| P · prime | a pattern-masked, consciously undetectable prime word |
| T · target | a subsequent target word (lexical decision / recognition) |
| B · baseline | performance with a neutral or no prime |
| E · priming effect | the masked prime still facilitates the associated target despite being unseen |
| A · association | congruent/incongruent |
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | semantic processing of pattern-masked words without awareness— “What has been shown is that words have been analyzed to a lexical if not semantic level without awareness.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Experiments 1 and 3, contrary to most recent accounts of visual masking, seem to imply that a word which is backward pattern masked such that it is not only unreportable but also undetectable, nevertheless gains access to a lexical or semantic representation.” | |
| method — evidence | — “The object of the first study was to obtain comparative estimates of the availability and usability of three aspects of word stimuli over a range of stimulus-mask onset asynchronies.” | |
| extends | Wickens (1972)— “However, the results bear out and add to his conclusion that semantic information was available when visual information was not.” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | Turvey's (1973) distinction between Peripheral and Central Masking— “Firstly it both qualifies and extends Turvey’s (1973) distinction between Peripheral and Central Masking.” | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | Shallice (1972) and Morton (1970, 1979a)— “This is a quite different conception from that of Shallice (1972) and Morton (1970, 1979a).” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | THE ORDERING RESULT, AND IT RUNS THE WRONG WAY FOR THE STANDARD ACCOUNT: `As SOA is reduced, DETECTION judgments suffer first, GRAPHIC similarity judgments fall next, and SEMANTIC judgments fall last.` The received view was that masking interrupts the icon and that without the icon there is nothing left to analyse for meaning - which predicts semantic judgments failing first, or at latest with the rest. They are the most robust of the three. Three measures, one manipulation, a fixed order, and the order is the argument— “As SOA is reduced, detection judgments suffer first, graphic similarity judgments fall next, and semantic judgments fall last.” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE CONTROL IS WHAT MAKES IT A DISSOCIATION RATHER THAN A FAILED MASK: `while no subject was aware of the first letter string under either masking condition, all subjects showed a substantial advantage for associated words when the first was centrally masked while none did when it was peripherally masked.` `They could not see it and were primed anyway` invites `then your mask did not work`. Marcel's reply is a second mask that also abolishes awareness and also abolishes the priming - awareness held constant at zero, priming moved from 56 msec to 4. Compare erb2019 and eckstein2007 in this corpus: the same manoeuvre, thirty years later, still being reinvented— “while no subject was aware of the first letter string under either masking condition, all subjects showed a substantial advantage for associated words when the first was centrally masked while none did when it was peripherally masked.” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE POSITION BEING OVERTURNED, STATED IN ITS OWN WORDS BEFORE IT IS DISMANTLED: `The currently held interpretation of masking (Sperling, 1967; Turvey, 1973) is that it disrupts a relatively raw representation of visual input (iconic memory), without which input cannot be processed to achieve semantic or phonological coding.` Worth holding as a record of what the field believed in 1983, and worth marking as a view the paper REJECTS - a triple built from this sentence would enter the graph asserting the opposite of the record's finding, which is the fault I dropped an edge for on eckstein2007 this afternoon— “The currently held interpretation of masking (Sperling, 1967; Turvey, 1973) is that it disrupts a relatively raw representation of visual input (iconic memory), without which input cannot be processed to achieve semantic or phonological coding.” | senses[2] |
| sense | `Central Masking` / `Peripheral masking` - DISTINGUISHED BY AN ENUMERATION OF PROPERTIES, NOT BY A DEFINITION. `Several characteristics distinguish Peripheral and Central Masking` - then four contrasts run in parallel across the two, and the pair is never given a mechanism. The dichoptic test is the one that separates them cleanly: Central `is possible both monoptically and dichoptically`, Peripheral `cannot be obtained dichoptically`.— “Several characteristics distinguish Peripheral and Central Masking. Central Masking can only be obtained with a contour pattern, can only be obtained effectively by the mask following the target (backward masking), is possible both monoptically and dichoptically, and is characterized by an onset-onset function. Peripheral masking is… | senses[3] |
| sense | `pattern-masking` / `energy-masking` - TWO PROCEDURES THAT ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE, AND THE PAPER USES THE DIFFERENCE TO EXPLAIN A LITERATURE. `the pattern-masking procedure employed here operates by SOA, in contrast to the energy-masking procedure, which does work by energy and fails to produce unconscious priming effects`. The second clause is a NULL RESULT about a method, which is why the edge below is a contrast and not a causal claim.— “the pattern-masking procedure employed here operates by SOA, in contrast to the energy-masking procedure, which does work by energy and fails to produce unconscious priming effects” | senses[4] |
