the result of memory for prior cognitive operations.` One says the concept got stronger; the other says the subject remembers what they did. They are not degrees of the same account - one is about the representation and the other about the act - and until this paper the literature had been arguing which— “The first explanation is that long-term semantic priming effects rely upon the incremental strengthening of abstract semantic memory representations. The second explanation is that long-term priming is the result of memory for prior cognitive operations” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE ANSWER IS NEITHER - IT IS BOTH, SPLIT BY CONTENT: `Long-term semantic priming of word meanings was dependent on strengthening abstract semantic memory representations and persistent priming of category membership was dependent on memory for prior cognitive operations.` A dissociation inside a phenomenon the field had treated as one thing, told apart only by varying the material while holding the task constant. This is the corpus's own thesis arriving as somebody else's empirical result: one term, two mechanisms, and no way to see it without the manipulation— “Long-term semantic priming of word meanings was dependent on strengthening abstract semantic memory representations and persistent priming of category membership was dependent on memory for prior cognitive operations” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE DESIGN POINT IS THE SAME ONE erb2019 MAKES, ONE RECORD APART: `the priming tasks were designed to be as similar as possible, while the previous evidence came from different tasks that could have been responsible for the difference in findings.` The earlier literature compared mechanisms across experiments differing in more than the variable of interest. Two consecutive records now say a body of results is uninterpretable because a confound was not held constant - erb2019 about associative-priming overlap, this about task differences - and neither is a critique paper. Both are ordinary empirical papers that had to clear the ground before they could ask anything— “the priming tasks were designed to be as similar as possible, while the previous evidence came from different tasks that could have been responsible for the difference in findings” | senses[2] |
| sense | AND THE ASYMMETRY IS EXPLAINED RATHER THAN NAMED - A CATEGORY HAS A LABEL AND A SYNONYM PAIR DOES NOT. Evaluating whether roses and carnations share a category activates `flower`, and the next trial repeats that same evaluation against that same label; but `Deciding that placid rather than chaotic has a similar meaning to tranquil does not occur with reference to an overarching category label with which the synonyms are exemplars.` There is no operation to repeat, so only strengthening is left. The mechanism is derived from the structure of the material rather than fitted to the result, which is what makes it a prediction for the next study rather than a description of this one— “Deciding that placid rather than chaotic has a similar meaning to tranquil does not occur with reference to an overarching category label with which the synonyms are exemplars” | senses[3] |
| control | a separate set of 64 stimulus groups was built to serve as filler trials, separating prime trials from target trials — held — rules out that the priming effect is carried by adjacency - that prime and target are simply consecutive— “A separate set of 64 stimulus groups was created to serve as practice examples and filler trials for separating prime and target trials.” | controls[0] |
| effect direction | semantic memory representations —causes→ long-term semantic priming — increases— “Long-term semantic priming of word meanings was dependent on strengthening abstract semantic memory representations and persistent priming of category membership was dependent on memory for prior cognitive operations”— “was dependent on strengthening abstract semantic memory representations” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | semantic memory representations —causes→ long-term semantic priming — ONE OF TWO MECHANISMS, AND THE EDGE IS ONLY TRUE IN ONE CONTENT DOMAIN. The quote says 'Long-term semantic priming of word meanings was dependent on' this - not long-term priming generally. Read alone this edge overstates; read with its twin below it is the paper's finding. The 'moderates' gap again: the content domain conditions which mechanism applies and there is no way to say so on an edge, so it is said in the note and quoted whole in the second sense. Weight 0.9.— “Long-term semantic priming of word meanings was dependent on strengthening abstract semantic memory representations and persistent priming of category membership was dependent on memory for prior cognitive operations” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | semantic memory representations —causes→ long-term semantic priming — 0.9— “Long-term semantic priming of word meanings was dependent on strengthening abstract semantic memory representations and persistent priming of category membership was dependent on memory for prior cognitive operations” | concept_edges[0] |
| effect direction | memory for prior cognitive operations —causes→ long-term semantic priming — increases— “Long-term semantic priming of word meanings was dependent on strengthening abstract semantic memory representations and persistent priming of category membership was dependent on memory for prior cognitive operations”— “was dependent on memory for prior cognitive operations” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | memory for prior cognitive operations —causes→ long-term semantic priming — THE OTHER MECHANISM, on the same sentence and at the same weight, and the pair is the point. This one holds for CATEGORY MEMBERSHIP only - and the fourth sense explains why, from the structure of the material: a category has a label that the same evaluation is repeated against, and a synonym pair has nothing to repeat. Recording either edge without the other would turn a dissociation into a claim about the phenomenon as a whole, which is the thing this paper exists to refute.— “Long-term semantic priming of word meanings was dependent on strengthening abstract semantic memory representations and persistent priming of category membership was dependent on memory for prior cognitive operations” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | memory for prior cognitive operations —causes→ long-term semantic priming — 0.9— “Long-term semantic priming of word meanings was dependent on strengthening abstract semantic memory representations and persistent priming of category membership was dependent on memory for prior cognitive operations” | concept_edges[1] |
| audit | word meanings —contrasted-with→ category membership — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the two kinds of priming depend on different memory processes; contrasted-with between the stimuli is loose.— “Long-term semantic priming of word meanings was dependent on strengthening abstract semantic memory representations and persistent priming of category membership was dependent on memory for prior cognitive operations” | concept_edges[2] |
