Repetition Priming and Automaticity: Common Underlying Mechanisms? — TEI-tagged view

Gordon D. Logan · 1990 · cognitive-psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(90)90002-L · full text at the source · TEI xml · tagged edition · index · concepts · authors
Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Replication status reflects only the paper's internal design: Experiment 2 is explicitly described as intended to replicate Experiment 1 in a different paradigm, and Experiment 4 plays the same role for Experiment 3. No external replication is claimed. This paper is also the one that most directly links the repetition-priming literature (including Scarborough, Cortese & Scarborough, 1977, also in this corpus) to the automaticity literature, so the two records share vocabulary by design rather than by coincidence. 2026-08-15, 2026-08-19 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node. Update, 15 September 2026: EXCEPTION, measured with the merge gate's own predicate (Paper.locate): 1 quote(s) on this record are not found as one exact string in the current staged text - content_tags.statistics[5].evidence. The sentence above does not hold for them as written. Where a row records why - the quote is grounded in another copy of the paper, joins two passages with an ellipsis, or differs from the staged text by extraction noise - that note stays on the row.
1 quote on this page was cut from a different copy of this article. This project holds two extractions of this paper: the plain text every other quote here is anchored in, and the publisher’s own HTML edition, which we are not licensed to republish. It is verbatim in the second and cannot be found in the first — not because the tagging is wrong, but because the extraction damaged the passage: a page number dropped into the middle of a number, a formula moved out of its sentence, a ligature where two letters belong. The record names the copy for each one. The quote is the paper’s; the extraction is not.
Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
attention 36 fields · learning 7 fields · sample-size 5 fields · standard-deviation 3 fields · priming 2 fields · repetition priming 2 fields · and 1 more →
Tags on this paper every tag the record carries, whether or not the words occur in the text below — a number is how many papers in the corpus carry that tag; a tag with no number is unique to this paper
priming50 repetition priming20 automaticity5 instance theory2 association19 secondariness16 modulation18 power function behavioural-experiment117

Our tag layer for this paper

Priming analysis (Sivroni & Stark meta-disciplinary definition; cited to Sivroni et al. 2023)
Three characteristics: A · association S · secondariness M · modulation
P · primea prior instance/exposure
T · targetthe current stimulus to process
B · baselineprocessing speed without prior exposure
E · priming effectfaster processing via retrieved instances
A · associationcongruent (positive)
Cross-disciplinary analysis
content-tags & facets: phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text
phenomenonrepetition priming and automaticity— “Repetition priming and automaticity are both consequences of prior presentations.”
claim-typemechanism— “This article draws theoretical and empirical parallels between them, arguing that they result from a common mechanism, namely, the storage and retrieval of representations of individual exposures to specific items, or instances.”
method — evidence— “Four experiments were conducted to determine whether repetition priming and automaticity share the three characteristics described above and to determine whether stimulus-to-response or stimulus-to-interpretation associations underlie the effect of multiple repetitions.”
