Disentangling perceptual awareness from nonconscious processing in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta)

Ben-Haim, Dal Monte, Fagan, Dunham, Hassin, Chang, Santos · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021 · psychology · 10.1073/pnas.2017543118 · record Ben-Haim2021-disentangling-perceptual-awareness-from-nonc
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (html); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim relations is deliberately EMPTY: this PNAS article uses numeric citations throughout, so although it positions itself against prior work ('To date, no one has explored if similar performance dissociations exist in a nonhuman species.'), no prior study is named in the article text and recording a target would require importing knowledge from outside the paper (rules 2 and 7). Replication status = replicated on the strength of the paper's own statement that Experiments 3 and 4 replicate Experiments 1 and 2 in a different paradigm; this is internal replication, not external. Overall claim is also anchored by: 'Quotation withheld' 2026-08-12 and 2026-08-15 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

4 quotations on this page contain a reference number where the paper printed a superscript. This journal style prints citations as raised numerals — parameters^12,13 — and the extraction flattened them into the line, so the sentence reads parameters 12 , 13 . The digits are citation markers and not part of what the author wrote. The quotes keep them for the same reason they keep every other extraction fault: a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in 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.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
statistical-significance 2 fields · theory of mind 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 9 concept tags on this paper, all 9 are grounded in a quoted sentence. All carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

double dissociation single dissociations subliminal supraliminal nonconscious processing visual awareness spatial-cueing paradigm explanatory gap theory of mind Subliminal cues capture gaze toward the cued (wrong) side and, without awareness, the subject cannot disengage before target onset, so the eyes are still at the wrong location when the target appears and the response is slowed Conscious access to the cue lets the subject deploy a deliberate strategy that redirects gaze to the opposite location before the target appears, converting the same cue from interference into facilitation Because the two conditions push performance in opposite directions, the cross-over pattern itself is what separates aware from unaware processing in a nonverbal subject a subliminal cue cannot be disengaged from, so it drags attention the wrong way; a supraliminal one can be reasoned about, so it helps - the two pull in opposite directions the design's force comes from predicting the REVERSE of what salience alone would predict, so a confound cannot produce the result only two processing modes can produce two opposite signatures, so the crossing itself is the inference - not either half of it rhesus monkeys forced-guessing paradigm cross-over double dissociation supraliminal stimuli subliminal stimuli response time gaze frequency linear mixed model linear mixed models F-test correlation binomial test individuals’ binomial test’s P values chi-squared test standard error of the mean SEM of monkey trials mean and standard deviation learning-slope correlation anova statistical-significance binomial-test behavioural-experiment

Legend

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
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
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

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017543118. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

alternatives 2 · claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 4 · concepts 9 · content_tags 41 · contribution 1 · controls 1 · limitations 6 · mechanisms 6 · method 1 · object_of_study 1 · phenomenon 1 · research_question 1 · senses 4 · transfers 2

