**This section uses past tense despite the fact that this is a preregistration. This is done such that the text does not have to be altered once the data are collected.** At the end of their first session of each experimental task participants were asked to provide the following information: Age, gender, native language, education. At the end of both sessions we asked the following questions, all of which could be responded to by selecting one of the alternatives "not at all", "somewhat", or "very much": "I’m in a noisy environment", "There are a lot of distractions here", "I’m in a busy environment", "All instructions were clear", "I found the experiment interesting", "I followed the instructions closely", "The experiment was difficult", "I did my best on the task at hand", "I was distracted during the experiment." In all experiments, different versions of materials and, in some cases, key assignments were created. Different versions ensured counterbalancing of materials and key assignments. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the versions when they participated the first session. Then, upon return three or four days later for the second session, half of the participants were assigned to the exact same version of the experiment and the other half were assigned to a different version such that there was zero overlap between the stimuli in the first and second session. **Sampling plan.** For each experiment we will start with recruiting 200 participants, 100 on Monday and 100 on Thursday. Three or four days after their first participation, each participant will be invited to participate again. We aim to have a final sample size of 80 participants per condition (same items or different items on the second occasion), taking into account non-responses and the exclusion criterial below. If we end up with fewer than 80, more participants will be recruted. General exclusion criteria: Data from participants with an accuracy <80% in RT tasks or an accuracy <10% in memory tasks or a mean RT longer than the group M + 3SD will be excluded. Data from each participant in the RT tasks will be trimmed by excluding trials where the trial RT deviates more than 3SD from the subject M. From the remainder, participants will be excluded (starting with those who participated last) to create equal numbers of participants per counterbalancing version. **Set 1: Perception and Action** *Simon Task* The method for this task was based on Bialystok, Craik, Klein, & Viswanathan, (2004), Crump, McDonnell, & Gureckis (2013), and Hasbroucq & Guiard (1991) Method Participants. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four versions of the task. Upon return they were assigned to either the same version with the same assignment of response keys to color or a different version with different stimuli in different colors. Materials. For two versions the stimuli consisted of a red and a blue square. For the other two versions the stimuli consisted of a yellow and green circle. The stimuli were resized to 20% of the screen height. Procedure. The experiment consisted of 8 practice trials and 92 critical trials. Participants were instructed to respond as accurately and quickly as possible to the color of the stimulus. They used the Z-key on their keyboard for one color and the /-key for the other color. Assignment of color to key was counterbalanced between participants. A trial started with a central fixation cross (+) in the center of the screen for 500 ms. Then the fixation cross was replaced with the stimulus. The stimulus was vertically centered and horizontally placed at 15% from the left or right side of the screen and remained visible until the participant pressed one of the response keys. If the response was incorrect, the message “Incorrect” was displayed for 500 ms. The inter trial interval was 1000 ms. During the practice and critical session, trials for each color in the left or right position were equally likely and presented in randomized order. *Flanker Task* The method for this task was based on Davelaar (2013) and Eriksen & Eriksen (1974). Method Participants. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four versions of the task. Upon return they were assigned to either the same version with the same assignment of response keys or a different version with different stimuli. Materials. Two sets of four letters each were created. Each set consisted of two response sets. One response set consisted of two vowels and the other response set of two consonants, and one response set consisted of letters with straight lines and the other response set consisted of letters with curved lines. In two versions of the task the set consisted of the letters A, E, S, and C; in the other two versions the set consisted of O, U, H, and K. Procedure. The experiment consisted of 24 practice trials and 96 critical trials. On each trial, a row of five letters from the set was presented. Participants were instructed to respond as accurately and quickly as possible to the letter in the middle. They gave one response to two letters and another response to the other two letters. This target letter was surrounded by four flankers. The four flanker letters were the same, and could be identical to the target letter (Same stimulus condition, e.g., AAAAA), different but from the same response set as the target letter (Same response condition, e.g., EEAEE), or different and from the opposite response set (Different response, e.g., SSASS). Participants used the Z-key on their keyboard for one response set and the /-key for the other response set. Assignment of keys to response sets was counterbalanced between participants. A trial started with a line of the same length as the row of five letters (_____) in the center of the screen for 1000 ms. Then the fixation was replaced with the five letters which remained visible until the participant pressed one of the response keys. If the response was incorrect, the message “Incorrect” was displayed for 500 ms. The inter trial interval was 1000 ms. During the practice and critical session, each letter was equally likely as target or flanker, and trials for each condition were equally likely and presented in randomized order. *Motor Priming* Method Participants. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four versions of the task. Upon return they were assigned to either the same version with the same assignment of response keys to the same symbols or a different version with different stimuli. Materials. Two sets of left-right symbol pairs were created. In one set the symbols were << for left and >> for right. In the other set they were \\ and //. For both sets the mask was created by superimposing the two symbol pairs. Procedure. The experiment consisted of 2 blocks of 20 practice trials and 2 blocks of 80 critical trials. On masked trials, the prime was presented 16 ms, followed by the mask for 100 ms, a blank screen for 50 ms, and the target. On unmasked trials, the prime was presented for 16 ms, followed by a blank screen for 150 ms, and the target. Primes were identical (compatible condition) or not (incompatible) to the target. Participants were instructed to respond as accurately and quickly as possible to the target by pressing the z (left) or m (right) key. If the response was incorrect, the message “Incorrect” was displayed for 500 ms. If the response was slower than 750 ms the message “Please respond faster” was displayed for 2000 ms. The inter trial interval was 1300 ms. One practice and one experimental block of trials consisted of masked trials, and another practice and experimental block consisted of unmasked trials. The order of blocks was counterbalanced across participants. During the practice and critical session, trials for each condition were equally likely and presented in randomized order. **Set 2: Memory** *Spacing Effect* Method Participants. Materials. A set of 80 words of low to medium frequency (M = 33.0 per million, range = 0.4 –223.6 in SUBTLEX-US, Brysbaert & New, 2009) and average length of 6.1 letters (range = 4-8) were used as experimental stimuli. Of these, 59 were taken from the set used by Godbole, Delaney, Verkoeijen (2014). Additional sets of 48 filler words and 10 practice words were selected. The experimental words were divided over 4 lists of 20 items each for counterbalancing, and the fillers were divided over two lists of 24 each for the two sessions. To ensure that items in the massed and spaced conditions had equal average serial positions in the list, an item sequence template with 104 slots was created. The sequence started and ended with 5 fillers as primacy and recency buffers. The remaining 14 filler items were used to fill up slots among the experimental items. Massed items were repeated immediately after their first presentation, and spaced items were repeated after 6 intervening items. The four sets of experimental items were rotated over conditions and sessions so that across participants all items were presented equally often in each condition and session. For each participant, items within a set were assigned randomly to slot positions. Procedure. Participants were told that we wanted to study how well they could remember words and then were instructed to perform a continuous recognition task. On each trial, a word was presented for 3000 ms, followed by a 500 ms blank screen. If the word was new, participants should press the Z key, and if the word was old, they should press the / key. They were told that even though their key press did not have noticeable effects to them, their response was recorded. After the 10 trial practice session feedback on their percentage correct responses was given. After the experimental list, participants again received summary feedback, and instructions for a final free recall test. They were given 2 minutes to type in as many words from the study list as they could remember. *False Memories* Method Participants. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four versions of the task. Upon return they were assigned to either the same version with the same assignment of items or a different version with completely different items. Materials. Thirty-six DRM lists from Stadler, Roediger, and McDermott (1999) were divided into four sets of nine lists each such that mean false recognition rates of the lures (as reported by Stadler et al.) were similar between sets. Each of the lists consisted of 15 items that were all related to a non-presented lure (e.g., cold: hot, snow, warm, winter, ice, wet, frigid, chilly, heat, weather, freeze, air, shiver, Arctic, frost). In each of the four versions of the experiment one set of lists was studied. Another set was not studied, but the lure and three list items from each of those lists were presented on the recognition test. The other two sets were not used. Across the four versions, each set was used once in the studied condition and once in the unrelated lure condition. For the recognition test, the critical lures and the list items from positions 1, 8, and 10 were presented (as in Stadler et al., 1999, and Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Procedure. Participants were instructed to study the nine lists of 15 words carefully for a memory test. The nine lists were presented in random order, but the words within each list were presented in the fixed order that was also used by Stadler et al. (1999) based on associative strength with the strongest associates first. Before each new list, the word LIST plus its number (e.g., LIST 1) was presented slightly above the center of the screen for 1500 ms, followed by a 1000 ms blank screen. Each list item was presented in the center of the screen for 1000 ms, followed by a 500 ms blank screen. After the entire list was presented a 1000 ms blank screen was presented before the next list was announced. After all nine lists were presented, participants read the instructions for the recognition test. They were instructed to press the /-key for studied words and the Z-key for non-studied words. The recognition test consisted of 72 words; the critical lure and three items from each of the nine studied lists and the nine nonstudied lists. The items were presented in random order. Each item was presented until the participant responded, and followed by a 500 ms blank screen. During the recognition test a reminder of the response assignment was presented at the bottom of the screen. Additional exclusion criteria for this task: Participants with hits-false alarms(unrelated lures) = 0 (or lower). *Serial Position Effect* Method Participants. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two versions of the task. Upon return they were assigned to either the same version or a different version with completely different items. Materials. Two sets of 160 high frequency words (M = 106.5 per million, range = 32.6 – 866.0 in SUBTLEX-US, Brysbaert & New, 2009) were used. All words were singular nouns between 4 and 7 letters. Each version of the task comprised one of the sets of words. For each participant the words were randomly distributed over the eight lists. Procedure. Participants were instructed to study eight lists of 20 words each and to free recall the words from each list in any order. They started presentation of a list by pressing the space bar. The 20 words were presented in random order. Each word was presented in the center of the screen for 1000 ms, followed by a 500 ms blank screen. After all 20 words were presented, three asterisks were presented for 500 ms as a signal that the recall phase had started. Participants could type the words they recalled for 60 s. After the recall phase they were instructed to press space again for the next list. **Set 3: Language** *Associative Priming* The task procedure of this experiment is based on Pecher, Zeelenberg, & Raaijmakers (1998) and Zeelenberg, Pecher, de Kok, & Raaijmakers (1998). Method Participants. