phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | cross-modal long-term word priming— “Weaker inter- than intramodality long-term priming of words has promoted two hypotheses: (1) separate visual and auditory lexicons and (2) modality dependence of implicit memory.” | |
| claim-type | null-result— “In sum, contrary to the standard observation, Experiment 1 showed an equivalence of inter- and intramodal priming.” | |
| method — evidence | — “In five experiments, we employed manipulations aimed to minimize study–test asymmetries between the two priming conditions.” | |
| mechanism | Mixing study modalities within subjects pulls attention toward modality-specific processing and away from word phonology, so at test the stems whose modality matches the prime are the ones completed - manufacturing the apparent intramodal advantage.— “If the mixing of visual and auditory presentations draws attention to aspects of modality processing per se and away from word processing, then at test, those critical word stems sharing modality processing with the primes are more likely to be completed.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Study-to-test carryover runs simultaneously along two dimensions - modality-independent lexical access, which yields the priming, and modality-dependent sensory analysis, which yields the overall performance difference between seeing and hearing.— “It is tempting to assume that this dichotomy reflects two different but co-occurring processes in implicit memory tasks: modality-independent lexical access and modality-dependent sensory analysis (see the General Discussion section).” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Priming transfers through activation of a word's phonology, a code common to the word seen and the word heard, so its magnitude is unaffected by which sense delivered the prime.— “Its invariance over AV and VV rules out the distinct sensory qualities of seeing words and hearing words and points to the activation of phonology as the dimension of transfer.” | mechanisms[2] |
| contradicts | Morton (1979), hypothesis of separate visual and auditory lexicons— “Importantly, for the primary goal of the present research, the three conclusions for Experiment 2 run counter to the experimental observations that had led Morton (1979) to the hypothesis of separate lexicons for words seen and words heard.” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Pilotti, Gallo, and Roediger (2000, Experiment 3)— “In an experiment with auditory stem completion, Pilotti, Gallo, and Roediger (2000, Experiment 3) manipulated visual and auditory study between subjects and found better performance for auditory study, contrary to the present Experiments 1 and 2.” | claim_relations[1] |
| replicates | Brown et al. (1991), on design-dependence of modality effects— “This apparent dependence of relative performance in the two conditions on experimental design is in agreement with the observations of Brown et al.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | TWO HYPOTHESES BUILT ON AN EFFECT, AND THE EFFECT TURNS OUT TO BE THE DESIGN: `Weaker inter- than intramodality long-term priming of words has promoted two hypotheses: (1) separate visual and auditory lexicons and (2) modality dependence of implicit memory.` Five experiments matching study activities, controlling phonological consistency and moving modality between subjects find `Equal magnitudes`. Kirsner1986, merged earlier today, reports intermodal priming `to a lesser extent than by intramodal` and reasons from it - the corpus now holds the record that builds on the asymmetry and the record that dissolves it, twenty-one years apart— “Weaker inter- than intramodality long-term priming of words has promoted two hypotheses: (1) separate visual and auditory lexicons and (2) modality dependence of implicit memory” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE CONTROL THAT MAKES IT AN ARTEFACT CLAIM RATHER THAN A FAILED REPLICATION: `A within-subjects experiment yielded the conventional intramodality advantage.` The old effect comes back when the old design is used. That is the strongest form this argument can take: not `we did not find it` but `here is the feature of the design that produces it, and here it is switched back on`. Compare erb2019, where removing a confound removed one of two effects - same logic, opposite direction— “A within-subjects experiment yielded the conventional intramodality advantage. The results point to a single amodal lexicon” | senses[1] |
| sense | AND THE CONCLUSION NAMES BOTH THE STORE AND THE ROUTE: `The results point to a single amodal lexicon and to modality-independent phonological processing as the basis of implicit word memory.` Not merely that the two lexicons are one, but that what reaches it is phonology either way - which is why the experiments controlled whether words were `phonologically consistent`. A positive mechanism offered alongside the negative result, and it is testable: inconsistent words should behave differently, which the paper then examines— “The results point to a single amodal lexicon and to modality-independent phonological processing as the basis of implicit word memory” | senses[2] |
| sense | AND IT IS THE FOURTH RECORD TODAY WHERE THE INSTRUMENT IS PART OF THE PHENOMENON. Finkbeiner2011: the prime-classification task's difficulty decides what counts as subliminal. erb2019: associative-priming overlap decides whether a congruency sequence effect is control. eckstein2007: which awareness test you use decides whether the prime was seen. Here: whether modality is manipulated within or between subjects decides whether the lexicons look separate. Four paradigms, one shape, and not one of them is a critique paper - all four are ordinary empirical papers that had to clear the ground first— “A within-subjects experiment yielded the conventional intramodality advantage. The results point to a single amodal lexicon” | senses[3] |