| note | word meanings —contrasted-with→ category membership — THE CONTRAST IS THE INSTRUMENT. These two content domains are not being compared for their own sake - varying them while holding the task constant is what made the two mechanisms separable, and the previous literature could not do it because it varied the task as well (third sense). Weight 0.95: the contrast is explicit in the quote and it is the paper's whole design.— “Long-term semantic priming of word meanings was dependent on strengthening abstract semantic memory representations and persistent priming of category membership was dependent on memory for prior cognitive operations” | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | word meanings —contrasted-with→ category membership — 0.95— “Long-term semantic priming of word meanings was dependent on strengthening abstract semantic memory representations and persistent priming of category membership was dependent on memory for prior cognitive operations” | concept_edges[2] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| evidential status | mechanism — the paper's own words: we propose that— “we propose that the memory processes underlying long-term semantic priming effects differ as a function of the associative organization of semantic memory for the stimulus domain in use.” | mechanisms[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The evaluation operations manipulated in the two experiments were not equivalent, so the operations themselves - not the semantic content - may have produced the difference in priming.— “Despite these efforts, it is possible that the nature of the operations used in Experiment 1 lent themselves to priming differences more than those used in Experiment 2, irrespective of the semantic content.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The manipulation of content evaluations could not be made isomorphic across the two experiments.— “First, the manipulation of content evaluations was not isomorphic across experiments.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | Participants may have used one shared strategy for both synonym and antonym decisions, and the authors have no data to rule this out.— “We do not have evidence to support this conclusion, but it is clear that the synonym/antonym decisions likely represent… | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The question is not settled by these two experiments and needs a wider range of stimuli, task demands and prime-target lags. | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Across two structurally matched experiments, long-term semantic priming turned out to rest on different memory processes depending on the kind of semantic content being processed. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Priming of word meanings rested on strengthened abstract semantic representations, whereas priming of category membership rested on memory for the cognitive operations performed earlier. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | In the category experiment, facilitation was larger when the prime trial required the same evaluation (exemplar or feature) as the target trial. 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 | Category priming survived, though reduced, when prime and target operations differed, indicating a general rise in availability of category information on top of the operation-specific component. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | In the word-meaning experiment, matching versus mismatching the synonym/antonym evaluation across prime and target made no difference to the size of 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[4] |
| finding | Both experiments produced semantic priming that persisted over an average of seven unrelated intervening 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.findings[5] |
| finding | Priming measured in response rate was larger for category comparisons than for word-meaning 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.findings[6] |
| finding | Strategic processing did not produce larger priming effects as the experiment progressed. 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 | 90 — participants in each experiment (Experiment 1: 68 female, 22 male) 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(1,84) = 62.18 — overall category priming effect in Experiment 1, primed versus unprimed target 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.quantities[1] |
| quantity | F(1,84) = 34.53 — effect of whether the prime trial used the same evaluation operation as the target trial, in Experiment 1 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | F(1,84) = 5.97, p = .017 — overall word-meaning priming effect in Experiment 2, much smaller than the category 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.quantities[3] |
| quantity | Seventy-two — category stimulus groups built for Experiment 1, each with target stimuli and two prime sets 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 | t(89) = 6.42, d = .57 — priming effect for category evaluations in the first six trials, compared with d = .20 in the last six 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 | prime condition (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 | evaluation operation (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 | rate of correct responses (RCR) (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 | assignment of stimulus set (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 | prime-target lag (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] |
| variable | response 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[7] |
| variable | percentage of errors (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[8] |
| definition | semantic 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 | rate of correct responses (RCR) 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 | expectancy 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 | long-term semantic priming — not defined in this paper's own words; priming that survives an average of SEVEN unrelated intervening trials - and the paper's finding is that it is not one thing: two different memory processes produce it, and which one does depends on the material 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 | semantic memory representations — not defined in this paper's own words; the STRENGTHENING account: repeated activation incrementally strengthens an abstract representation, so the benefit is to the concept rather than to anything the subject did. It is what carries long-term priming of word meanings, and only that 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 | memory for prior cognitive operations — not defined in this paper's own words; the OPERATIONS account: what persists is a record of the evaluation the subject performed, not a strengthened concept. It requires that there be an operation worth repeating - which is why it appears for categories and not for synonyms 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 | word meanings — not defined in this paper's own words; synonym and antonym judgements - and the domain where only STRENGTHENING operates, because deciding that placid resembles tranquil invokes no common label to re-evaluate 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 | category membership — not defined in this paper's own words; exemplar and feature judgements against a category - and the domain where OPERATION memory appears, because the category has a LABEL and the same evaluation is repeated against it trial after trial 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] |
| ANOVA F | as written: main effect ... F(1,84) = 57.32 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] |
| power analysis | as written: A power analysis using the G*Power 3 computer program Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| t-test t | as written: paired-samples t-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[2] |
| effect size d | as written: d = .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] |
| confidence interval | as written: within-subject 95% confidence intervals 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] |
| mean M | as written: Mean RT and percentage of 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.statistics[5] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824