| P · prime | a prior presentation of the word |
| T · target | the word in a lexical-decision test |
| B · baseline | recognition time without prior exposure |
| E · priming effect | faster recognition after repetition |
| A · association | congruent (positive) |
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | repetition priming in lexical decision— “Experiments 1, 2, and 4 indicate that a single presentation of a word or nonword in a lexical decision task decreases the latency and error rate for the identification of a stimulus as a word or nonword many trials later” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Experiments 1 and 2 establish that there is a large and reliable effect of repetition on response latencies in the lexical decision task” | |
| method — evidence | — “York Five reaction time experiments explored word-frequency effects in wordnonword decision tasks and in pronunciation and memory tasks” | |
| mechanism | repetition priming: a prior encounter with a word leaves a lasting memory trace that speeds its later recognition, reducing the usual word-frequency effect in lexical decision— “prior presentations of words produced substantial and apparently long-lasting reductions in the basic frequency effect” | mechanisms[0] |
| extends | theories of the word-frequency effect— “The modification of frequency effects by repetition suggests that natural language frequency effects may be attributed partly to the recency with which words have occurred” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Forbach, Stanners and Hochaus (1974) and Kirsner and Smith (1974), whose lexical-decision repetition results diverge from those reported here— “However, two recent reports with a similar paradigm appear to differ with several conclusions reported here” | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | Landauer and Streeter (1973) on orthographic neighbourhood differences between common and rare words— “For highfrequency words, each word averaged 6.2 neighbors as compared with an average of 7.9 neighbors for low-frequency words, which is a nonsignificant difference, £(66) = 0.4, in the opposite direction to that reported by Landauer and Streeter” | claim_relations[2] |
| builds-on | Forbach, Stanners and Hochaus's (1974) repetition experiment in the lexical decision task— “Experiments 1 and 2 are similar to an experiment reported by Forbach, Stanners, and Hochaus (1974).” | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | THE DISSOCIATION IS IN THE DECAY, NOT THE SIZE, AND THAT IS WHY IT IS EVIDENCE. For WORDS: `The mean repetition effect for lags of 0 and 1 intervening trials was 87 msec; for lags of 7 and 15, it was 77 msec.` For NONWORDS the same measure falls from 75 msec to 18. Nearly identical benefit at zero lag; utterly different survival. Same task, same lags, same subjects - the only difference is lexicality, and a short-term store cannot produce that pattern because it would decay for both— “The mean repetition effect for lags of 0 and 1 intervening trials was 87 msec; for lags of 7 and 15, it was 77 msec.” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE HEADLINE IS THAT REPETITION EATS THE FREQUENCY EFFECT: `in the word-nonword lexical decision task, prior presentations of words produced substantial and apparently long-lasting reductions in the basic frequency effect.` Showing a low-frequency word once narrows the gap that word frequency opens - so the field's most reliable variable is partly a fact about recent exposure, which is the claim that makes this paper matter to a corpus about what terms mean— “Further, in the word-nonword lexical decision task, prior presentations of words produced substantial and apparently long-lasting reductions in the basic frequency effect.” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE REASONING IS ADDITIVE-FACTORS AND THE SCHEMA CANNOT HOLD IT: `If word frequency and word repetition each affect DIFFERENT stages of processing in the word-nonword task, their effects should be ADDITIVE` - and they interact, so `the repetition effect and word frequency both affect a common stage of processing.` Two variables located in the same mechanism by the shape of their interaction. There is no edge type for `these share a mechanism` - not causes, not part-of, not same-as - so an inference the whole paper turns on lives only in this prose. The audit caught this sense quoting two sentences and grounded on one - the second is now inside the span, which is the same fault I found on Jones2002 three hours ago and the same fix— “If word frequency and word repetition each affect different stages of processing in the word-nonword task, their effects should be additive. That these variables appear to interact rather than add supports the argument that the repetition effect and word frequency both affect a common stage of processing.” | senses[2] |
| sense | AND THE LIMIT IS STATED AGAINST THEIR OWN HEADLINE: `This persistent frequency effect suggests that a complete explanation of word frequency will NOT be found in recency and repetition.` Having shown that repetition durably reduces the frequency effect, they say in the next breath that it does not dissolve it. Compare meyer1971's `we do not have ways to test all the possible explanations` and gotts2012's `similar studies ... have been lacking` - three papers in this corpus writing the limit flat, forty-five years apart— “This persistent frequency effect suggests that a complete explanation of word frequency will not be found in recency and repetition.” | senses[3] |
