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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
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 13 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 the activity that sounds evoke in visual cortex is an auditory signal at all, or a low-dimensional signal of internal state and movement 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 | whether that activity has the attributes of a behavioral signal - low dimension, a footprint beyond the cortex, independence from auditory input, and predictability from movement 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 | the sound-evoked activity is one-dimensional, identical in the hippocampal formation, unchanged by cutting the auditory-to-visual fibers, and fully predicted by the small movements the sounds elicit 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 | sound-evoked activity in visual cortex 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 | sounds elicit small uninstructed movements, mainly whisker twitches, which are stereotyped across trials and mice and different for each sound Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | and the movement precedes the neural activity by a few tens of milliseconds, even with no stimulus present 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 subspace of activity predictable from movement during spontaneous behavior overlaps the sound-related subspace far more than the video-related one 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 | and the paper stops short of a direct cause - cortical activity and body movements may both arise from changes in the internal state instead Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The results do not rule out genuine auditory signals reaching visual cortex from auditory cortex. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the negative conclusion about auditory input: OUR FINDINGS DO NOT EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF GENUINE AUDITORY SIGNALS INHERITED BY VISUAL CORTEX FROM AUDITORY CORTEX | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Recordings sampled mainly deep layers, not layer 2/3 where earlier conflicting results were obtained. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison with the earlier conflicting layer 2/3 results: OUR V1 RECORDINGS WERE BIASED TOWARD LAYERS 4-6 | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Auditory projections might affect only a small or low-firing subset of V1 neurons that these recordings missed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same negative conclusion, from the sampling side: IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT AUDITORY PROJECTIONS AFFECT ONLY A MINOR FRACTION OF V1 NEURONS, OR THAT THEY AFFECT NEURONS THAT DO NOT FIRE AT HIGH RATES, AND THAT WE MISSED THESE NEURONS IN OUR RECORDINGS | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Only facial movements were measured and only with linear analyses; other body parts or richer models could predict the neural activity better. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the claim that facial movement predicts the activity well: IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MOVEMENTS OF OTHER BODY PARTS, OR MORE COMPLEX ANALYSES, WOULD PROVIDE EVEN BETTER PREDICTIONS OF THE NEURAL ACTIVITY ELICITED BY SOUNDS | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The behavioral-origin conclusion is scoped to these experiments. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the behavioural-origin conclusion, bounded by the paper itself: THESE RESULTS SUGGEST THAT, AT LEAST IN OUR EXPERIMENTS, THE SOUND-EVOKED ACTIVITY HAD A BEHAVIORAL ORIGIN | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | genuine auditory signals are not excluded - the projections exist and may carry them for other stimuli or contexts, or affect neurons the recordings missed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0], with the anatomy: PROJECTIONS FROM AUDITORY TO VISUAL CORTEX EXIST AND MAY CARRY AUDITORY SIGNALS FOR OTHER stimuli or contexts | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | only facial movements were measured and the analyses are linear, so other body parts or better analyses could predict even more Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the prediction result: ALL THE MOVEMENTS WE MEASURED ARE IN THE FACE, AND OUR ANALYSES ARE LINEAR | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the disagreement with the study that introduced the same cut cannot be settled here, and three method differences are offered instead Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the disagreement with the transectomy study: THE PREVIOUS STUDY WAS CONDUCTED INTRACELLULARLY AND MOSTLY IN LAYERS 2/3, against extracellular recording in layers 4-6 here | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | and the disagreement with the whisking study is likewise attributed to recording method, layer, and an analysis that used a hard threshold where this one estimated a fraction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the comparison with the whisking study, which agrees in part: IN AGREEMENT WITH OUR RESULTS, THIS STUDY FOUND THAT WHISKING EXPLAINS A FRACTION OF THOSE NEURONS' SOUND-EVOKED ACTIVITY | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the low dimension and brain-wide footprint of behavioral signals, used here as a diagnostic signature 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 |
| transfers | the marginalisation that separates video-related from sound-related components 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 | cross-validated principal component analysis, and the contrast with a high-dimensional image code Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | a published fiber atlas, used to estimate what fraction of the projection the cut actually removed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a ridge regression of the auditory PC1 on the motion PCs, run alongside the cross-correlogram Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the AUTOCORRELATION of the two signals as the source of an apparently large cross-correlation - two slow signals correlate at long lags whether or not they are related · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | movement → neural activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. CORRELATION WITH A STATED LEAD-LAG, and no type for it. Auditory PC1 activity correlated with movement during spontaneous behaviour (r = 0.29 +/- 0.03 s.e.), and movement PRECEDED neural activity by a few tens of milliseconds. Recording this as 'causes' in either direction overstates it; recording it as nothing loses a measured result with its direction. Replaces the retracted concept_edges[32], which pointed the other way. | unhoused_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| unhoused_relations | internal state → behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. CO-ORDINATE, NOT CAUSAL. The paper names them as a pair every time - 'low-dimensional changes in internal state and behavior', 'behavioral and state signals have profound effects on sensory areas', 'these behavioral and state signals are low-dimensional and largely orthogonal'. Both