phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | negative priming— “Negative priming refers to the phenomenon that a reaction to a stimulus can be slowed down or more likely to be in error if the stimulus has recently been ignored.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “To our knowledge, the present experiment is the first to demonstrate negative priming, using the same experimental task, with visual and auditory stimuli and also across these two modalities.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Auditory, visual, and cross-modal negative priming was investigated using a task in which participants judged whether stimuli were animals or musical instruments.” | |
| mechanism | presenting a stimulus in one modality automatically activates its features in the other modality, so an ignored sound can prime (and slow) a later picture— “Second, the presentation of a stimulus in one modality may automatically activate features in other modalities.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | distractor inhibition is applied only to distractors that interfere: nonconflict distractors need no inhibition, hence no later cost— “It could be assumed that nonconflict prime distractors do not interfere with the prime reaction, so that they need not be inhibited.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | the probe target retrieves the earlier prime episode, which carries a 'no response was made' tag that conflicts with the current requirement to respond— “Within the episodic retrieval account, negative priming may be caused by the probe target’s cuing the retrieval of the perceptually similar prime display in which the distractor representation contains the information that no response was (to be) made to that stimulus.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | acoustic traces of ignored sounds persist in a long auditory store better than visual distractor traces persist in visual short-term memory, producing facilitation that offsets or reverses the negative-priming cost— “It seems possible that the acoustic aspects of auditory distractor representations are maintained more efficiently in a “long auditory store” (see Cowan, 1984) than the perceptual aspects of the representations of visual distractors are maintained in visual short-term memory.” | mechanisms[3] |
| replicates | Driver and Baylis (1993)— “This demonstration is consonant with the finding of auditory-to-visual negative priming by Driver and Baylis (1993).” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | Driver and Baylis (1993, Experiment 1)— “To our knowledge, only Driver and Baylis (1993, Experiment 1) have investigated cross-modal negative priming, but only the auditory-tovisual side of it.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | A PRIME THAT HURTS BECAUSE IT WAS IGNORED, WHICH IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRIME AND TARGET THAT NOTHING ELSE IN THIS CORPUS HAS. `a reaction to a stimulus can be slowed down or more likely to be in error if the stimulus has recently been ignored.` The manipulation is an INSTRUCTION TO DISREGARD, so what carries over is the act of suppression. And it is a cost, not a benefit - the second counterexample tonight to the standard `improvement` definition Minton2017 strikes out, after Huang2018's interference effect— “Negative priming refers to the phenomenon that a reaction to a stimulus can be slowed down or more likely to be in error if the stimulus has recently been ignored” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND IGNORING IS NOT ENOUGH - IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN COMPETING: `Negative priming was observed only after conflict, but not after nonconflict, primes.` The ignored item must have called for a DIFFERENT response from the attended one. So the phenomenon is not about suppression in general but about suppression under competition, and a design that ignores an irrelevant stimulus with no competing response should find nothing. Another `only when`, and the condition is a property of the RELATION between the two primes rather than of either one— “Negative priming was observed only after conflict, but not after nonconflict, primes. Note, however, that prime and probe responses necessarily changed in the former case” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE AUTHORS MARK EXACTLY HOW MUCH OF THEIR CONCLUSION RESTS ON SOMETHING THEY CANNOT TEST: `Although this unavoidable confound renders the interpretation of the present finding ambiguous in principle, we believe that the conflict/nonconflict nature of the primes, and not the prime-probe response alternation/repetition, determined the observed pattern.` Then: `If this position is accepted, the observed data pattern is most easily explained within...` Four markers in three sentences - unavoidable, ambiguous in principle, we believe, if this position is accepted - and everything downstream is explicitly conditional on the belief. The confound is structural: conflict primes necessarily change the response, so the two cannot be separated by any version of this design— “Although this unavoidable confound renders the interpretation of the present finding ambiguous in principle, we believe that the conflict/nonconflict nature of the primes, and not the prime–probe response alternation/repetition, determined the observed pattern of performance” | senses[2] |
| sense | AN UNEXPECTED RESULT ADMITTED AS UNEXPLAINED: `The positive priming on nonconflict prime trials in the auditory-auditory condition was unexpected. We can only speculate about the underlying mechanisms.` The effect ran the WRONG WAY in one cell - facilitation where the paper predicts none - and it gets a paragraph of candidate explanations, each marked as speculation, rather than a footnote. A record that stored only the headline `negative priming after conflict primes` would lose a cell that contradicts the framework— “The positive priming on nonconflict prime trials in the auditory–auditory condition was unexpected. We can only speculate about the underlying mechanisms” | senses[3] |
| sense | THREE ACCOUNTS ARE TESTED AGAINST THE SAME PATTERN AND ONE OF THEM HAS TO BE PATCHED: distractor inhibition and episodic retrieval both accommodate the conflict result, but for the temporal discrimination account `In order to explain the lack of negative priming on nonconflict trials, the temporal discrimination account must be extended.` Two alternative extensions are then offered, both hypothetical. The paper reports which theory needs extra machinery to survive its data, which is a more useful thing to record than which theory it prefers— “In order to explain the lack of negative priming on nonconflict trials, the… | senses[4] |
| control | a MATCHED CONTROL TRIAL was built for every ignored-repetition trial by replacing the ignored prime with the stimulus that did not occur — held — rules out that the effect is a property of the probe pair rather than of the ignored prime - the probe is identical across the pair, so only the prime differs | controls[0] |
| control | the response CATEGORY of the ignored prime was held constant across an ignored-repetition trial and its control — held — rules out that the difference is a response-category effect rather than an identity 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. | controls[1] |
| effect direction | conflict —causes→ negative priming — increases 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. 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. | concept_edges[0] |