| control | an 'identical study' step established that the orientation at study was the same whether words were experienced visually or aurally — held — rules out that a cross-modality difference is a difference in how the word was ENCODED rather than in the modality itself— “In the first step, identified as identical study, we sought to ensure that the orientation at study would be the same whether the words were experienced visually or aurally.” | controls[0] |
| control | experimental and baseline words were randomly interleaved at test — held — rules out that the effect is a block or order effect rather than an item effect— “At test, both experimental words and baseline words were randomly interleaved and presented to each participant.” | controls[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| replication | contested | |
| limitation | The paper says it cannot say precisely why its results diverge from the conventional finding.— “At the current juncture, the precise reason is unclear.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The between-subjects design alone does not explain the contradiction with prior work, since other between-subjects studies did not find equivalence.— “As central as it may be, the between-subjects design that marks the present series of experiments cannot provide a complete account of the contradictory findings.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The account offered for the within-subjects asymmetry found in Experiment 3 is described as tentative.— “The identified asymmetry and the account given of it are obviously tentative, but not unreasonable.” | limitations[2] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Priming from a different study modality equalled priming from the same modality, with stem completion, fragment completion and perceptual identification at test.— “Equal magnitudes of inter- and intramodality priming were found in experiments with visual and auditory stem completion at test, with visual fragment completion at test, and with visual and auditory perceptual identification at test.” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The authors conclude that one amodal lexicon serves words seen and words heard, and that implicit word memory rests on modality-independent phonological processing.— “The results point to a single amodal lexicon and to modality-independent phonological processing as the basis of implicit word memory.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Experiment 1 showed equal inter- and intramodal priming, contrary to the standard observation.— “In sum, contrary to the standard observation, Experiment 1 showed an equivalence of inter- and intramodal priming.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Experiment 2 found auditory-to-visual and visual-to-auditory transfer equal to each other, and auditory-to-auditory transfer equal to visual-to-visual transfer.— “First, cross-modal transfer occurs to the same degree in AV and VA. Second, AA transfer and VV transfer are of the same magnitude.” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | The within-subjects design of Experiment 3 favoured same-modality over cross-modality transfer.— “The within-subjects design of Experiment 3 benefited transfer in the same-modality condition, relative to the cross-modality condition.” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Priming magnitude in fragment completion did not depend on study modality, but overall fragment completion did.— “The magnitude of priming was independent of stimulus modality, whereas the overall magnitude of fragment completion was modality dependent.” | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Level of processing at study did not affect long-term priming, suggesting the study tasks involved the lexicon alike.— “The failure to find an influence on long-term priming of level of processing at study suggests that the processing tasks were alike in lexical involvement” | content_tags.findings[6] |
| quantity | .45 / .18 — Experiment 1, visual study-visual test: proportion of stems completed for primed words versus unprimed words— “For VV, the proportion of primed completions was .45, and the proportion of nonprimed completions was .18.” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | .44 / .10 — Experiment 1, auditory study-visual test: proportion of stems completed for primed words versus unprimed words— “For AV, the proportion of primed completions was .44, and the proportion of nonprimed completion was .10.” | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | .38 vs .30 (baseline .15) — Experiment 3 (within-subjects design): primed stem completion for visual-to-visual versus auditory-to-visual, against the unprimed baseline— “The mean proportion of primed completions was .38 in VV and .30 in AV, relative to the unprimed baseline of .15.” | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 6% — size of the auditory-to-auditory advantage over visual-to-auditory in Experiment 5, which was tested separately— “Given the commonplace finding of samemodality superiority, the 6% superiority of AA over VA was evaluated separately.” | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 3.2 of the 26 — average number of critical primed words a participant could recall in the post-test memory check of Experiment 5— “On average, the participants recalled 3.2 of the 26 critical words (the primes).” | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 5:1 — ratio of unstudied to studied words on the test list, set to keep participants unaware of the study-test link— “The high 5:1 ratio of unstudied to studied words at test was for the purpose of reducing test awareness” | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| quantity | 85% — share of Experiment 5 participants who said there was a connection between the three tasks— “Approximately 85% of the participants answered affirmatively.” | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| quantity | Forty — number of undergraduates in Experiment 1, ten per group— “Forty undergraduates at the University of Connecticut participated in the experiment in partial fulfillment of an introductory psychology course requirement.” | content_tags.quantities[7] |