are offered as joint explanations of the multisensory signals, and movement is an instance of the behavioural half. No edge type can record that two things occupy the same role. | unhoused_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| unhoused_relations | body movements → multisensory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. THE PAPER'S ACTUAL CLAIM, WHICH THE RETRACTED EDGE INVERTED: stereotyped body movements are elicited by sounds, images and odours, and those movements EXPLAIN neural activity previously interpreted as multisensory. In their own experiments video-evoked responses in hippocampal formation 'could be largely explained by video-evoked body movements'. | unhoused_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| unhoused_relations | sound-evoked activity → hippocampal formation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. THE ACTIVITY RESEMBLES, NOT THE REGIONS: sound-evoked activity in V1 is stereotyped across neurons and mice, independent of auditory-cortex projections, and Quotation withheld - which receives little direct auditory input. The paper's account is that both reflect small stereotyped body movements, so the resemblance is evidence of a COMMON CAUSE and not of any identity between V1 and the hippocampal formation. | unhoused_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | AN APPARENTLY MULTISENSORY SIGNAL EXPLAINED AWAY BY behavior: neural activity that is apparently multisensory MAY SIMPLY ARISE from low-dimensional signals associated with internal state and behavior 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 | and the account being replaced is stated first, with its evidence - suppression by inhibiting auditory cortex, mimicry by stimulating auditory fibers 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 | THE HYPOTHESIS IS TURNED INTO FOUR ADVANCE PREDICTIONS: low dimension, a broad footprint beyond the cortex, independence from auditory input, and predictability from behavior 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 | THREE MODELS, AND THE RANKING IS THE FINDING: one from sound identity alone, one from movement alone, one from both - and the behavioral model performs JUST AS WELL as the full model 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 | with the auditory model's built-in advantage disclosed - it is equivalent to a test-retest prediction and would fit perfectly with infinite trials, so it performs well REGARDLESS of the origin of the activity 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 | THE MANIPULATION WAS CHOSEN FOR WHAT IT DOES NOT DISTURB: silencing or stimulating auditory cortex would interfere with auditory processing and could affect the sound-evoked behavior, so the fibres were cut instead Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | and the control is INSIDE the animal - bilateral recording, the uncut side, the same mouse and the same behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | THREE METHOD DIFFERENCES ENUMERATED WHERE THE RESULT CONTRADICTS THE STUDY THAT INTRODUCED THE SAME CUT: intracellular in layers 2/3 against extracellular in layers 4-6, hours against days after surgery, and anesthetized against awake Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND A THRESHOLD AGAINST A FRACTION: the earlier whisking study used a hard threshold to call a response auditory or movement-related, where this one estimated the fraction explained Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | THE DIMENSIONALITY OF THE RESPONSE IS USED TO CLASSIFY WHAT KIND OF SIGNAL IT IS: four significant components for sounds against seventy-nine for videos, and zero for their interaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | with a between-animal correlation reported against its own within-animal ceiling - 0.34 across mice against a test-retest of 0.44 within them Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | A SELECTION STEP CHECKED AGAINST THE RESULT IT COULD HAVE PRODUCED: the reliability of auditory responses did not correlate with the spike-contamination score, and if anything went the other way Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | A WHOLE LITERATURE'S CONTROLS DECLARED INADEQUATE: distinguishing auditory signals from state and behavior requires careful and systematic controls, WHICH ARE RARELY PERFORMED in passively listening mice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | and the correlation is not claimed as causation - cortical activity and body movements may BOTH arise from changes in the internal state Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | with the same suspicion extended outward - stereotyped movements are elicited by images and odors too, so other multisensory findings may have the same origin Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: critique 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: mechanism — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | method: three encoding models fitted to the same responses - one from sound identity alone, one from measured movement alone, one from both - with the ranking of their predictions as the result 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: activity evoked by sounds in visual cortex, previously read as multisensory integration 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: sound-evoked activity in visual cortex — 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 → studies ascribing sound-evoked V1 activity to direct input from auditory cortex 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 → the original study that introduced the auditory-to-visual transectomy 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 → the study of whisking contributions to sound-evoked activity in layer 1 V1 neurons 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 | reinterprets → sound-evoked activity in visual cortex, as a signal of movement and internal state rather than an auditory input 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 | contradicts → the study that introduced the transectomy and found the activity abolished, with three method differences named Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: the recording mode and the layer: THE PREVIOUS STUDY WAS CONDUCTED INTRACELLULARLY AND MOSTLY IN LAYERS 2/3 (WHERE SOUNDS HYPERPOLARIZED CELLS, UNLIKE IN OTHER LAYERS WHERE SOUNDS INCREASED SPIKING), WHEREAS WE RECORDED EXTRACELLULARLY MAINLY IN LAYERS 4-6 | claim_relations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → an earlier report that whisking explains only a fraction of sound-evoked activity, by pointing at its hard threshold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: the recording technique: THIS DISCREPANCY COULD BE DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN RECORDING METHODS (TWO-PHOTON IMAGING VERSUS ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY), on a point where the two studies otherwise agree | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | confirms → the reported low dimension and brain-wide footprint of movement-related activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | generalises → the behavioural explanation to other multisensory findings, since images and odors also elicit stereotyped movements Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[7] | 0.7 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the controls used in passively listening mice, as rarely systematic enough to separate auditory from behavioral signals Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: which movements were controlled for: SOME STUDIES HAVE CONTROLLED FOR EYE MOVEMENTS OR FOR OVERT BEHAVIORS SUCH AS LICKING. HOWEVER, EVEN THESE STUDIES MAY HAVE OVERLOOKED THE TYPES OF MOVEMENT THAT WE OBSERVED | claim_relations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | multisensory —distinct-from→ internal state Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: AN APPARENTLY MULTISENSORY SIGNAL EXPLAINED AWAY: it MAY SIMPLY ARISE from low-dimensional signals associated with internal state and behavior