mechanisminstance theory of automaticity: each encounter with an item stores a memory trace, and with practice performance shifts from a slow general algorithm to fast direct retrieval of stored instances (unifying automaticity and repetition priming)— “Automatization involves a transition from performance based on a general algorithm to performance based on memory retrieval”mechanisms[0]
contradicts stimulus-to-response association accounts of automaticity— “The results provide no evidence that stimulus-to-response associations provide an important basis for automaticity or repetition priming.”claim_relations[0]
extends instance theory (Logan, 1988)— “The results supported the predictions of instance theory and suggested that stimulus-to-interpretation associations underlie the effects.”claim_relations[1]
contradicts Morton's (1969, 1979) logogen model and Balota and Chumbley's (1984) familiarity model— “The instance theory differs from the logogen model (Morton, 1969, 1979) and the familiarity model (Balota & Chumbley, 1984) in that it predicts an associative basis for repetition priming and automaticity whereas those models do not.”claim_relations[2]
builds-on the instance theory of automaticity developed in Logan (1988)— “To show that automaticity and repetition priming share these three characteristics is to show that they can be accounted for by the same theory, the instance theory of automaticity.”claim_relations[3]
extends earlier multiple-repetition studies in the lexical decision task (Forbach, Stanners & Hochhaus, 1974; Scarborough et al., 1977; Logan, 1988)— “The present experiments examined the effects of multiple repetitions in the lexical decision task and fitted power functions to the data to confirm and extend these findings.”claim_relations[4]
senseTWO LITERATURES STUDYING ONE THING AT DIFFERENT DOSES, AND THE DOSE IS WHY THEY NEVER MET: students of memory investigate `one or two stimulus exposures`; students of attention investigate `several hundred`. Memory calls it repetition priming; attention calls it automaticity. `Theoretically, repetition priming is viewed as the first few steps on the way to automaticity.` The fourth record today about one name covering two things - and the first running the other way: forster-davis1984, tulving1990 and was2019 each SPLIT a term the field used as one, and Logan JOINS two the field used as separate— “Theoretically, repetition priming is viewed as the first few steps on the way to automaticity”senses[0]
senseAND THE CLAIM IS MADE FALSIFIABLE BEFORE IT IS TESTED, BY NAMING THREE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD HAVE TO MATCH: `The main empirical question asked in this article is whether automaticity and repetition priming share three characteristics: (1) Power-Function Speed-Up ... (2) Item Specificity ... (3) Associative Basis.` Each is then phrased as a question - `Does repetition priming increase as a power function of the number of exposures, as speed increases with automatization?` Three named tests, stated before the experiments, any one of which could have killed the claim. Same discipline as Schmidt2009's rapid-chase criteria, and rare enough in this corpus to be worth counting— “The main empirical question asked in this article is whether automaticity and repetition priming share three characteristics: (1) Power-Function Speed-Up. Does repetition priming increase as a power function of the number of exposures, as speed increases with automatization”senses[1]
senseAND THE MECHANISM IS A STORAGE CLAIM, WHICH IS WHY ITEM-SPECIFICITY IS A PREDICTION AND NOT A FINDING: the common mechanism is `the storage and retrieval of representations of individual exposures to specific items, or instances.` If what is stored is a record of each encounter with a particular item, then benefit MUST be specific to that item - the second characteristic falls out of the theory rather than being observed alongside it. A theory that predicts one of its own tests is stronger than one that accommodates it— “the storage and retrieval of representations of individual exposures to specific items, or instances”senses[2]
senseAND THE BRIDGE IS THE POINT, STATED AS THE ARTICLE'S PURPOSE: `The purpose of this article is to begin to bridge the gap between the areas by exploring empirical parallels between repetition priming and automaticity and by presenting a theory that integrates them.` A paper whose contribution is a connection rather than a result - and for this corpus that is the interesting kind, because a citation graph shows that two literatures do not cite each other and cannot show that they should— “The purpose of this article is to begin to bridge the gap between the areas by exploring empirical parallels between repetition priming and automaticity and by presenting a theory that integrates them”senses[3]
controla control condition in which subjects saw a NEW set of 10 words and 10 nonwords for the same 16 blocks — held — rules out that improvement across blocks is general practice at the task rather than item-specific automaticity— “In the control condition, they saw a new set of 10 words and 10 nonwords for 16 20-trial blocks.”controls[0]
controlthe assignment of keys to yes and no responses was counterbalanced within each group — held — rules out that the effect is a motor or hand preference rather than a decision effect— “The assignment of keys to ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses was counterbalanced within each group.”controls[1]