| control | stimuli were counterbalanced across subjects for lag and for case — held — rules out that a repetition effect is carried by the particular items at a particular lag, or by a change of letter case— “Across subjects within each response group, stimuli were counterbalanced in terms of lag and case.” | controls[0] |
| control | the design was intended to separate repetition from practice, and the paper reports that it could not do so completely — failed — rules out that the repetition effect is general practice at the task rather than memory for the particular item— “On the other hand, only a few stimuli were involved, and the design was inadequate to rule out completely explanations in terms of practice effects.” | controls[1] |
| evidence status note | theories of the word-frequency effect — 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. Update, 15 September 2026: CLEARED evidence status='quote-not-in-current-staged-text' - the quote now locates in the current staged text, so the condition the marker recorded no longer holds.— “The modification of frequency effects by repetition suggests that natural language frequency effects may be attributed partly to the recency with which words have occurred” | claim_relations[0] |
| audit | word frequency —distinct-from→ repetition — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says a full explanation of word frequency will not be found in recency and repetition; distinct-from is loose.— “This persistent frequency effect suggests that a complete explanation of word frequency will not be found in recency and repetition.” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | word frequency —distinct-from→ repetition — A LIMIT CLAIM, AND IT RUNS AGAINST THE PAPER'S OWN HEADLINE. They have just shown repetition producing 'long-lasting…'; this sentence says the effect that survives means 'a complete explanation…'. So the two are not the same thing and one does not reduce to the other. Weight 0.9 rather than 0.95 because 'suggests' is theirs and is inside the quote. The edge exists only because the authors declined to over-claim - had they stopped one sentence earlier, the corpus would hold the reduction and not the limit.— “This persistent frequency effect suggests that a complete explanation of word frequency will not be found in recency and repetition.” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | word frequency —distinct-from→ repetition — 0.9— “This persistent frequency effect suggests that a complete explanation of word frequency will not be found in recency and repetition.” | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — failed | controls[1] |
| evidence status note | limitation — 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. Update, 15 September 2026: CLEARED evidence status='quote-not-in-current-staged-text' - the quote now locates in the current staged text, so the condition the marker recorded no longer holds.— “It is possible that the locus of the repetition effect might be in any of the stages of this model” | limitations[0] |
| evidence status note | mechanism — 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. Update, 15 September 2026: CLEARED evidence status='quote-not-in-current-staged-text' - the quote now locates in the current staged text, so the condition the marker recorded no longer holds.— “prior presentations of words produced substantial and apparently long-lasting reductions in the basic frequency effect” | mechanisms[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | the paper cannot localize the repetition effect to a specific processing stage— “It is possible that the locus of the repetition effect might be in any of the stages of this model” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Experiment 1's failure to find a lag effect for words may simply reflect low power rather than the absence of an effect.— “For words, there was no significant effect of the number of trials intervening between presentations, although a failure to find a lag effect may simply be due to the small size of the effect relative to the error variance” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The long-lag repetitions embedded in Experiment 2 involved too few stimuli and a design that could not exclude practice effects.— “On the other hand, only a few stimuli were involved, and the design was inadequate to rule out completely explanations in terms of practice effects” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Generalisation of the repetition account beyond the lexical decision task, for example to language production, still requires evidence.— “However, further tests of the repetition idea will require evidence that the repetition effect can generalize to other situations, such as a language production task” | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | high-frequency words are recognized faster than low-frequency in lexical decision— “Highfrequency words were recognized substantially faster than low-frequency words in the word-nonword decision tasks” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | word frequency had little effect in pronunciation— “little effect of word frequency in the pronunciation” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| evidence status note | finding — 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[1] |