| control | thirty-six EXTRA pairs used for practice, distributed in the same proportions as the experimental pairs — held — rules out that practice on an unrepresentative set biases the strategy subjects bring to the experiment— “Thirty-six extra pairs were used for practice trials distributed in the same proportions as the experimental pairs.” | controls[0] |
| control | ninety practice trials before each experimental session — held — rules out that performance early in a session reflects unfamiliarity with the procedure— “Before each experimental session 90 practice trials were given.” | controls[1] |
| audit | detection —distinct-from→ semantic judgments — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span gives the order in which judgments fail as SOA is reduced; distinct-from is loose.— “As SOA is reduced, detection judgments suffer first, graphic similarity judgments fall next, and semantic judgments fall last.” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | detection —distinct-from→ semantic judgments — A DISSOCIATION STATED AS AN ORDERING, WHICH IS STRONGER THAN A DIFFERENCE. Not 'semantic judgments were better' - a fixed sequence in which the three measures fail as one parameter is turned down. Weight 0.95: both endpoints are named as words, the sentence is a result rather than a framing, and the relation asserted is exactly distinctness - if detection and semantic judgment drew on one representation they could not come apart in a repeatable order. This is the rare case where the sentence carrying the mechanism also carries the edge, and it does so because the author chose to state the finding as a list of three named measures.— “As SOA is reduced, detection judgments suffer first, graphic similarity judgments fall next, and semantic judgments fall last.” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | detection —distinct-from→ semantic judgments — 0.95— “As SOA is reduced, detection judgments suffer first, graphic similarity judgments fall next, and semantic judgments fall last.” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | Central Masking —distinct-from→ Peripheral masking — 'Several characteristics distinguish' - asserted outright and then itemised four ways, so weight 1.0.— “Several characteristics distinguish Peripheral and Central Masking. Central Masking can only be obtained with a contour pattern, can only be obtained effectively by the mask following the target (backward masking), is possible both monoptically and dichoptically, and is characterized by an onset-onset function. Peripheral masking is… | concept_edges[1] |
| note | pattern-masking —contrasted-with→ energy-masking — NOT typed 'causes'. The clause about energy-masking is a FAILURE to produce an effect - 'fails to produce unconscious priming effects' - and a null result is not a causal relation. The contrast is what the paper asserts; the null sits in this note where it cannot be read as a mechanism.— “the pattern-masking procedure employed here operates by SOA, in contrast to the energy-masking procedure, which does work by energy and fails to produce unconscious priming effects” | concept_edges[2] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The null effect of repetition on the semantics of forced guesses may reflect an insensitive measure rather than a real absence— “Of course this null effect may be due to the insensitivity of the measure.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The reported phenomena may depend on unexplored experimental factors, since some replication attempts failed— “The point of this is that the phenomena reported here may depend on experimental factors as yet unexplored.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | Conclusions comparing graphic and semantic judgements rest on an unverified assumption that the two similarity scales are equivalent— “Of course these sorts of general statements rely on an assumed equivalence of scaling of graphic and semantic similarity in the present experiments.” | limitations[2] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | in Experiment 3 the words accompanying or preceding the colour patches were masked to prevent awareness— “In Experiment 3 subjects had to make manual identification responses to color patches which were either accom- panied or preceded by words masked to prevent awareness.” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | content_tags.findings[1] |
| not machine-vouched | finding — not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| key-terms | visual masking, unconscious, awareness, lexical decision, facilitation, prime, threshold |
| concept | detection — not defined in this paper's own words; can the subject say ANYTHING was there. The weakest question you can ask, and it fails first - which is the whole point: a measure that dies before the others cannot be the gateway the others depend on— “As SOA is reduced, detection judgments suffer first, graphic similarity judgments fall next, and semantic judgments fall last.” | concepts[3] |
