standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. 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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 12 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | whether category-specific gamma band responses in higher-order visual cortex are a direct neural correlate of conscious perception or a prerequisite for it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | if local gamma band responses reflect conscious perception, do they follow it however it is brought about Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | shows that two manipulations which raise conscious perception equally are not equally reflected in gamma band responses — only sensory evidence is — and concludes local gamma is not the correlate of consciousness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | null-result Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | neural correlates of conscious visual perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | electrophysiology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electrophysiology | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | the criterion is invariance, not correlation: a correlate of consciousness must move whenever consciousness moves, whatever moved it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the disconfirmation rests on that invariance failing, which is why a single dissociation is enough to reject the proposal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | two routes to the same behavioural endpoint are engineered — one that runs through local processing and one that does not — so the neural measure can be asked to choose Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the equivalence of the two routes is established behaviourally first, across three separate samples, because the whole argument collapses if one manipulation is simply stronger Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the null is defended by Monte Carlo power simulation rather than asserted, showing the test would have caught a 30% shift Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the electrode selection contrast is chosen so that neither experimental factor can contaminate it — same degradation, neither group previously seen Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the disputed study's own frequency band is analysed unchanged so the comparison is direct, and only then extended Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | catch trials containing only background give an independent check that the subjective report is trustworthy before it is used as the criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the rival explanation for the null — repetition suppression cancelling an enhancement — is closed with a boundary condition from the literature: repetition of degraded images enhances rather than suppresses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | images are rotated through every condition across patients so no result can be an artefact of particular pictures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the within-subject reply to 'sensory evidence is just stronger' is that even patients for whom exposure mattered more behaviourally showed only the sensory effect neurally Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Electrode coverage did not permit testing the alternative account, that long-range integration rather than local gamma tracks conscious perception. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Whether the two manipulations affect interareal integration in the same way is left open. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the alternative the paper favours — long-range integration — could not be tested with the electrodes available Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | whether the two manipulations affect interareal integration equally is unknown, so the positive account is untested Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[1] | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | only one electrode showed a low-gamma effect surviving correction, so the low-band comparison with the disputed study rests on uncorrected effects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the frequency comparison with the disputed study is partly inference, since that study did not analyse above 70 Hz Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | full randomisation held for only four of the six patients Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the integration account is left standing rather than supported, pending paradigms of this kind applied to it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | Morlet wavelet convolution at roughly six cycles, used to resolve gamma power in time without committing to fixed epochs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | Monte Carlo resampling used not to test the hypothesis but to establish that the reported null had the power to have found an effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | false discovery rate control applied across the full electrode-by-time grid, which is what lets the per-electrode table be read as a whole Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the pictures containing a person were PSEUDORANDOMISED across four patients, so that each picture was assigned to every condition exactly once Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: picture-specific effects - any gamma-band response peculiar to one image is spread across all conditions instead of loading onto one, so it cannot be read as category selectivity · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | neural correlate — as anything that covaries with report, versus as the process uniquely and directly associated with the experience; the paper's whole case turns on the second Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | gamma band response — low (30–70 Hz) versus high (70–150 Hz); the paper argues they are one broadband process seen more strongly at high frequencies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | conscious perception — as the subjective report of seeing versus as the objective gender discrimination; both are collected and the analysis rests on the first Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | enhancing perception — by adding stimulus information versus by adding prior knowledge; behaviourally equivalent here, neurally not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | consciousness arising locally in sensory cortices versus requiring integration across areas — the controversy the paper is intervening in Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | an effect that is corrected across electrodes and times versus one that is uncorrected; Table 1 reports both and the argument uses them differently Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: null-result Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: null-result — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | method: intracranial EEG over occipital and temporal visual cortex while conscious perception is raised two independent ways — lower image degradation, and prior exposure to the clear image — with the two first shown behaviourally equivalent Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: electrophysiology — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.method | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | phenomenon: conscious perception of a degraded image, and its dissociation from local category-specific cortical processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: neural correlates of conscious visual perception — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Fisch et al. (2009), the finding that local category-specific gamma band responses in visual cortex mark conscious perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Fisch et al. (2009) - electrode-selection procedure and analysed frequency range adopted for direct comparability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → Fisch et al. (2009) - the contrastive seen-versus-unseen gamma band enhancement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Aru et al. (2012) and de Graaf et al. (2012), the argument that standard NCC methods confound prerequisites and consequences of consciousness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Fisch et al. (2009), that category-specific gamma in visual cortex correlates with and marks conscious perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the contrastive method