| finding | prior presentation produces long-lasting reductions in the frequency effect— “prior presentations of words produced substantial and apparently long-lasting reductions in the basic frequency effect” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| evidence status note | finding — 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[2] |
| finding | frequency effects involve both encoding and retrieval— “frequency effects consist of both effects in encoding and in retrieval from memory” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| quantity | 5 experiments — reaction-time experiments reported— “York Five reaction time experiments explored word-frequency effects in wordnonword decision tasks and in pronunciation and memory tasks” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 600 msec — typical average lexical-decision response time— “SCARBOROUGH times typically average about 600 msec” | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 18 subjects — Experiment 1 sample (9 male, 9 female)— “Eighteen right-handed subjects (9 male and 9 female)” | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 0-31 trials — range of repetition lag between presentations— “string varied from 0-31 trials” | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 206 / 306 stimuli / trials — total stimuli and trials in Experiment 1— “were a total of 206 stimuli, of which 100 were repeated, for a total of 306” | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| variable | word frequency (explanatory variable in recognition/memory)— “Word frequency has been used as an explanatory variable in psychological research, especially in word recognition and memory experiments.” | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | response latency (dependent measure analyzed)— “Analysis of the response latencies using Sternberg's additivefactors approach” | content_tags.variables[2] |
| variable | recency (proposed component of frequency effects)— “the recency with which words have occurred” | content_tags.variables[4] |
| variable | repetition (proposed component of frequency effects)— “the recency with which words have occurred” | content_tags.variables[5] |
| definition | lexical decision task— “The subject indicated whether the letters represented an English word by pressing one of two buttons.” | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| evidence status note | definition — 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.definitions[0] |
| definition | word-frequency effect— “Word frequency is a consistent predictor of response time differences in lexical decision tasks” | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | subjective lexicon— “retrieval from, the subjective lexicon” | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| key-terms | word frequency, lexical decision, response time, repetition, lexical memory, high-frequency, low-frequency, recency, priming, reaction time |
| concept | lexical decision— “Word frequency is a consistent predictor of response time differences in lexical decision tasks” | concepts[2] |
| concept | word frequency— “Word frequency is a consistent predictor of response time differences in lexical decision tasks” | concepts[3] |
| concept | frequency effect — not defined in this paper's own words; the latency advantage of common words. Shrunk by a single prior presentation, and durably - and yet 'PERSISTENT' enough that the authors refuse to explain it away by repetition. Both halves are in the paper and the second half is the harder one to write— “This persistent frequency effect suggests that a complete explanation of word frequency will not be found in recency and repetition.” | concepts[7] |
| concept | repetition — not defined in this paper's own words; showing the same item again. Manipulated here against LAG, which is what turns it from an effect into a probe: how long the benefit survives says what kind of store holds it— “If word frequency and word repetition each affect different stages of processing in the word-nonword task, their effects… | concepts[8] |
| ANOVA F | as written: analysis of variance | 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] |
| degrees-of-freedom df | as written: df = 1 | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| evidence status note | degrees-of-freedom — 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[1] |
| hypothesis-testing | as written: hypothesis | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| evidence status note | hypothesis-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: average of | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| evidence status note | mean — 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[3] |
| p-value p | as written: p < .01 | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| evidence status note | p-value — THE QUOTE CONTINUES A SENTENCE THAT THIS COPY CUTS IN TWO - a figure, its axis labels and its caption stand between it and the words it follows, which read 'was signifi-'. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| statistical-significance | as written: significant | 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 | 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