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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 3 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 working-memory-related hippocampal activity patterns during a word list predict long-term encoding, and explain the primacy effect 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 | which form of working memory supports the items at the start of a list 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 hippocampal deactivation at the first list position predicts that the item will be forgotten, linking a working-memory signature to long-term encoding failure 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 | mechanism 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 | working memory-long-term memory interaction in the hippocampus 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 | fmri Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fmri | 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. status: the paper's own words: we suggest that | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | working memory is divided by neural signature: hippocampal activation for multiple items, deactivation for individual items 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 | positive DC slopes in the iEEG are taken to correspond to BOLD deactivations, which is what lets the two datasets be read together 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 | items at the start of a list are proposed to be rehearsed more, linking the primacy effect to working memory 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 | successful early items are encoded in runs: encoding the first raises the conditional probability of encoding the second and third 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 | only the hemisphere contralateral to the seizure focus was analysed, in patients with confirmed unilateral sclerosis 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 |
| limitations | No behavioural measure of working-memory performance was collected, so it is unknown which items were actually held in WM. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every claim about what was held in working memory: THERE IS NO BEHAVIORAL MONITORING OF WM PERFORMANCE IN THE CURRENT EXPERIMENT | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The link between the observed activity and actual long-term memory consequences of WM performance cannot be established. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim about what was held in mind: WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE HOW LTM IS ACTUALLY AFFECTED BY THE WM PERFORMANCE FOR SPECIFIC ITEMS, I.E., IT IS UNKNOWN WHICH ITEMS ARE ACTUALLY MAINTAINED IN WM | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The proposed link to persistent activity recorded in vitro is acknowledged as speculative. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the link to the in vitro literature: THIS ANALOGY BETWEEN ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL DATA IN VITRO AND THE NEURAL PATTERNS DURING WM MAINTENANCE MUST REMAIN SPECULATIVE AT THE CURRENT STAGE | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Position-specific subsequent-memory analyses were statistically underpowered. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the position-specific null: THIS LACK OF AN EFFECT IS RELATED TO THE REDUCED STATISTICAL POWER FOR POSITION-SPECIFIC ANALYSES OF SUBSEQUENT MEMORY EFFECTS | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the two populations differ in recall performance despite a shorter recall phase for the fMRI group Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison between the two populations: Quotation withheld | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the paradigms differ between the two versions in presentation time, interstimulus interval, block count and recall duration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison between the fMRI and intracranial versions: they differ in presentation time (1000 ms, since goggles REQUIRED LONGER PRESENTATION TIMES), interstimulus interval and block count | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | patients showed both primacy and recency; the fMRI subjects showed no recency at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any serial-position claim carried across the two groups: NO RECENCY EFFECTS AT THE END of the list were found in the fMRI subjects, against primacy AND recency in the patients | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the whole-brain effects did not survive correction for multiple comparisons and are reported at the cluster level instead Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the whole-brain effects: THESE EFFECTS DID NOT SURVIVE CORRECTION FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS, BUT DID HAVE A LARGE EXTENSION OF 60 VOXELS FOR THE SERIAL POSITION CONTRAST OF SUBSEQUENTLY FORGOTTEN WORDS | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | several supporting results are trends at p between 0.05 and 0.07, labelled as such Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the subsequently-forgotten results, with their exact values: WE FOUND A TREND FOR AN EFFECT OF POSITION (F (2,36) = 2.943; p = 0.070) AND FOR A LINEAR EFFECT OF POSITION (F (1,18) = 4.249; p = 0.054) | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | a position-specific null is attributed to reduced statistical power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[3] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[3] - the position-specific analyses, underpowered | limitations[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | effects appear in the left hippocampus and not the right, without an account of why Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any bilateral hippocampal claim: FOR THE RIGHT HIPPOCAMPUS, A THREE-WAY ANOVA DID NOT REVEAL AN EFFECT OF, OR INTERACTION WITH, THE FACTOR POSITION (ALL p > 0.3), BUT A SIGNIFICANT MAIN EFFECT OF MEMORY (F (1,18) = 8.898; p < 0.01) | limitations[10] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the required rote strategy is verified only by asking participants afterwards Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the rote-strategy assumption: ALL SUBJECTS WERE REQUIRED TO USE A ROTE STRATEGY ... AVOIDING MEMORY AIDS - instructed, and verified only by asking afterwards | limitations[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | serial position curves and the primacy effect, imported as the behavioural handle on a neural question Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a group of healthy control subjects investigated with fMRI alongside the patient recordings Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the hippocampal working-memory effect being a property of the epileptic brains the depth electrodes are implanted in · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | working memory is subdivided here by NEURAL SIGNATURE rather than by task or capacity: hippocampus-dependent when multiple items are held, hippocampus-independent when one is 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 | a deactivation is used as a positive finding - the absence of hippocampal engagement is the marker, not a null 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 | effects of position and LINEAR effects of position are distinguished explicitly, with the a priori assumption of the second stated: that if there are effects across positions, these should be linear 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 | the DC potential and the BOLD signal are treated as two measures of one underlying quantity, on the strength of a cited correspondence rather than a within-subject comparison 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 |
| alternatives | claim_type: mechanism 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: mechanism — 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 DC potentials in 8 epilepsy patients reanalysed from a 1999 study, plus new fMRI in 19 healthy subjects on the same word-list paradigm 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: fmri — 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: the primacy effect and its hippocampal correlates 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: working memory-long-term memory interaction in the hippocampus — 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 | builds-on → Fernández et al., 1999 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 | extends → Axmacher et al., 2007 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 | builds-on → Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) 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 | extends → the authors' own Sternberg study distinguishing hippocampus-dependent from hippocampus-independent working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Fernandez et al. 1999, whose iEEG data are reanalysed here for a different question 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 | supports → the rehearsal account of the primacy effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → fMRI findings that working-memory maintenance facilitates long-term encoding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[6] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | deactivation —causes→ long-term memory 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 · note: predicts FAILURE of encoding; the sign matters and the schema records only the pair