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span offers internal state as an alternative explanation of multisensory signals; distinct-from is loose. also in: multisensory · internal state | concept_edges[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | sound —causes→ V1 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 says V1 is influenced by sounds; causes 'V1' names a region, not an effect. | concept_edges[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | low-dimensional —contrasted-with→ high-dimensional 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: low-dimensional · high-dimensional | concept_edges[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | behavior —causes→ multisensory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: the alternative offered explicitly as an alternative EXPLANATION, before any of its own data
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span offers behaviour as an alternative explanation; causes is loose. also in: behavior · multisensory | concept_edges[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | video —contrasted-with→ sound Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: separated by a marginalisation borrowed from factorial analysis of variance, each averaged over the other and referred to the grand mean
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span decomposes responses into visual and auditory components; contrasted-with is loose. | concept_edges[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | cvPCA —operationalised-as→ PC1 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 PC1 is the first component FOUND BY cvPCA; operationalised-as is loose. | concept_edges[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | intracellular —contrasted-with→ extracellular 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 notes the earlier study was intracellular; the contrast is implied. also in: intracellular · extracellular | concept_edges[27] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | whisker —is-a→ movement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: subtle whisker twitches, quantified as the first component of facial motion energy
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span images whisker and body movements; is-a is loose. | concept_edges[28] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | auditory model —contrasted-with→ behavioral model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHETHER THE MODEL CAN DISCRIMINATE THE ORIGIN OF THE ACTIVITY. 'THE FIRST WAS A purely auditory model where the time course of neural activity depends only on sound identity. This model is EQUIVALENT TO A TEST-RETEST PREDICTION, so it will perform well regardless of the origin of sound-evoked activity.' A model that cannot fail is not evidence, and the authors say so about their own first model before using the others. Same shape as a row of Desimone1996 in this same batch. · strength of the relation: 1 · note: AND THE AUDITORY MODEL'S BUILT-IN ADVANTAGE IS DISCLOSED: it is equivalent to a test-retest prediction and would fit perfectly with infinite trials, so it performs well REGARDLESS of the origin of the activity also in: auditory model · behavioral model | concept_edges[34] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | pupil —part-of→ behavioral model 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 pupil is one input to the behavioural model; part-of is loose. also in: pupil · behavioral model | concept_edges[36] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | sound —distinct-from→ behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS NECESSITY VERSUS SUFFICIENCY FOR PREDICTING THE ACTIVITY. 'Quotation withheld' The two are separated not by what they are but by their standing in one prediction, and the paper's title claim rests entirely on that asymmetry. · strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says the sounds were unnecessary and the movements sufficient to predict V1 activity; distinct-from is loose. | concept_edges[38] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | movement —distinct-from→ internal state 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: THE CORRELATION IS NOT CLAIMED AS CAUSATION: cortical activity and body movements may BOTH arise from changes in internal state, which also covers the anesthetized case where movement is impossible
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says movement and cortical activity may both arise from internal state; distinct-from is loose. also in: movement · internal state | concept_edges[46] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | V1 —same-as→ visual cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: used interchangeably throughout, with the recording sites pooled under the second name also in: V1 · visual cortex | concept_edges[55] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Wilcoxon signed-rank test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon signed-rank test | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | principal component analysis (cross-validated) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ridge regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ridge regression | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | reduced-rank regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reduced-rank regression | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cross-validation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cross-validation | content_tags.statistics[4] | 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[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | permutation/shuffling test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: permutation/shuffling test | content_tags.statistics[6] | 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[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Fisher z-transformation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Fisher z-transformation | content_tags.statistics[8] | 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[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Wilcoxon right-tailed signed rank test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | reduced-rank regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reduced-rank regression | content_tags.statistics[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | cross-validated Principal Component Analysis 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 | shuffling method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: shuffling method | content_tags.statistics[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The population activity that sounds evoke in mouse V1 is so stereotyped across neurons that it is essentially one-dimensional. 