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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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.| 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 |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| 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 |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| 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 4 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose 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 | perceptual (repetition) priming in monkeys 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 | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | 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 | |
| limitations | The study may simply have failed to identify the conditions under which priming would appear in monkeys. 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 | Despite exploring many manipulations, the critical conditions for producing a memory effect on classification may have been missed. 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 one significant priming effect obtained (Experiment 5, blur mask) is treated by the authors as unreliable and possibly a Type I error. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | the human occluded-picture-naming priming paradigm is converted into a classification task so it can be run on monkeys Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | the S+ category counterbalanced across monkeys - cats were S+ for three monkeys and S- for the other three Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the result is a pre-existing preference for one stimulus category rather than learning of the assigned contingency · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | perceptual priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perceptual priming | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | explicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explicit memory | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | recognition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: recognition | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | classification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: classification | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | repetition suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition suppression | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | search image Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: search image | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | priming as IMPLICIT - named by the paper as the critical feature of the theories it is testing, and stated as a double requirement: subjects identify primed material better AND cannot explicitly remember it. The effect is defined partly by a FAILURE that has to accompany it, which is why a study finding memory for the primes is testing something the definition cares about Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | priming defined by a PROPERTY LIST rather than by a mechanism - automatic, effortless, unconscious, neuroanatomically separate from sophisticated forms of memory such as episodic memory. Every item is a contrast with something else, and it is precisely this shape of definition that licenses the leap to evolutionary age: a capacity that needs none of the expensive machinery is assumed to have come first Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the PHYLOGENETIC ASSUMPTION, named as an assumption in the abstract: priming is `commonly thought, with little evidence, to be widely distributed phylogenetically`. The paper's target is not a finding but a belief its field holds without having tested it - and the only prior nonhuman evidence it can find is one study in pigeons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | search image versus perceptual priming - a neighbouring concept separated by two stated measurements rather than by definition: the search image is SHORT LIVED and is DIMINISHED BY DIVIDED ATTENTION, so it is classed as short-term ATTENTIONAL priming rather than the long-term PERCEPTUAL priming seen in humans. Two literatures using one word, told apart by duration and by whether attention matters Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `priming` and `perceptual priming` are used at DIFFERENT GRAIN in different parts of the argument, and the split is systematic rather than casual: where the paper reasons about memory SYSTEMS - dissociation from explicit memory, survival in amnesia, evolutionary age - it writes bare `priming`; where it describes the visual effect it measures, and where it fences that effect off from the search image, it writes `perceptual priming`. The general term carries the theory and the specific term carries the experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | a null defended rather than reported - the paper argues its own absence of evidence is not absence of power, on three separate grounds: priming is routinely seen in SINGLE human subjects, the pigeon result that motivated the study used FEWER subjects than this one, and the same animals demonstrably remembered the primes. The last is the one that matters, because it rules out the animals not having encoded the images at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Brodbeck (1997) 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 | contradicts → Brodbeck (1997) 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 | contradicts → Mcmahon & Olson (2007) 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 | |
| concept_edges | perceptual priming —distinct-from→ search image Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: DURATION AND ATTENTIONAL DEPENDENCE - the search image is short lived and is diminished by divided attention, which is why the paper files it as short-term attentional priming rather than long-term perceptual priming · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: The paper's own phrase is 'similar to, but distinct from', and it does not leave the distinction as an assertion: both differentiating properties are cited to experiments. This is the shape the corpus wants - a boundary drawn with measurements. also in: perceptual priming · search image | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | priming —distinct-from→ explicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER IT SURVIVES AMNESIA AND WHICH NEURAL SYSTEM CARRIES IT - the separation is the definition rather than a finding about it, which is what makes this record's null result awkward for the theory · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: Recorded because the dissociation is doing definitional work: priming is IDENTIFIED by being separable from explicit memory. A monkey that recognises the primes but shows no priming is a dissociation running the other way. also in: priming · explicit memory | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | repetition suppression —causes→ priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.7 · note: Weight 0.7 - the LOWEST on this record, and deliberately. The paper reports this as a theorised mechanism it is about to find fault with: the neural signature is present in monkeys and the behavioural effect is not. Recorded as the literature's claim, not as this paper's.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but repetition suppression is 'THEORIZED TO UNDERLIE' priming; causes is hedged. also in: repetition suppression · priming | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | recognition —distinct-from→ classification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER MEMORY FOR AN IMAGE REACHES THE PROCESS AT ALL - the same remembered image supports recognition and does nothing for classification, which the paper reads as cognitive encapsulation between the two · strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: THE RESULT, stated as a relation between two tasks rather than as an effect size. The paper's last word on it is 'presents a puzzle', and the weight says so. also in: recognition · classification | concept_edges[3] | 0.95 | 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[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | arcsine transformation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: arcsine transformation | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | significance level (alpha), two-tailed testing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | effect size (Cohen's d) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effect size (Cohen's d) | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | median Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: median | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Type I error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Type I error | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Across eleven experiments rhesus monkeys showed no priming: previously seen images conferred no reliable advantage when degraded versions had to be classified. 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 same monkeys did recognise the prime images, both masked and unmasked, at the same memory interval at which no priming appeared. 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 | The single significant priming result (the blur-mask experiment) failed to replicate under stronger conditions and is interpreted as a Type I error. 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 | Scrambling the masked images significantly lowered classification accuracy compared with intact masked images. 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 | The classification was based on global form, exactly the kind of process that memory for the intact image should have facilitated. 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 close methodological replication of the only positive nonhuman priming study (in pigeons) produced no priming in monkeys. 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 | The combination of intact recognition with absent facilitation constitutes a dissociation between remembering an image and classifying it. 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 | perceptual priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perceptual priming | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | specific searching image Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: specific searching image | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | perceptual closure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perceptual closure | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accuracy | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | latency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: latency | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | classification accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: classification accuracy | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | latency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: latency | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | image quality (color, grayscale, line drawings) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | category control images Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: category control images | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | six — number of adult male rhesus monkeys tested throughout the study 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 | 288 / 288 — primed and unprimed trials collected per monkey in Experiment 1 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 | 3.1% — the absolute accuracy advantage for primed images in the one experiment that reached significance, later attributed to Type I error 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 | 80% / 81% — the occlusion level required in the pigeon-replication and the accuracy it produced 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 | 98% — the monkeys' accuracy on the cats-versus-cars discrimination by the final training session 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 | t (5) = 0.6, p = .6 — the null test of primed versus unprimed classification accuracy in Experiment 1, typical of the paper's null results 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 | d = 1.9 — effect size for recognition of unmasked primes, the effect that was present while priming was absent 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 |
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.