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says hippocampal deactivation predicts failure of encoding; the edge carries no direction. also in: deactivation · long-term memory | concept_edges[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | working memory —causes→ long-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: ATTRIBUTED TO NAMED WORK AND OFFERED AS AN IDEA: 'IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED THAT the primacy effect is due to the fact that items at early list positions undergo more extensive rehearsal than items presented later (Rundus, 1971; Brodie and Murdock, 1977). THIS IDEA SUGGESTS a link between LTM formation and rehearsal processes'. The relation is real and this paper builds on it; it belongs to two papers from the 1970s. · strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: via rehearsal, which is the proposed account of the primacy effect
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says the idea 'SUGGESTS A LINK' between LTM formation and rehearsal attributed to working memory; causes is hedged. also in: working memory · long-term memory | concept_edges[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | primacy —contrasted-with→ recency 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 span and kept, but the span reports only the recency effect; the contrast with primacy is not in it. | concept_edges[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | sphericity correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sphericity correction | content_tags.statistics[2] | 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[3] | 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[4] | 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[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regression | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | general linear model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: general linear model | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | multiple-comparison correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multiple-comparison correction | content_tags.statistics[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | statistical-significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical-significance | content_tags.statistics[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | repeated measures ANOVA with Huynh-Feldt correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[10] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | linear regression of slopes across positions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | conditional versus unconditional probability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | cluster-level significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cluster-level significance | content_tags.statistics[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | As expected, more items were successfully encoded at the beginning of the list than at later positions. 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 | Early-list words that were later forgotten were accompanied by hippocampal deactivation signatures in both fMRI and intracranial EEG. 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 | No such deactivation appeared for later list items or for items that were successfully remembered. 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 | In the intracranial data the linear decline of DC slope across list positions was significant only for subsequently forgotten items. 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 | A second, independent general linear model reproduced the effect: left-hippocampal negative BOLD for forgotten items at position one was absent at position seven. 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 | The position effect was left-lateralised: the right hippocampus showed a main effect of subsequent memory but no position effect. 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 | For both later-remembered and later-forgotten items, activity was most pronounced in the anterior cingulate cortex. 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 | Successful encoding at the start of a list came in runs: encoding the first word raised the probability of encoding the second. 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 | The authors conclude that failing to engage hippocampus-dependent working memory early in a list causes the later encoding failure. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | hippocampal deactivation at the first list position occurred for items that were later forgotten 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 | no such deactivation appeared for items that were later remembered 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 | DC slopes were positive early in the list for subsequently forgotten items and flattened later 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 | only the first position differed significantly from zero 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 | in the iEEG subjects, encoding the first item raised the conditional probability of encoding the second (0.35 to 0.51) 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 patients showed a recency effect at the end of the list 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 healthy fMRI group showed primacy but no recency at all 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 | a second general linear model comparing the first and seventh positions reproduced the result 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 | primacy effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: primacy effect | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | linear effects of position Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: linear effects of position | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | effects of position Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effects of position | content_tags.definitions[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | hippocampus-dependent WM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hippocampus-dependent WM | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | hippocampus-independent WM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hippocampus-independent WM | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | list position Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: list position | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | group Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: group | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | DC slopes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: DC slopes | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | negative BOLD response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: negative BOLD response | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | hemisphere Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hemisphere | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | serial position Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: serial position | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | subsequent memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subsequent memory | content_tags.variables[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | slope of the DC potential Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: slope of the DC potential | content_tags.variables[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Eight — epilepsy patients contributing intracranial EEG data 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 | Nineteen — healthy participants in the fMRI experiment 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 | 4.9% — proportion of EEG trials rejected as artefacts before analysis 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 | 0.35 / 0.51 — unconditional versus conditional probability of encoding the second list item in the iEEG patients 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 | smaller than 0.19 — maximum collinearity between the fMRI model regressors for adjacent list items (0 = orthogonal, 1 = collinear) 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 | F (11,198) = 21.156; p < 10 −16 — effect of serial position on recall performance in the fMRI participants 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 | 8 epilepsy patients and 19 healthy subjects — the two samples Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0.35 rising to 0.51 for the second item given the first — conditional encoding probability in patients Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 4.9% of trials excluded for artefacts — iEEG data rejection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | MNI 30/-15/-18 and -30/-15/-18 — the anatomically defined hippocampal regions of interest 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 | recall phase 90 s for iEEG versus 60 s for fMRI, presentation 400 ms versus 1000 ms — the paradigm differences between the two versions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. value source note: THE VALUE DRAWS ON THE PAPER BEYOND THIS QUOTE: part of it is printed elsewhere in the paper, not in this quote ('presented in uppercase letters for a duration of 400 ms.'). The 90 s is the 60 s of this quote plus the 30 s it says the other version lasted longer. | content_tags.quantities[10] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | p = 0.054, p = 0.070, p = 0.054 — the trends reported as consistent with the iEEG result Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | 0.9 | 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.