differs inMorton's (1969, 1979) logogen model and Balota and Chumbley's (1984) familiarity model — THE PAPER MARKS THE PARAMETER WITH 'in that'. The span: 'The instance theory DIFFERS FROM the logogen model (Morton, 1969, 1979) and the familiarity model (Balota & Chumbley, 1984) in that it predicts an associative basis for repetition priming and automaticity whereas those models do N[OT].' The disagreement turns on whether repetition priming has an associative basis - stated, quotable, and absent from the edge until now.— “The instance theory differs from the logogen model (Morton, 1969, 1979) and the familiarity model (Balota & Chumbley, 1984) in that it predicts an associative basis for repetition priming and automaticity whereas those models do not.”— “in that it predicts an associative basis for repetition priming and automaticity whereas those models do not”claim_relations[2]
auditrepetition priming —part-of→ automaticity — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says repetition priming is VIEWED as the first steps on the way to automaticity; part-of is loose.— “Theoretically, repetition priming is viewed as the first few steps on the way to automaticity”concept_edges[0]
noterepetition priming —part-of→ automaticity — 'the first few steps on the way to' IS A CONTINUUM CLAIM AND 'part-of' IS THE CLOSEST THE VOCABULARY COMES. It is not that priming is a component of automaticity - it is the same process earlier on. 'same-as' would overstate (they differ in degree and in everything that follows from degree); 'is-a' is wrong; there is no 'earlier-stage-of' and this is the fifth thing today the enforced vocabulary cannot say,,, Weight 0.9 and 'Theoretically' is inside the quote - this is the article's thesis, and the three characteristics are the test of it.— “Theoretically, repetition priming is viewed as the first few steps on the way to automaticity”concept_edges[0]
weightrepetition priming —part-of→ automaticity — 0.9— “Theoretically, repetition priming is viewed as the first few steps on the way to automaticity”concept_edges[0]
outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation)control — heldcontrols[0]
outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation)control — heldcontrols[1]
replicationuntested
limitationerror data were not analyzed because the theories at issue do not address them— “Since the theories at issue do not address them, error data will not be analysed or presented in detail.”limitations[0]
limitationThe transfer effects of Experiment 3 were small and not strongly supported statistically.— “The effects were relatively small and the statistical support for them was not overwhelmingly strong.”limitations[1]
limitationAlternative learning functions such as exponentials or hyperbolics were never tested against the power-function fits.— “Second, I have not tried to rule out alternative functions, such as exponentials or hyperbolics, so the fits do not mean that power functions provide the best description of the data.”limitations[2]
limitationThe data cannot decide between a declarative and a procedural interpretation of the memory underlying the effect.— “I prefer the declarative interpretation but I cannot rule out the procedural one.”limitations[3]
limitationItem specificity does not discriminate the instance theory from rival accounts.— “Item specificity is consistent with the instance theory but it does not uniquely support it.”limitations[4]
Content tags
content-observations: finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text
findingpriming and automaticity share a common instance-based mechanism— “This article draws theoretical and empirical parallels between them, arguing that they result from a common mechanism, namely, the storage and retrieval of representations of individual exposures to specific items, or instances.”content_tags.findings[0]
findingprocessing speed increases as a power function of exposures— “The speed of processing increases as a power function of the number of exposures to a specific stimulus”content_tags.findings[1]
findingthe repetition benefit is specific to individual items— “the benefit from repeated exposures is specific to individual items”content_tags.findings[2]
findingrepetition priming is the first few steps toward automaticity— “repetition priming is viewed as the first few steps on the way to automaticity”content_tags.findings[3]
evidence status notefinding — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted.content_tags.findings[3]
quantity3 characteristics — shared features of priming and automaticity— “shown to share three major characteristics”content_tags.quantities[1]
quantity15 years — span of automaticity research reviewed— “Much of the research in the last 15”content_tags.quantities[2]
quantityhundreds exposures — attention studies use many exposures vs memory's one-two— “effects of several hundred stimulus exposures”content_tags.quantities[3]
variablenumber of exposures (independent variable driving speed-up)— “of the number of exposures to a specific stimulus”content_tags.variables[0]
variableitem specificity (characteristic tested across both phenomena)— “(2) Item Specificity. Is automaticity specific to stimuli experienced during the training as repetition priming is specific to the stimuli experienced during the study phase?”content_tags.variables[2]
definitionrepetition priming— “is called repetition priming”content_tags.definitions[0]
definitionautomaticity— “According to theory, automatic processing does not demand (much) attention”content_tags.definitions[1]
definitionlexical decision task— “a lexical decision task, in which subjects decided whether or not a given letter string was a word”content_tags.definitions[3]
definitionimplicit memory— “According to theory, repetition priming reflects implicit memory, whereas recall and recognition”content_tags.definitions[4]
definitionexplicit memory— “According to theory, repetition priming reflects implicit memory, whereas recall and recognition”content_tags.definitions[5]
key-termsrepetition priming, automaticity, implicit memory, power function, instances, lexical decision, attention, item specificity, exposures, learning
Concepts
terms this paper carries, each with the sentence it was cut from — the layer that joins one paper to another. Terms with no quote yet are on CONCEPTS.html.
