A priming method for investigating the selection of motor responses — TEI-tagged view
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. This PDF extraction is badly column-interleaved: the abstract and most of the Method, Results and 'Relations to earlier results' sections are shuffled word salad, so I quoted only from the passages that survived intact (Introduction, the response-priming-technique section, footnote 2, Incidental observations, Discussion, Implications for future studies). That is why method_evidence is a trial-level observation sentence rather than a participants-and-apparatus sentence - every clean Method-section sentence was destroyed by the interleaving. Replication status is 'contested' because the paper itself reports that its between-hand superiority agrees with Kornblum (1965) but is the opposite of what Miller (1982) obtained with precuing, and asks why opposite within- and between-hand effects are observed in different settings; I did not add those as claim relations because the sentences stating them are interleaved with other columns and cannot be quoted honestly. The relation to LaBerge et al. (1970) and Posner and Snyder (1975), which inspired the technique, is likewise unquotable - the extraction fuses 'devel-' and 'limitations' into 'devellimitations' mid-sentence. 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 pass: 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.
Full text not reproduced here. We could not establish a licence for this paper’s text, so we have chosen not to republish it. The tag layer is ours and is below; the article is at the source. Read the full paper at the source:
DOI 10.1016/0001-6918(82)90036-1.
Our tag layer for this paper
Cross-disciplinary analysiscontent-tags & facets: phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text
| phenomenon | motor response selection— “The successful execution of a voluntary body movement presents an intriguing problem to the student of behavior: out of all the movements the actor is capable of performing, how are the movements that he or she performs on a given occasion selected?” |
| claim-type | method— “In essence, the approach consists of creating a bias for one response, the primed response, and then occasionally requiring the subject to perform some other response.” |
| method — evidence | — “Using this rather crude observation procedure, it was noted that extra responses occurred on about 6% of the trials in which primed responses were required and correctly performed.” |
| mechanism | High response uncertainty shrinks the reaction-time benefit any single readied response can gain, which is why subjects abandon multiple-response preparation for individual-response preparation.— “preferable for the subject not to use multiple response preparation - if, for example, the RT benefit that any one response could enjoy were very small (or possibly even negative).” | mechanisms[2] |
| extends | the movement precuing technique (Rosenbaum 1980)— “Before we show how the response priming method can be used to investigate the time course of response selection, we should explain why we think the method can overcome the difficulties associated with the movement precuing technique.” | claim_relations[0] |
| control | a control experiment for the discriminability account of precue effects — absent-stated-about-other— “Differences in RTs associated with different types of precues could then be attributed to differences in the discriminability of readied responses, where the discriminability depends on the ensemble of responses that is readied (see Rosenbaum 1980, for a more detailed discussion and relevant control experiment).” — rules out that RT differences between precue types reflect the discriminability of the readied response set rather than the priming manipulation— “Differences in RTs associated with different types of precues could then be attributed to differences in the discriminability of readied responses, where the discriminability depends on the ensemble of responses that is readied (see Rosenbaum 1980, for a more detailed discussion and relevant control experiment).” | controls[0] |
| outcome | control — absent-stated-about-other— “Differences in RTs associated with different types of precues could then be attributed to differences in the discriminability of readied responses, where the discriminability depends on the ensemble of responses that is readied (see Rosenbaum 1980, for a more detailed discussion and relevant control experiment).” | controls[0] |
| evidence status note | mechanism — THE QUOTE IS HEDGED - in the paper it reads 'it may be' before 'preferable'; a running head and text from another column are spliced between them.— “preferable for the subject not to use multiple response preparation - if, for example, the RT benefit that any one response could enjoy were very small (or possibly even negative).” | mechanisms[2] |
| replication | contested |
| limitation | The technique's key assumption - that subjects ready only the primed response - was violated in some conditions of this very experiment, so the full set of inferences the method affords could not be drawn.— “We were frustrated in our effort to exploit the technique fully, however, because we were led to believe that subjects readied nonprimed responses as well as primed responses in some conditions of the present experiment.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The subtraction analyses rest on an explicitly acknowledged pure-insertion assumption about response latency differences.— “In using the subtractions for this purpose, we are making a “pure insertion” assumption (Stemberg 1969) about latency differences among responses.” | limitations[1] |
Content tagscontent-observations: finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text
| finding | Extra responses occurred on about 6% of correct primed trials, and all but one used the opposite hand.— “it was noted that extra responses occurred on about 6% of the trials in which primed responses were required and correctly performed. Of the extra responses, only one was a response that used the same hand as the primed response, and of the remaining extra responses, the finger homologous to the primed-response finger was used about as often… | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Subjects appeared to ready nonprimed as well as primed responses in some conditions.— “because we were led to believe that subjects readied nonprimed responses as well as primed responses in some conditions of the present experiment.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | The proposed pair of preparation methods reconciles the opposite within-hand and between-hand advantages found across experiments, at the cost of assuming that same-hand responses share more movement features than opposite-hand responses.— “This account of the IRP and MRP methods can explain why different within- and between-hand effects have been obtained in the experiments we have referred to here, although the explanation assumes, perhaps somewhat arbitrarily, that responses performed with fingers of the same hand share more features than responses performed with fingers of… | content_tags.findings[3] |
| quantity | about 6% — proportion of correctly performed primed trials on which subjects made an additional, unrequired response— “it was noted that extra responses occurred on about 6% of the trials in which primed responses were required and correctly performed. Of the extra responses, only one was a response that used the same hand as the primed response, and of the remaining extra responses, the finger homologous to the primed-response finger was used about as often… | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 2.18 — mean error rate (percent) across subjects— “The mean error rate was 2.18, and ranged” | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | F(3, 10)=0.466 — non-significant effect of which response was required (i.e. of required finger) on mean RT— “significant, F(3, 10)=0.466 p >0.71. Nor were the effects of S-R mapping,” | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| variable | RT of the required response (dependent)— “The main empirical question is how the RT of the required response depends on its relationship to the primed response.” | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | error rate (dependent)— “The mean error rate was 2.18, and ranged” | content_tags.variables[2] |
| definition | response priming method— “essence, the approach consists of creating a bias for one response, the primed response, and then occasionally requiring the subject to perform some other response.” | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | IRP— “We shall refer to this alternative method as individual-response preparation (IRP)” | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | pure insertion— “In using the subtractions for this purpose, we are making a “pure insertion” assumption (Stemberg 1969) about latency differences among responses.” | content_tags.definitions[2] |
Statistics — cross-field join keysfield-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 | as written: analysis of variance | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| evidence status note | ANOVA — THE QUOTE STOPS WHERE THE EXTRACTED TEXT GOES OUT OF ORDER: the words that follow it in the extraction ('response p ~0.05. For all Ss, mean RTs were shortest when…') belong to another line of the page, so the sentence cannot be completed from this copy. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| F-test F | as written: F(3, 10)=0.466 | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| p-value p | as written: p >0.71 | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| mean | as written: Mean RTs | content_tags.statistics[3] |
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.