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 | Sound-evoked activity in the hippocampal formation is remarkably similar to that in visual cortex. 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 sound-evoked activity in visual cortex in these experiments cannot be explained by direct inputs from auditory cortex. 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 | A model using only sound-elicited body movements predicted sound-evoked V1 activity as well as a model that also had access to sound identity. 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 sound-elicited movements lead the neural activity in time, consistent with movement (or the state driving it) preceding the cortical signal. 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 | Sounds evoked small but highly reproducible uninstructed body movements that differed between sounds. 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 population response showed no significant components for interactions between videos and sounds. 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 | AN APPARENTLY MULTISENSORY SIGNAL EXPLAINED AWAY BY behavior: it MAY SIMPLY ARISE from low-dimensional signals of internal state and behavior 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 | with the account being replaced stated first, including its evidence from silencing and from stimulating auditory fibers 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 alternative is offered explicitly as an alternative explanation, before any of the paper's own data 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 | THE HYPOTHESIS IS TURNED INTO FOUR ADVANCE PREDICTIONS: low dimension, a footprint beyond cortex, independence from auditory input, predictability from behavior 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 all four are then reported as met, in the order they were stated 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 | video and sound components are separated by a marginalisation borrowed from factorial analysis of variance 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 | sound identity is decodable from single trials at 18% against a chance of one in twelve, and video identity at 95% 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 sound-evoked activity is essentially ONE-DIMENSIONAL, one component carrying 55% of the sound-related variance 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 | A BETWEEN-ANIMAL CORRELATION REPORTED AGAINST ITS OWN WITHIN-ANIMAL CEILING: 0.34 across mice against a test-retest of 0.44 within them 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 | while the video-evoked activity is larger and much higher dimensional 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 same probe reached the hippocampal formation, which receives little input from auditory cortex or thalamus 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 | and the sound-evoked activity there is hardly distinguishable from the one in visual cortex, r = 0.82 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 | with the prediction stated before the result - IF the activity comes from auditory cortex it SHOULD BE DRASTICALLY REDUCED on the cut side Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE CENTRAL NULL: identical to the opposite hemisphere at r = 0.9 and to intact controls, with cross-correlation peaking at zero delay Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[20] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE MANIPULATION WAS CHOSEN FOR WHAT IT DOES NOT DISTURB: silencing or stimulating would interfere with auditory processing and could change the behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[21] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THREE METHOD DIFFERENCES against the study that introduced the transectomy: the previous study was conducted intracellularly and mostly in layers 2/3 where sounds hyperpolarized cells, performed recordings hours after the transectomy, and anesthetized the mice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[22] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | sounds evoke small uninstructed movements, mainly whisker twitches, stereotyped across trials and mice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[23] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | and sound identity decodes from the face at 16%, not significantly different from the 18% from the neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[24] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the two time courses correlate at r = 0.75, and the mice that moved more consistently carried more sound information in V1 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[25] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the coupling survives with no stimulus at all, and the MOVEMENT PRECEDES the activity by a few tens of milliseconds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[26] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the movement subspace, defined during the no-stimulus period, explains 75% of the sound-related variance and only 35% of the video-related Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[27] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND THE AUDITORY MODEL'S BUILT-IN ADVANTAGE IS DISCLOSED: it is a test-retest prediction and would fit perfectly with infinite trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[28] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THREE MODELS AND THE RANKING IS THE FINDING: the behavioral model performs just as well as the full model, so the sounds themselves were unnecessary Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[29] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE CONTROL THAT MAKES THE CLAIM SPECIFIC: a purely visual model explains the video-evoked activity where the behavioral one does not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[30] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | and the trial-to-trial variation is captured too, which the auditory model cannot do BY DEFINITION Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[31] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the conclusion is stated with its scope - AT LEAST IN OUR EXPERIMENTS, the activity had a behavioral origin Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[32] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND THE NULL IS BOUNDED THREE WAYS: other stimuli, other contexts, or low-firing neurons the recordings missed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[33] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A WHOLE LITERATURE'S CONTROLS DECLARED INADEQUATE: the necessary controls ARE RARELY PERFORMED in passively listening mice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[34] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A THRESHOLD AGAINST A FRACTION: the earlier whisking study used a hard threshold where this one