conceptrepetition priming— “Theoretically, repetition priming is viewed as the first few steps on the way to automaticity”concepts[1]
conceptautomaticity— “Theoretically, repetition priming is viewed as the first few steps on the way to automaticity”concepts[2]
conceptinstance theory— “the storage and retrieval of representations of individual exposures to specific items, or instances”concepts[3]
conceptpower function — not defined in this paper's own words; the first of three properties that would have to match if the two are one thing: speed increases as a POWER FUNCTION of the number of exposures. A shape, not a size - which is why it can be compared across two literatures whose effect magnitudes are incomparable— “Does repetition priming increase as a power function of the number of exposures, as speed increases with automatization”concepts[7]
Statistics — cross-field join keys
field-invariant statistical terms, used in their statistical sense (gated on a number / symbol / test). A p-value or a standard deviation means the SAME thing in physics, biology, psychology and sociology — so these are the strongest cross-field join keys. Grounded verbatim.
ANOVA F— “These effects were confirmed by ANOVA: The main effect of word vs nonword was significant, F(1,50) = 119.43, p --c .Ol, MS, = 3220.48, as was the main effect of presentations, F(9,450) = 124.73, p <”content_tags.statistics[0]
correlation r as written: correlated— “Error rate averaged 4% and was positively correlated with mean reaction time.”content_tags.statistics[1]
hypothesis-testing as written: test hypotheses— “three empirical parallels between repetition priming and automaticity predicted by the instance theory and to test hypotheses about possible associative bases of repetition priming and automaticity”content_tags.statistics[2]
evidence status notehypothesis-testing — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted.content_tags.statistics[2]
mean μ as written: mean of— “The words were 340 common nouns selected from the Kucera and Francis (1967) frequency norms, ranging in frequency from 8 to 787 per million with a mean of 75.27.”content_tags.statistics[3]
p-value p as written: p < .05— “These effects were confirmed by ANOVA: The main effect of word vs nonword was significant, F(1,50) = 8.19, p < .Ol, MS, = 17881.50, as was the main effect of presentations, F(5,250) = 2.61, p < .05, MS, = 1885.84.”content_tags.statistics[4]
sample-size n/N— “Intuitively, the powerfunction speed-up follows from two opposing tendencies that govern the race: On the one hand, there are more opportunities to observe an extreme value as sample size increases”content_tags.statistics[5]
standard-deviation SD/σ— “The instance theory predicts a power-function reduction in the standard deviation with practice, with the exponent of the function constrained to be equal to the exponent for the powerfunction reduction in the mean”content_tags.statistics[6]
evidence status notestandard-deviation — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted.content_tags.statistics[6]
statistical-significance as written: significant— “These effects were confirmed by ANOVA: The main effect of word vs nonword was significant, F(1,50) = 119.43, p --c .Ol, MS, = 3220.48, as was the main effect of presentations, F(9,450) = 124.73, p <”content_tags.statistics[7]

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