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
object_of_study	Whether rhesus monkeys show the opposite performance signatures that in humans distinguish conscious from nonconscious processing. 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	Since a nonverbal animal cannot report what it is aware of, is there any behavioural test that can tell conscious from nonconscious processing in one? 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	Turns a human double dissociation into a nonverbal test of awareness, and finds the same opposite signatures in monkeys - which is evidence for two distinct processing modes without requiring a report. 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	existence 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	double dissociation of visual awareness in nonhuman primates 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. also in: Subliminal cues capture gaze toward the cued (wrong) side and, without awareness, the subject cannot disengage before target onset, so the eyes are still at the wrong location when the target appears and the response is slowed	`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. also in: Conscious access to the cue lets the subject deploy a deliberate strategy that redirects gaze to the opposite location before the target appears, converting the same cue from interference into facilitation	`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. also in: Because the two conditions push performance in opposite directions, the cross-over pattern itself is what separates aware from unaware processing in a nonverbal subject	`mechanisms[2]`		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. also in: a subliminal cue cannot be disengaged from, so it drags attention the wrong way; a supraliminal one can be reasoned about, so it helps - the two pull in opposite directions	`mechanisms[3]`	0.9	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. also in: the design's force comes from predicting the REVERSE of what salience alone would predict, so a confound cannot produce the result	`mechanisms[4]`	1.0	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. also in: only two processing modes can produce two opposite signatures, so the crossing itself is the inference - not either half of it	`mechanisms[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	Awareness in monkeys could not be probed verbally, so the inference rests on the behavioural pattern alone. 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	No subjective reports were collected from the monkeys; the subliminal thresholds were imported from the human procedure. 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 nonconscious effect may arise from low-level attentional orienting or residual visual traces rather than from a richer nonconscious process. 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
limitations	The inference rests on a behavioural signature, not on any access to experience - the explanatory gap the paper cites is not closed by it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[3]`	0.8	the tagger's words
limitations	Awareness of the subliminal cue is established by self-report and a forced-choice test, both of which are null results rather than proof of absence. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[4]`	0.9	the tagger's words
limitations	The whole approach assumes the human dissociation transfers to another species; before this paper there was no evidence it does. 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
transfers	They take the cross-over double-dissociation marker of nonconscious processing, developed and validated only in verbal human subjects, and transplant it into nonhuman-primate comparative research as a nonverbal test for awareness 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
transfers	the cross-over double dissociation of visual awareness, rebuilt as a nonverbal saccade task so that it can be run on a species that cannot be asked what it saw 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
controls	two NONPREDICTIVE cues, presented in both the supraliminal and the subliminal conditions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the mere presence of a cue as the explanation - if performance improved whenever any cue appeared, the effect would be arousal or alerting rather than the spatial information the cue carries · outcome: held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concepts	double dissociation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: double dissociation	`concepts[0]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	single dissociations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: single dissociations	`concepts[1]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	subliminal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal	`concepts[2]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	supraliminal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: supraliminal	`concepts[3]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	nonconscious processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: nonconscious processing	`concepts[4]`	0.85	the paper's words
concepts	visual awareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: visual awareness	`concepts[5]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	spatial-cueing paradigm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spatial-cueing paradigm	`concepts[6]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	explanatory gap Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explanatory gap	`concepts[7]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	theory of mind Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: theory of mind	`concepts[8]`	1.0	the paper's words
senses	awareness - the reportable kind, defined operationally by what a subject says it saw and by a forced-choice test at chance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	0.9	the tagger's words
senses	awareness - the behavioural kind, defined by a crossing of two opposite performance signatures and requiring no report at all 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	consciousness - the demanding sense requiring language or theory of mind, which would confine it to humans and a few great apes 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	consciousness - the neuroanatomical sense, on which birds and octopuses may qualify 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: existence 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: existence — 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	phenomenon: cross-over double dissociation between conscious and nonconscious visual 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: double dissociation of visual awareness in nonhuman primates — 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	extends → the single-dissociation literature on animal awareness (blindsight analogues, implicit/explicit memory, binocular rivalry) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → the position that consciousness requires language or a human-like theory of mind Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`	0.8	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → the spatial-cueing paradigm ( 37 - 40 ) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	visual awareness —operationalised-as→ double dissociation 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 the double-dissociation framework is USED TO disentangle conscious from nonconscious processing; operationalised-as is loose. also in: visual awareness · double dissociation	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	subliminal —contrasted-with→ supraliminal 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: subliminal · supraliminal	`concept_edges[1]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	visual awareness —distinct-from→ nonconscious processing 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 the span writes 'conscious' and 'nonconscious processing' / 'aware', not 'visual awareness'. also in: visual awareness · nonconscious processing	`concept_edges[2]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	nonconscious processing —operationalised-as→ subliminal 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 subliminal cueing is the method for nonconscious processing; operationalised-as is loose. also in: nonconscious processing · subliminal	`concept_edges[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	linear mixed model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: linear mixed model	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	F-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: F-test	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	binomial test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: binomial test	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	chi-squared test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-squared test	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	chi-squared test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-squared test	`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	mean and standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean and standard deviation	`content_tags.statistics[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	learning-slope correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: learning-slope correlation	`content_tags.statistics[8]`		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[9]`	1.0	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[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	binomial-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: binomial-test	`content_tags.statistics[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	Subliminal incongruent cues slowed human target detection relative to baseline even though participants reported and tested as unaware of them, establishing nonconscious processing. 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	Rhesus monkeys in the subliminal condition were significantly slower to detect the target than in the baseline with two nonpredictive subliminal cues. 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	Like the human participants, the monkeys failed to ignore the subliminal cues and showed no signs of learning. 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	Supraliminal-condition participants who reported no awareness of the cue's predictive value were not faster than baseline (324 ms against 312 ms). 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	Cue awareness, not cue saliency (the cue stayed hard to see at 33 ms), appears to be the critical factor in performance. 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	Performance stayed significantly below chance on trials where participants reported no awareness of the cue's location. 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	Rhesus monkeys show a double-dissociation pattern remarkably similar to that of humans. 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	Humans are much faster with a visible incongruent cue than with an invisible one - the conscious condition helps. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	The same cue presented invisibly does the opposite: participants who saw nothing were nevertheless slowed relative to baseline. 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 double-dissociation signatures were first established in humans across seven experiments and then found in similar form in rhesus monkeys. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[9]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	Earlier work established only single dissociations, which show animals have properties resembling conscious or nonconscious processing without separating the two. 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	spatial-cueing paradigm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spatial-cueing paradigm	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	forced-guessing paradigm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: forced-guessing paradigm	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	cross-over double dissociation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cross-over double dissociation	`content_tags.definitions[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	supraliminal stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: supraliminal stimuli	`content_tags.definitions[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	subliminal stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal stimuli	`content_tags.definitions[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	response time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response time	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	gaze frequency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: gaze frequency	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	mean = 43.5% correct, P = 0.00018 — Monkeys' below-chance accuracy in the subliminal forced-guessing condition and its combined binomial probability 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	42% versus 25% — Share of human participants falling in the lowest binomial p-value quartile versus the share expected by chance 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	94.6% correct, SD = 3.7% — Human accuracy in the supraliminal forced-guessing condition (eye-tracking modality) 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	4 monkeys, 145 humans — Total subjects across the seven experiments 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	75% — Participants who became aware of the cues and used them when only 20% of trials carried a supraliminal cue 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	250 ms versus 17/33 ms — Cue exposure durations defining the supraliminal and subliminal conditions 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	1.2% — Human error rate, which did not differ between supraliminal and subliminal conditions 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	50% — Chance level in the forced-guessing task, above which performance requires using the incongruent cue 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	250 ms vs 17/33 ms — supraliminal versus subliminal cue durations - the manipulation the whole design turns on 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	seven experiments — size of the series, humans then monkeys 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	200 ms fixation — gaze hold required to register a response, the nonverbal substitute for a button press 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

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located 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.