| P · prime | prior exposure to a series of pictures of a category (animals vs. faces) |
| T · target | an ambiguous figure to interpret (rat-man) |
| B · baseline | interpretation with a neutral or no prior series |
| E · priming effect | interpretation biased toward the primed category, stronger with more exposures |
| A · association | congruent (positive) |
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | perceptual set induction with an ambiguous figure— “The present experiment deals with an attempt to observe the possible relation between the strength of a set and the frequency of set-inducing experiences.” | |
| claim-type | null-result— “No striking relationship between frequency of experience and strength of set was revealed.” | |
| method — evidence | — “The experimental design involved presenting a varying number of setinducing experiences before testing with die ambiguous figure.” | |
| mechanism | A PAPER DISOWNS THE TERM IN ITS OWN TITLE, AND SAYS WHICH TERM IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN: it appears appropriate to indicate that our findings MIGHT HAVE MORE BEARING ON WHAT MIGHT BE TERMED “cognitive” SETS RATHER THAN ON PERCEPTUAL SETS. The article is titled “The Role of Frequency in Developing Perceptual Sets”, and the correction is made in the paper's own voice rather than left to a reader— “It appears appropriate to indicate tibat our findings might have more bearing on what might be termed "cognitive'' sets rather tiian on perceptual sets.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | AND THE DISOWNED WORD IS THEN RESERVED FOR A NARROWER CLASS, WITH AN EXAMPLE A READER CAN PICTURE: the term “perceptual” set MIGHT BETTER BE RESERVED FOR reference to those instances where a subject IS LOOKING FOR OR EXPECTING TO SEE A SPECIFIC STIMULUS, a friend's face in a crowd, for example. Having said the word does not fit their study, they say what it does fit - which is the harder half and the one usually skipped— “The term "perceptual" set might better be reserved for reference to those instances where a subject is looking for or expecting to see a specific stimulus, a friend's face in a crowd, for example” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | THE AMBIGUOUS STIMULUS IS DEFINED BY THE TWO CATEGORIES IT CAN FALL INTO, AND THE CATEGORIES ARE NAMED: it CAN BE PERCEIVED AS BELONGING TO EITHER OF TWO COGNITIVE CATEGORIES OR CLASSES OR OBJECTS: ANIMALS AND HUMANS. The figure's ambiguity is not a property of the drawing but of which of two named classes a viewer assigns it to— “It can be perceived as belonging to either of two cognitive categories or classes or objects: animals and humans.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | A GAP IN THE PRIOR LITERATURE IS STATED AS A MISSING QUANTITY RATHER THAN A WRONG RESULT: while Leeper did find that he could control his subjects' responses by manipulating past experiences, he DID NOT ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE ANY SYSTEMATIC OR QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE AND RESPONSE. The predecessor is credited with the effect and the paper claims the function relating it to dose— “While Leeper did find that he could control his subjects' responses by manipulating past experiences, he did not attempt to demonstrate any systematic or quantitative relationship between amount of experience and response” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | THE INFERENCE FROM THE MEASUREMENT TO THE CONSTRUCT IS STATED AS A PRESUMPTION, IN THAT WORD: THE PRESUMPTION HERE IS THAT those with a strong set WILL RESIST SUCH NEW SET INDUCTION MORE THAN those with a weak set. What the experiment observes is resistance to a second induction; what it reports is strength of set, and the bridge between them is named a presumption by the authors— “The presumption here is that those with a strong set will resist such new set induction more than those with a weak set” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | AND THE STRENGTH OF THE SET IS OPERATIONALISED BY BORROWING AN ASSUMPTION FROM A NAMED AUTHORITY: ASSUMING, WITH ALLPORT, that having different numbers of such experiences would result in different strengths of set, it was ALSO DECIDED TO TEST FOR SUCH STRENGTH BY ATTEMPTING TO INDUCE THE ALTERNATE SET. The premise is attributed rather than argued, and the test for the quantity is chosen after the premise is granted— “Assuming, with Allport, diat having different numbers of such experiences would result in different strengths of set, it was also decided to test for such strength by attempting to induce die alternate… | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | THE SCOPE OF THE WORD `PERCEPTION` IS LIMITED IN THE SAME BREATH AS THE METHOD IS DESCRIBED: although our experiment makes use of an ambiguous figure, IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE STUDY IS DIRECTLY CONCERNED WITH PERCEPTION EXCEPT IN THE LIMITED SENSE OF PERCEPTION OF DIAGRAMMATIC PICTURES. A disclaimer about what the central word covers, placed before the results rather than in a limitations section | mechanisms[6] |
| contradicts | Allport (1955), postulate that set strength increases with frequency of past experience 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. | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | Leeper (1935) 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. | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | Bruner and Minturn (1955), interpretation of the B/13 result as a perceptual set 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. | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | perceptual set - NARROWED BY THIS PAPER to looking for a SPECIFIC stimulus, with the example the authors chose to make it concrete: a friend's face in a crowd. The paper hands the term back with a smaller extension than its own title uses Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[0] |