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four versions of the experiment. Upon return they were randomly assigned to the exact same version or another version with completely different materials. Materials. We selected 120 strongly associated word pairs from Nelson, McEvoy, and Schreiber (1998). The mean forward associative strength was .65 (range .39 -.94) and the mean backward associative strength was .47 (range .21 - .78). This set was divided into four sets of 30 pairs such that the sets were matched on average strengths. To create unrelated pairs the primes were rearranged within each set. Sets were counterbalanced across versions such that each set was used once in the related condition and once in the unrelated condition. Additional sets were created of 120 unrelated word-word pairs, 240 word-nonword pairs, and 16 practice pairs with the same proportions of related, unrelated, and word-nonword pairs. Nonwords were created using Wuggy (Keuleers & Brysbaert, 2010) or by changing one or two letters in existing words. All nonwords were pronounceable. All filler and practice sets were split in two for use in the different versions of the experiment. Procedure. Participants were instructed that on each trial they would see two letter strings in quick succession. They were to read the first letter string but not respond to it, and make a lexical decision on the second letter string as accurately and quickly as possible. A trial consisted of a fixation (* * * * * * *) in the center of the screen for 450 ms, a blank screen of 50 ms, the prime word in the center of the screen for 300 ms, a blank screen for 50 ms, and the target letter string in the center of the screen which remained visible until the participant responded by pressing the /-key for word or the Z-key for nonword. If the response was incorrect, feedback (“Incorrect”) was given for 1000 ms. If the response was slower than 1500 ms, feedback (“Response too slow. Please respond faster. Press space to continue.”) was given for at least 2000 ms plus the time to hit the space bar. The experiment started with eight practice trials, followed by 240 experimental trials. The order of pairs was randomized for each participant. After 120 trials there was a self-paced break. *Repetition Priming and Word Frequency* Method Participants. Materials. A set of 104 low frequency words, a set of 104 high frequency words, and a set of 208 nonwords were selected from Wagenmakers, Zeelenberg, Steyvers, Shiffrin, & Raaijmakers (2004) and SUBTLEX-US. The mean SUBTLEX-US frequency per million was 1.22 (range 0.04 – 4.61) for the low frequency set and 248.48 (range 70.20 – 926.45) for the high frequency set. Four lists were created of 24 high frequency words, 24 low frequency words, and 48 nonwords. In each version of the experiment one list was presented twice and another list was presented once. Across versions each list was presented once in the repeated condition and once in the nonrepeated condition. Two lists of 16 items with the same proportions of high frequency, low frequency and nonwords served as practice items. Procedure. Participants were instructed that on each trial they would see a letter string and make a lexical decision on it as accurately and quickly as possible. A trial consisted of a fixation (* * * * * * *) in the center of the screen for 450 ms, a blank screen of 50 ms, and the target letter string in the center of the screen which remained visible until the participant responded by pressing the / key for word or the Z key for nonword. If the response was incorrect, feedback (“Incorrect”) was given for 1000 ms. If the response was slower than 1500 ms, feedback (“Response too slow. Please respond faster. Press space to continue.”) was given for at least 2000 ms plus the time to hit the space bar. The experiment started with 16 practice trials, followed by 288 experimental trials. The first block of 96 trials consisted of items that would be repeated. The next block of 192 items consisted of 96 repeated and 96 nonrepeated items. The order of items was randomized for each participant. After 96 and 192 trials there was a self-paced break. *Shape Simulation* Method Participants. Materials. Stimuli were 120 sentences and 120 pictures. Fifty-two sentences were taken from Zwaan, Yaxley, & Stanfield (2002). The other 68 sentences were new. The sentences described 60 objects, in two different implied shapes. The pictures represented the same 60 objects, with one picture showing one of the implied shapes and the other showing the other implied shape. All pictures were grayscale photographs showing the object on a white background. Two sets were created with 30 objects each for the two sessions of the experiment. Order of the two sets was counterbalanced. For each set, four versions were created with 30 sentence-picture pairs each, such that the shape shown in the picture matched that implied by the sentence for half of the pairs, and mismatched for the other half. Across the four versions, all items were used equally often in the match and mismatch condition. Because all experimental items required a “yes” response, two sets of 30 additional sentence-picture pairs were used as fillers. The filler sentences were similar to the experimental sentences in length and position of object nouns, but were followed by an unrelated picture, thus requiring a “no” response. Procedure. Each trial started with a fixation (+), vertically centered and left justified, for 1000 ms, immediately followed by the sentence. The sentence was also left justified so that the first letter appeared at the same location as the fixation. Participants pressed the P key when they had read and understood the sentence. Then a fixation (+) was presented in the center of the screen for 500 ms, immediately followed by the picture. Participants responded by pressing the /-key if the picture presented an object that was named in the sentence, or the Z-key if the object was not named in the sentence. An incorrect response was followed by feedback (“Incorrect”) for 500 ms. Half of the filler trials was followed by a yes/no comprehension question. Each trial was followed by an interval of 1000 ms before the next trial started. References Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/.