as used throughout consciousness research Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → theories grounding consciousness in long-range integration rather than local processing depth Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[6] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Gray and Singer (1989), that stimulus-specific gamma persists under anesthesia Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → neuroimaging evidence for local accounts, as too slow to see the dynamics at issue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → the authors' own theoretical critique of NCC methodology (Aru et al., 2012), by turning it into an experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | gamma band responses —distinct-from→ neural correlates of consciousness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes that gamma responses do not 'reflect conscious perception', not 'neural correlates of consciousness'; distinct-from is loose. | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | gamma band responses —is-a→ prerequisites Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span calls local processing a necessary prerequisite for conscious perception; is-a 'prerequisites' is loose. also in: gamma band responses · prerequisites | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | sensory evidence —contrasted-with→ previous exposure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but sensory evidence and previous exposure are the TWO FACTORS that controlled visibility; contrasted-with is loose. also in: sensory evidence · previous exposure | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · sensory evidence —causes→ gamma band responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span said hGBR rather than the endpoint's own name. This sentence names both and states the dependence in its careful form - gamma band responses 'SOLELY reflected sensory evidence', while subjective reports were modulated by two things. — strength of the relation: 0.95 also in: sensory evidence · gamma band responses | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED FROM A NEITHER-ENDPOINT SPAN) · previous exposure —causes→ conscious perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED FROM A NEITHER-ENDPOINT SPAN. The old span named neither term - it described what subjects reported. This sentence names both and states the DESIGN: 'a new experimental paradigm in which CONSCIOUS PERCEPTION…'. The causal claim is the manipulation, not an observed association. — strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'reported to perceive', not 'conscious perception'. also in: previous exposure · conscious perception | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | sensory evidence —operationalised-as→ degradation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: sensory evidence · degradation | concept_edges[6] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · conscious perception —operationalised-as→ subjective task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span described the subjective task without naming conscious perception. This sentence names both and says WHY the task stands for the concept: it addresses the neural profile correlating with subjective reports about conscious perception. — strength of the relation: 1 also in: conscious perception · subjective task | concept_edges[7] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | long-range integration —same-as→ neural correlates of consciousness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.6 — the record marks this weak
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but theories PROPOSE that conscious experience is grounded in long-range integration; same-as is loose and attributed. | concept_edges[8] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | RETRACTED ('part of the same X' IS 'part-of', AND THE SCHEMA HAS THAT TYPE) · hGBR —same-as→ lGBR Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. RETRACTED: 'part of the same X' IS 'part-of', AND THE SCHEMA HAS THAT TYPE. The edge is 'hGBR --same-as--> lGBR'. The span: '…that lGBR and hGBR are part of the same broadband process…' Two things being parts of one process does not make them each other - and the relation the sentence states is available in the vocabulary, as two 'part-of' edges to the broadband process, which would also preserve the third term the identity edge deletes. THE AUTHOR DECLINES THE IDENTITY IN THE SAME BREATH, and the tag is stronger than the sentence it quotes. 'Suggesting' is the authors reporting what a figure is consistent with, not what they have shown. — strength of the relation: 0.8
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says the result is 'SUGGESTING' lGBR and hGBR are part of the same broadband process; same-as is hedged. | concept_edges[9] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | person-selective —operationalised-as→ catch images Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but person-selectivity was judged by COMPARISON WITH catch images; operationalised-as is loose. also in: person-selective · catch images | concept_edges[10] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | gamma band responses —distinct-from→ conscious perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but local gamma increases 'MIGHT thus reflect' unconscious processing; distinct-from is hedged. also in: gamma band responses · conscious perception | concept_edges[11] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | previous exposure —causes→ conscious perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: RE-GROUNDS another row of this record: the old span named NEITHER endpoint. also in: previous exposure · conscious perception | concept_edges[15] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | repeated-measures ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repeated-measures ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Wilcoxon rank-sum test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon rank-sum test | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | false discovery rate correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: false discovery rate correction | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Monte Carlo simulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Monte Carlo simulation | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | statistical power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical power | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard error of the mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error of the mean | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | repeated-measures ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repeated-measures ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Wilcoxon rank-sum test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon rank-sum test | content_tags.statistics[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | false discovery rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: false discovery rate | content_tags.statistics[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Post hoc power analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Post hoc power analysis | content_tags.statistics[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Monte Carlo simulations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Monte Carlo simulations | content_tags.statistics[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | F Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: F | content_tags.statistics[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | SEM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SEM | content_tags.statistics[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Both experimental routes to conscious perception worked: reducing image degradation and having previously seen the image each raised the rate of 'seen' reports. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The two manipulations boosted subjective visibility to a statistically indistinguishable degree and did not interact. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | In the larger sample of healthy controls, previous exposure and sensory evidence each significantly affected subjective perception. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Category-specific gamma responses were larger on trials where the person was reported seen, replicating the earlier result the study set out to test. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | High-gamma responses were modulated by sensory evidence on 6 of 7 person-specific electrodes, and none of them by previous exposure. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | A post hoc power analysis showed the null effect of previous exposure was not a detection failure. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Low and high gamma effects formed one continuous broadband response starting near 50 Hz rather than two distinct phenomena. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Because local gamma does not track conscious perception invariantly across the two routes to it, it cannot be the mechanism directly responsible for conscious perception. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | both lower degradation and prior exposure raised the proportion of trials where a person was reported seen Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the two manipulations boosted subjective perception to a statistically indistinguishable degree, with no interaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | in 24 healthy controls both previous exposure and sensory evidence significantly affected subjective perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | and again in eight subjects using an 11-point perceptual rating scale rather than a yes/no report Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | gamma tracked sensory evidence on 6 of 7 person-specific electrodes and prior exposure on none Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the population analysis agreed: sensory evidence significant from 100 to 450 ms, previous exposure at p > 0.2 in every window Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the null was not a power failure — the test had 0.94 power to detect a 30% change uncorrected, 0.9 corrected Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the paper did replicate the original positive result: gamma was higher on trials where the person was consciously perceived, on 5 of 7 electrodes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | person-specific gamma appeared on 7 electrodes across 5 patients, all on lateral occipital cortex and fusiform gyrus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the person-vs-background difference ran from about 50 Hz upward, indicating one broadband process rather than two bands Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | false alarms on background-only catch trials averaged 1.5 of 44, so the visibility reports were reliable Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | neural correlates of consciousness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: neural correlates of consciousness | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | gamma band responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: gamma band responses | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | contrastive method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contrastive method | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | person-selective Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: person-selective | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | contrastive method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contrastive method | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Sensory evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Sensory evidence | content_tags.definitions[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Previous exposure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Previous exposure | content_tags.definitions[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: power | content_tags.definitions[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | familiarization phase Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: familiarization phase | content_tags.definitions[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | catch trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: catch trials | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | sensory evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sensory evidence | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | previous exposure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: previous exposure | content_tags.variables[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | percentage of “seen” responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: percentage of “seen” responses | content_tags.variables[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | hGBR Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hGBR | content_tags.variables[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | relative power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: relative power | content_tags.variables[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | MNI coordinates Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: MNI coordinates | content_tags.variables[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 6 — epilepsy patients with intracranial electrodes who performed the main experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 62 — electrodes free of epileptic activity that entered the analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | seven — electrodes showing person-specific high gamma enhancement, in five patients Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 85% (6/7) — person-specific electrodes whose high gamma tracked sensory evidence, versus none for previous exposure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 70% (5/7) — person-specific electrodes showing sustained gamma on consciously perceived trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 0.94 and 0.9 — statistical power to detect a 30% change, uncorrected and corrected Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 24 — healthy control subjects in the psychophysical replication Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 60% to 90% in 5% steps — range of image noise levels used to titrate visibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Forty-four — trials acquired per experimental condition in the patient experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | six patients — intracranial sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 24 healthy human subjects — psychophysical control sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 62 electrodes — contacts free of epileptic activity that were examined Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 7 electrodes, 5 patients — person-specific electrodes found Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 85% (6/7) — person-specific electrodes modulated by sensory evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 70% (5/7) — person-specific electrodes showing higher gamma on consciously perceived trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0.94 and 0.9 — statistical power to detect a 30% change, uncorrected and corrected Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 30–70 Hz and 70–150 Hz — the low and high gamma ranges analysed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 150 ms — duration of the degraded image presentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 100–500 ms — the post-stimulus analysis window, split into eight 50 ms bins Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 60% to 90% in 5% steps — the noise levels used to degrade images Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ∼70% — the recognition performance the individual degradation thresholds targeted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[20] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 148 pictures, 22 catch images — the patient stimulus set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[21] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 44 trials per condition — trials acquired per condition in the patients Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[22] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 11 experimental blocks — blocks in the main experiment, each with a familiarization and a test phase Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[23] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | mean 1.5, SD 2.3 — false alarms on the 44 background-only catch trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[24] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | −400 to −100 ms — the prestimulus baseline for power normalisation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[25] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.