| sense | cognitive set - a set to perceive a CLASS rather than a particular visual stimulus, argued from a case where the stimulus itself was ambiguous: a subject set for a B still reads a distorted figure as a B Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[1] |
| sense | ambiguous figure - not a property of the drawing but of WHICH OF TWO NAMED CLASSES a viewer assigns it to, with both classes stated: animals and humans THIS SPAN CARRIES THE FILE'S OCR DAMAGE, quoted verbatim because a quote is the staged file's bytes. The scan substitutes `th` with `di`/`ti` throughout - `die` for “the”, `diat` for “that”, `dien` for “then”, `tiian` for “than” - so the paper's sentence reads correctly and this transcription does not. Read rather than detected: there is no general detector, because `die` is also an English word. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[2] |
| sense | strength of a set - defined here only by the relation it is to be observed in: strength AS A FUNCTION OF the frequency of set-inducing experiences Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[3] |
| sense | a set that is BROKEN versus one that is REPLACED - the distinction the discussion substitutes for its own procedure's term, available only where a delay was interposed. `replaced` is used nowhere else in the paper, so it is a sense and not a node Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[4] |
| control | an additional group of 56 participants run specifically to test whether the two picture series had been shown in too rapid a sequence — held — rules out presentation rate as the explanation of the perceptual-set effect - a whole extra group, added to kill one named alternative Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| differs in | Allport (1955), postulate that set strength increases with frequency of past experience — THE DISAGREEMENT IS SCOPED TO ONE KIND OF SET, BY THE AUTHORS. 'the present results offer ONLY LITTLE SUPPORT for the frequency proposition that Allport postulates, at least with respect to such cognitive SETS.' 'At least with respect to' is the authors bounding their own contradiction - it holds for cognitive sets and they decline to extend it. (Quote clipped before the paper's own quotation marks around 'cognitive', which are typographically irregular in the staged text - slice, do not retype.) 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. | claim_relations[0] |
| differs in | Bruner and Minturn (1955), interpretation of the B/13 result as a perceptual set — PERCEPTUAL SET AGAINST COGNITIVE SET. 'EVEN WHEN the subjects are shown a series of letters or numbers with one of these distorted ... as was done by Bruner and Minturn (1955), we cannot argue that the subjects were set to perceive that particular visual stimulus; they were cognitively set to...' The disagreement with Bruner and Minturn turns on which kind of set the result demonstrates, not on the result. 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. | claim_relations[2] |
| audit | past experience —causes→ set — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says set is used to show how perception follows past experience; causes is loose. 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 | past experience —causes→ set — The paper's opening premise, and the half of it that its data confirm strongly: elsewhere the paper reports that 75% of subjects follow a single prior picture. 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 | past experience —causes→ set — 0.9 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] |
| effect direction | frequency of experience —causes→ strength of set — no-change 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[1] |
| note | frequency of experience —causes→ strength of set — THE MEASURED ABSENCE OF THE RELATION THE EXPERIMENT WAS BUILT TO FIND, kept as an edge at weight 0.15 rather than omitted: an omitted edge records that the question was never asked. Pairs with 'past experience -> set' at 0.9 - same paper, same procedure, prior exposure decides the response and MORE of it does not strengthen the set. That contrast is the paper's contribution and it is why claim type is 'null-result'. 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[1] |
| weight | frequency of experience —causes→ strength of set — 0.15 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[1] |
| audit | one-trial learning —causes→ perceptual sets — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the sets are imposed 'perhaps in a one-trial learning operation'; hedged. 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[2] |
| note | one-trial learning —causes→ perceptual sets — Offered by the authors as a suggestion - “perhaps in a one-trial learning operation” - and weighted for that hedge rather than against 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[2] |
| weight | one-trial learning —causes→ perceptual sets — 0.8 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[2] |
| audit | label —causes→ set — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span is speculative about when a label is applied; causes is loose. 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[3] |
| note | label —causes→ set — The authors' alternative to the frequency account: later responders were not slowly acquiring a set, they had not yet labelled the series as a class. THIS SPAN CARRIES THE FILE'S OCR DAMAGE, quoted verbatim because a quote is the staged file's bytes. The scan substitutes 'th' with 'di'/'ti' throughout - 'die' for “the”, 'diat' for “that”, 'dien' for “then”, 'tiian' for “than” - so the paper's sentence reads correctly and this transcription does not. Read rather than detected: there is no general detector, because 'die' is also an English word. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[3] |
| weight | label —causes→ set — 0.7 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[3] |