| quantity | 86 — size of the base word pool from which critical, study-filler and test-filler words were drawn— “A basic set of 86 concrete words was selected in a nonprimed stem completion experiment.” | content_tags.quantities[8] |
| variable | study modality (independent)— “Activities at visual and auditory study were matched, words were phonologically consistent, and study modality was manipulated between subjects.” | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | priming condition (independent)— “The priming condition was a within-subjects factor, whereas group and modality were between-subjects factors.” | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | stem completion (dependent)— “For each participant in each group, stem completion of the 12 primed critical stems (designated “P” in Appendix B) yielded the participant’s transfer measure, and stem completion of the 12 unprimed critical stems (designated “C” in Appendix B) yielded the participant’s baseline measure of stem completion performance” | content_tags.variables[2] |
| evidence status note | variable — 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.variables[2] |
| variable | spelling-sound consistency (control)— “The application of the two constraints, that on the orthography and that on the phonetics, was essentially the constraint of spelling–sound consistency in both directions” | content_tags.variables[4] |
| evidence status note | variable — 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.variables[4] |
| variable | ratio of unstudied to studied words at test (control)— “The high 5:1 ratio of unstudied to studied words at test was for the purpose of reducing test awareness” | content_tags.variables[5] |
| definition | identical study— “In the first step, identified as identical study, we sought to ensure that the orientation at study would be the same whether the words were experienced visually or aurally.” | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | modal homogeneity— “A fourth step, identified as modal homogeneity, entailed minimizing switches in emphasis between looking and listening during study.” | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | incidental study— “The extreme comparison of study–test pairings is that between (1) incidental study followed by an indirect test and (2) intentional study followed by a direct test. Study is incidental in an experiment when conditions (typically instructions) orient attention to an information-processing goal different from that of remembering the presented… | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | indirect test— “A memory test is indirect in an experiment when conditions orient attention to a current activity involving (surreptitiously) the material at study, without drawing attention to the prior incidence of study.” | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | gestural phonology— “The primitives of gestural phonology are gestures and constellations of gestures of the vocal tract, where a gesture is a characteristic movement pattern of vocal tract articulators and a gestural constellation is a small number of potentially overlapping gestures composing an utterance.” | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| concept | intramodality — not defined in this paper's own words; same modality at study and test. The 'advantage' this paper dissolves - equal to intermodality once study-test asymmetries are matched, and back again the moment a within-subjects design is used— “Weaker inter- than intramodality long-term priming of words has promoted two hypotheses: (1) separate visual and auditory lexicons and (2) modality dependence of implicit memory” | concepts[0] |
| concept | implicit memory — not defined in this paper's own words; the memory the priming is taken to express - and hypothesis (2) is that it is MODALITY-DEPENDENT. That is the claim the equal magnitudes remove— “Weaker inter- than intramodality long-term priming of words has promoted two hypotheses: (1) separate visual and auditory lexicons and (2) modality dependence of implicit memory” | concepts[1] |
| concept | amodal lexicon — not defined in this paper's own words; WHAT REPLACES THE TWO LEXICONS. A single store reached by eye or ear, with 'modality-independent phonological processing' as the route - which is why phonological consistency of the words mattered enough to control— “The results point to a single amodal lexicon and to modality-independent phonological processing as the basis of implicit word memory” | concepts[2] |
| concept | common lexicon — not defined in this paper's own words; THE POSITION MORTON HIMSELF ABANDONED AND THIS PAPER REINSTATES. The logogen model began with one lexicon; 'Morton was led to REJECT the common lexicon hypothesis on the basis of experiments involving long-term priming' - the very asymmetry these five experiments show to be a study-test artefact. The rejection and the reinstatement rest on the same paradigm, thirty years apart— “Morton was led to reject the common lexicon hypothesis on the basis of experiments involving long-term priming conditions typical of implicit memory studies” | concepts[3] |
| concept | long-term priming — not defined in this paper's own words; priming across a delay, the paradigm where the modality asymmetry was found and where this paper removes it. Not the short-lived masked kind - the effect that motivated separate-lexicon models in the first place— “Weaker inter- than intramodality long-term priming of words has promoted two hypotheses: (1) separate visual and auditory lexicons and (2) modality dependence of implicit memory” | concepts[4] |
| ANOVA F | — “In neither ANOVA were any other factors significant.” | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| mean | as written: mean proportion— “The mean proportion of primed completions was .38 in VV and .30 in AV, relative to the unprimed baseline of .15.” | content_tags.statistics[1] |
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