| note | conflict —causes→ negative priming — THE 'only after' IS THE CLAIM AND IT IS IN THE QUOTE. Weight 0.85 rather than higher because of the confound the authors name themselves: conflict primes NECESSARILY change the response between prime and probe, so this edge and 'response alternation causes negative priming' are not separable by any version of this design. The paper says so - 'ambiguous in principle' - and the third sense carries 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. | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | conflict —causes→ negative priming — 0.85 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. | concept_edges[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| evidential status | mechanism — the paper's own words: may be caused by 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. | mechanisms[2] |
| replication | replicated | |
| limitation | Prime conflict is unavoidably confounded with whether the prime and probe responses alternate or repeat, which makes the key finding ambiguous in principle. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The unexpected positive priming after nonconflict primes in the auditory-auditory condition can only be accounted for speculatively. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The positive priming found on nonconflict prime trials in the auditory-auditory condition was not predicted. 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] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Negative priming appeared only when the attended and ignored members of the prime pair called for different responses; nonconflict primes produced none. 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 | The conflict-only pattern of negative priming held for visual stimuli, for auditory stimuli, and in both cross-modal directions (auditory-to-visual and visual-to-auditory). Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Auditory-to-visual and visual-to-auditory negative priming were fairly symmetrical. 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 the auditory-auditory condition, nonconflict-prime trials produced positive priming (faster responses to the previously ignored sound) instead of the null effect seen in the other three presentation 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.findings[3] |
| finding | Whether the probe pair itself was conflicting did not reliably change the size of negative 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 | Ignoring the conflict/nonconflict prime distinction would have shown negative priming in the visual-visual condition but wrongly suggested none in the auditory-auditory 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[5] |
| finding | Probe responses were faster after visual than after auditory probes and slower after conflicting than after nonconflicting probes, while prime modality had no effect on probe speed. 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 | Differences between control and ignored-repetition trials must reflect stimulus identity, not the associated response category. 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 | 284 — number of undergraduate participants tested, 198 of them female, aged 18-58 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 | 768 — number of prime-probe trials each participant completed Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 96 — number of prime/probe trials of each of the four trial types (NC/NC, NC/C, C/NC, C/C) 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 | 669 vs. 897 msec — mean probe reaction time after visual probes versus after auditory probes 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 | 819 vs. 747 msec — mean probe reaction time following conflict probes versus nonconflict probes 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 | 252 msec — size of the negative priming effect in the auditory-auditory condition, the largest of the four presentation conditions (the PDF extraction renders the minus sign as a leading 2, i.e. -52 msec, followed by -27, -26 and -18 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[5] |
| quantity | 2 msec — the overall auditory-auditory priming effect when conflict and nonconflict prime trials are pooled - negligible and in the positive direction, which is why pooling hides the 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[6] |
| quantity | 725 vs. 966 msec — mean prime reaction time after visual primes versus after auditory primes 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 | presentation 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 | trial type (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 | probe reaction time (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[2] |
| variable | error percentage (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 | response category of the ignored prime (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 | probe stimulus pair (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 | spatial compatibility (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[6] |
| definition | negative 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 | conflict pair 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 | nonconflict pair 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] |
| concept | negative priming — not defined in this paper's own words; A PRIME THAT HURTS, AND HURTS BECAUSE IT WAS IGNORED. Every other prime in this corpus was attended or at least presented for processing; here the operative fact is that the participant was instructed to disregard it, so the effect comes from the act of suppression rather than from exposure 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 | conflict — not defined in this paper's own words; the condition the whole effect turns on: negative priming appeared only when the attended and ignored primes called for DIFFERENT responses. Ignoring something is not enough - it has to have been competing 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 | distractor inhibition — not defined in this paper's own words; the first of three competing accounts: the ignored stimulus is actively SUPPRESSED, and the suppression is still in place when it reappears as the 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. | concepts[2] |
| concept | episodic retrieval — not defined in this paper's own words; the second account, and it needs no inhibition at all: the probe retrieves the earlier display, which carries the tag that NO RESPONSE was to be made - and that tag conflicts with the instruction to respond now 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] |
| t-test t | as written: t(70) 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] |
| ANOVA F | as written: A 4 3 2 analysis of variance with presentation condition as a between-subjects variable and probe type as a withinsubjects variable 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] |
| effect size (Cohen's dz) dz | as written: dz 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] |
| significance level (alpha) a | as written: The level of a was set to .05 for all analyses. 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: standard errors of the means 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] |
| claim type | existence — a second reading reaching the same value; recorded: existence 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. | alternatives.claim_type |
| method | behavioural-experiment — a second reading reaching the same value; recorded: behavioural-experiment 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. | alternatives.method |
| phenomenon | negative priming within and across the auditory and visual modalities, and its dependence on response conflict — a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value; recorded: negative 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. | alternatives.phenomenon |
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