| note | cognitive categories —same-as→ classes or objects — A terminological equation the paper makes inline - “either of two cognitive categories or classes or objects” - rather than a relation between two constructs. 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[4] |
| weight | cognitive categories —same-as→ classes or objects — 0.9 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[4] |
| note | animals and humans —is-a→ cognitive categories — Same span as the equation above, declared: the sentence both names the category pair and identifies its two members, which is what makes the figure's ambiguity checkable. 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[5] |
| weight | animals and humans —is-a→ cognitive categories — 0.95 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[5] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| evidence status note | mechanism — THIS SPAN CARRIES THE FILE'S OCR DAMAGE, quoted verbatim because a quote is the staged file's bytes. The scan substitutes 'th' with 'di'/'ti' throughout - 'die' for “the”, 'diat'/'tibat' for “that”, 'tiian' for “than”, 'widi' for “with” - so the paper's own sentence reads correctly and this transcription does not. The damage is systematic and was read rather than detected; there is no general detector for it, because 'die' is also an English word. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[0] |
| evidence status note | mechanism — THIS SPAN CARRIES THE FILE'S OCR DAMAGE, quoted verbatim because a quote is the staged file's bytes. The scan substitutes 'th' with 'di'/'ti' throughout - 'die' for “the”, 'diat'/'tibat' for “that”, 'tiian' for “than”, 'widi' for “with” - so the paper's own sentence reads correctly and this transcription does not. The damage is systematic and was read rather than detected; there is no general detector for it, because 'die' is also an English word. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[5] |
| evidence status note | mechanism — THIS SPAN CARRIES THE FILE'S OCR DAMAGE, quoted verbatim because a quote is the staged file's bytes. The scan substitutes 'th' with 'di'/'ti' throughout - 'die' for “the”, 'diat'/'tibat' for “that”, 'tiian' for “than”, 'widi' for “with” - so the paper's own sentence reads correctly and this transcription does not. The damage is systematic and was read rather than detected; there is no general detector for it, because 'die' is also an English word. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[6] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The authors concede the procedure does not isolate frequency from other variables. 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 | Scope limit: the study bears on perception only in the narrow sense of perceiving diagrammatic pictures, not perception generally. 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 null result may be specific to sets built on labels the subject already possesses; other kinds of set could still depend on frequency. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| key-terms | perceptual set, ambiguous, frequency, exposure, figure, interpretation, stimulus |
| concept | past experience — not defined in this paper's own words; the whole prior history a subject brings to the figure, which the opening paragraph names as what the construct of set was invented to describe 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 | set — not defined in this paper's own words; the construct itself, used by this paper for a readiness to respond to a situation in terms of past experience - and argued at the end to be cognitive rather than perceptual Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | frequency of experience — not defined in this paper's own words; the independent variable: HOW MANY set-inducing pictures were shown, 1 to 4, as against which kind - the quantity Leeper never varied Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | strength of set — not defined in this paper's own words; the dependent quantity, observed only as retention of the first set after the opposite series is shown; the paper reports no relation between it and frequency Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| concept | perceptual sets — not defined in this paper's own words; the term of the paper's own title, and the one it concludes does not fit its findings. THE PLURAL IS THE NODE because the staged text never contains the singular contiguously - it writes `"perceptual" set`, with the quotation marks inside the phrase 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[7] |
| concept | one-trial learning — not defined in this paper's own words; the alternative to a frequency account that the paper's own data push it towards: the set is acquired whole, on the first exposure, rather than accumulated 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[8] |
| concept | label — not defined in this paper's own words; the class name a subject attaches to the series - 'animal' or 'human' - which the discussion proposes as the thing that is actually acquired, in place of a gradually strengthening set 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[9] |
| concept | cognitive categories — not defined in this paper's own words; the two classes the ambiguous figure can be assigned to; the paper glosses the phrase twice in the same breath and names both members 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[10] |
| concept | classes or objects — not defined in this paper's own words; the paper's own gloss for 'cognitive categories', offered inline as an alternative wording rather than a distinct construct 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[11] |
| concept | animals and humans — not defined in this paper's own words; the two categories themselves, named - which is what makes the figure's ambiguity checkable rather than asserted 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[12] |
| statistical-significance | as written: significant 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] |
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