Figure 1
Structure of item-specific priming experiments.
Note: Participants’ task was to classify stimuli according to their size or mechanism based on a preceding task cue. Stimuli appeared once as a prime and once as a probe (lag 2-7 trials). Between the stimulis’ prime and probe trial their item-specific classification and action mappings could independently repeat or switch allowing us to assess long-term binding effects in the probe trials. By assessing the relation between probe trial N-1 and probe trial N between which the required classification and action could also repeat or switch, we were additionally able to assess short-term experience effects in the probe trials of the same paradigm.
Table 1
Sample information per prior experiment.
| EXPERIMENT | STUDY | N | AGE | GENDER | HANDEDNESS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pfeuffer et al. (2017; Exp. 1) | 40 | 23.0 ± 4.3 | 10 male 30 female | 37 right 3 left |
| 2 | Pfeuffer et al. (2017; Exp. 2) | 60 | 23.6 ± 3.8 | 17 male 43 female | 55 right 5 left |
| 3 | Pfeuffer et al. (2017; Exp. 3) | 39 | 23.7 ± 3.9 | 11 male 28 female | 37 right 2 left |
| 4 | Pfeuffer et al. (2018b) | 39 | 23.1 ± 3.3 | 9 male 30 female | 34 right 5 left |
| 5 | Pfeuffer et al. (2020; Exp. 1) | 76 | 19.8 ± 1.8 | 9 male 67 female | 67 right 9 left |
| 6 | Pfeuffer et al. (2020; Exp. 2) | 120 | 23.0 ± 4.3 | 28 male 92 female | 108 right 12 left |
| 7 | Pfeuffer et al. (2018a; Exp. 2) | 40 | 24.6 ± 4.2 | 7 male 33 female | 36 right 4 left |
| 8 | Pfeuffer et al. (2018a; Exp. 1) | 39 | 24.1 ± 4.1 | 14 male 25 female | 36 right 3 left |
[i] Note: In all experiments, item-specific classification (repetition vs. switch) and item-specific action mappings (repetition vs. switch) between a stimulus’ prime and probe were manipulated. Each stimulus was primed once and probed once with a lag of several (2 to 7) trials – additional conditions were excluded. Data of all participants included in the original papers were selected for this reanalysis. Note that all experiments contained an additional manipulation of prime type (executed vs. verbally coded; manipulated in randomly intermixed blocks). This reanalysis only focused on the executed blocks and trials in which participants actively classified stimuli in prime and probe (verbally coded blocks and trials in which participants merely passively attended to instructions in the prime were discarded).
Figure 2
Mean log-transformed Reaction Times Across Short-Term (ST) Sequences and Long-Term (LT) Classification and Action Bindings.
Note: Error bars represent the within-subject 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 3
Mean log-transformed Reaction Times Across Short-Term (ST) Sequences and Long-Term (LT) Classification (top) and Action (bottom) Bindings.
Note: Error bars represent the within-subject 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 4
Mean log-transformed Reaction Times Across Short-Term (ST) Classification and Short-Term Action Bindings.
Note: Error bars represent the within-subject 95% confidence intervals.