| concept | semantic judgments — not defined in this paper's own words; which of two probe words is closer in MEANING to the thing you could not see. Falls last of the three, so meaning is recoverable at exposures where presence is not— “As SOA is reduced, detection judgments suffer first, graphic similarity judgments fall next, and semantic judgments fall last.” | concepts[4] |
| concept | masking — not defined in this paper's own words; the instrument, and this paper's real subject. It has two kinds and they behave differently while producing the same absence of awareness - which is what turns a null-awareness claim into a dissociation instead of an untested assumption— “while no subject was aware of the first letter string under either masking condition, all subjects showed a substantial advantage for associated words when the first was centrally masked while none did when it was peripherally masked.” | concepts[5] |
| concept | iconic memory — not defined in this paper's own words; the raw visual store masking was thought to destroy. The standard account made it the gateway: no icon, no semantic coding. If that were right, semantic judgments should fail FIRST as SOA drops. They fall last— “The currently held interpretation of masking (Sperling, 1967; Turvey, 1973) is that it disrupts a relatively raw representation of visual input (iconic memory), without which input cannot be processed to achieve semantic or phonological coding.” | concepts[6] |
| concept | Central Masking — not defined in this paper's own words; masking defined by a LIST OF EMPIRICAL PROPERTIES rather than by a mechanism - contour-pattern only, backward only, monoptic or dichoptic, onset-onset function— “Several characteristics distinguish Peripheral and Central Masking. Central Masking can only be obtained with a contour pattern, can only be obtained effectively by the mask following the target (backward masking), is possible both monoptically and dichoptically, and is characterized by an onset-onset function. Peripheral masking is… | concepts[7] |
| concept | Peripheral masking — not defined in this paper's own words; its complement on the same four properties - blank/noise/contoured field, forward or backward, NOT dichoptic, energy function— “Several characteristics distinguish Peripheral and Central Masking. Central Masking can only be obtained with a contour pattern, can only be obtained effectively by the mask following the target (backward masking), is possible both monoptically and dichoptically, and is characterized by an onset-onset function. Peripheral masking is… | concepts[8] |
| concept | pattern-masking — not defined in this paper's own words; the masking procedure used here, whose controlling variable is SOA— “the pattern-masking procedure employed here operates by SOA, in contrast to the energy-masking procedure, which does work by energy and fails to produce unconscious priming effects” | concepts[9] |
| concept | energy-masking — not defined in this paper's own words; the procedure whose controlling variable is energy, and which the paper reports does NOT yield unconscious priming— “the pattern-masking procedure employed here operates by SOA, in contrast to the energy-masking procedure, which does work by energy and fails to produce unconscious priming effects” | concepts[10] |
| ANOVA F | as written: analysis of variance— “An overall five-way analysis of variance was performed with factors: Word Type, Color, Subvs Suprathreshold, Word-Color SOA, and Subjects” | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| evidence status note | ANOVA — 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[0] |
| chi-square χ² | — “His performance at this point was then compared with his performance on graphic similarity at the same SOA by means of a 2 x 2 chi square.” | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| false-discovery-rate FDR | as written: multiple comparisons— “Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons revealed that in all Word- Color SOA and threshold conditions, while there was no difference between No Word” | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| evidence status note | false-discovery-rate — 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] |
| hypothesis-testing | as written: test the hypotheses— “One way to test the hypotheses is to present forced-choice stimuli which within a pair covary negatively on each of the dimensions to be tested.” | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| p-value p | as written: p < .025— “The overall main effect of Word Type was significant (F (35) = 32.84,~ < .OOl), as was Subvs Suprathreshold (F (9,45) = 8.07,~ < .05), and Word-Color SOA (F (1,5) = 12.24, .Ol <p < .025).” | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| evidence status note | p-value — 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[4] |
| statistical-significance | as written: significantly— “Of the 17 passive subjects, three showed no significant difference 0, > . l), eight showed significantly better semantic judgments with p < .Ol, and six with p < .OOl” | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| evidence status note | statistical-significance — 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[5] |
| variance σ² | — “An overall five-way analysis of variance was performed with factors: Word Type, Color, Subvs Suprathreshold, Word-Color SOA, and Subjects” | content_tags.statistics[6] |
| evidence status note | variance — 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] |
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