estimated the fraction explained Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[35] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE CORRELATION IS NOT CLAIMED AS CAUSATION: activity and movement may BOTH arise from changes in internal state Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[36] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | and the suspicion is extended outward - images and odors elicit stereotyped movements too Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[37] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | with the limitation running in the direction that would STRENGTHEN the claim - only facial movements, only linear analyses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[38] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A SELECTION STEP CHECKED AGAINST THE RESULT IT COULD HAVE PRODUCED: the contamination score did not correlate with response reliability, and if anything went the other way Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[39] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE DIMENSIONALITY CLASSIFIES THE SIGNAL: 79 significant components for videos, 4 for sounds, ZERO for their interaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[40] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | with components found on one half of the data and their reliability measured on the other Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[41] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the extent of the cut was estimated by overlaying tractography from the Allen connectivity atlas on the reconstructed cut Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[42] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | and the mice were habituated to the rig but NOT to the specific stimuli before the experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[43] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | with the recording areas pooled under one name after checking that the exact location did not affect the results Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[44] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | auditory PC1 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: auditory PC1 | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | dimensionality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dimensionality | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | behavioral subspace Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioral subspace | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | body motion variables Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: body motion variables | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cvPCA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cvPCA | content_tags.definitions[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | subspace Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subspace | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | auditory model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: auditory model | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | behavioral model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioral model | content_tags.definitions[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | dimension Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dimension | content_tags.definitions[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | transectomy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: transectomy | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | binned firing rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: binned firing rate | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | body movements Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: body movements | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | decoding accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: decoding accuracy | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | dimension Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dimension | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | variance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: variance | content_tags.variables[8] | 1.0 | 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.variables[9] | 1.0 | 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.variables[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 55% — share of the cross-validated sound-related variance in V1 explained by the first principal component of sound-related activity 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 | 18 ± 2% — single-trial accuracy of decoding which sound was played from marginalized V1 population activity (chance = 1/12) 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 | 16 ± 2% — accuracy of decoding sound identity from facial motion components alone, statistically indistinguishable from decoding it from V1 activity 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 | r = 0.82 — correlation between the auditory PC1 time courses measured in visual cortex and in the hippocampal formation 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 ± 3% — fraction of sound-related variance explained by the first four components of the movement-related subspace defined during stimulus-free periods 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 | 79 — average number of significant cvPCA components for video-related activity, versus four for sound-related activity 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 | four — average number of significant cvPCA dimensions carrying sound-related variance in V1 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 | >3.6 — estimated factor by which the transectomy reduced auditory-cortical input to the visual areas on the cut side relative to the intact side 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 | 640 — number of single cells recorded in primary visual cortex across eight mice (plus 233 in hippocampal formation) 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 | 0.39 — correlation between trial-by-trial fluctuations of V1 auditory PC1 and their cross-validated prediction from movement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 0.34 — the correlation of the sound-evoked component across different mice, reported against its own within-mouse test-retest ceiling of 0.44 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 | 18 ± 2% — sound decoding accuracy from V1 neurons against a chance of one in twelve, and against 16% from the face alone 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 | r = 0.82 — the correlation between the sound-evoked components of visual cortex and hippocampal formation - two regions with very different auditory input 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 | 75 ± 3% — the sound-related variance explained by a subspace defined entirely from movement during the no-stimulus period, against 35% of the video-related variance 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 | zero significant components — the audiovisual interaction term - a reported null that removes the simplest form of multisensory integration 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 |
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.