Posterior parietal cortex: An interface between attention and learning?

Bucci · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · 2009 · neuroscience · 10.1016/j.nlm.2008.07.004 · record Bucci2009-posterior-parietal-cortex-an-interface-betwe
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (xml); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim type is 'mechanism' because the review's own contribution is a proposed functional account (PPC links attentional change to subsequent learning), not merely a summary; a 'critique' reading is also available since much of the article is the case against rat-primate functional homology. Replication status is 'contested' on the paper's own words: 'However, mixed results have often been obtained and the particular contribution of the rat PPC to behavior remains unclear.' Only one claim_relation was recordable: as a review of others' experiments it mostly reports prior findings rather than positioning itself against them, and the sentence quoted is the one place where its own interpretation is explicitly tied to named studies. 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.

This record’s own method is review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. 2 tags on this page name the author the result belongs to. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

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
working memory 4 fields · sustained attention 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 17 concept tags on this paper, none is 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.

posterior parietal cortex PPC functional homology contralateral sensory neglect covert orienting extradimensional shift intradimensional shift sustained attention working memory fibers of passage postrhinal cortex perirhinal cortex cholinergic input central nucleus of the amygdala unconditioned orienting conditioned orienting prefrontal cortex PPC serves as the link that converts an increase in attention to a stimulus whose meaning has changed into enhanced subsequent associative learning PPC damage leaves orienting (the attentional response) intact but blocks the translation of that attentional change into learning PPC output travels through postrhinal, entorhinal and perirhinal cortex to the hippocampus, giving an anatomical route by which parietal processing shapes learning PPC is recruited specifically when a stimulus loses its predictive validity, which is why it is needed for extradimensional shifts but not for well-learned monitoring contralateral neglect cholinergic central nucleus Pearce immediate-early gene neurotoxic aspiration five-choice serial reaction time task set-shifting bregma retrosplenial neglect covert orienting of attention Pearce-Hall theory boundaries of PPC reaction time immediate-early gene expression review

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
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
contribution	`contribution`	what the paper claims to add
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/10.1016/j.nlm.2008.07.004. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

alternatives 3 · claim_relations 7 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 3 · content_tags 29 · contribution 1 · limitations 12 · mechanisms 11 · method 1 · object_of_study 1 · phenomenon 1 · research_question 1 · senses 5 · transfers 3

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 3 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
object_of_study	the rat posterior parietal cortex and what it contributes to attention and working memory 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 the rat PPC is functionally homologous to the primate PPC, and why the behavioural literature disagrees with itself 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	reconciles a contradictory literature by sorting studies according to whether their lesions respected the current definition of PPC and what the task actually demanded, and proposes PPC as an interface between attention and learning 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	posterior parietal cortex function in attention and working memory in rats 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	review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review	`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: PPC serves as the link that converts an increase in attention to a stimulus whose meaning has changed into enhanced subsequent associative learning	`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: PPC damage leaves orienting (the attentional response) intact but blocks the translation of that attentional change into learning	`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: PPC output travels through postrhinal, entorhinal and perirhinal cortex to the hippocampus, giving an anatomical route by which parietal processing shapes learning	`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: PPC is recruited specifically when a stimulus loses its predictive validity, which is why it is needed for extradimensional shifts but not for well-learned monitoring	`mechanisms[3]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	PPC is proposed to link attentional change to associative learning: lesioned rats orient normally to a cue whose meaning changed but cannot convert that into learning 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	the anatomical route is PPC to postrhinal cortex to medial entorhinal cortex, perirhinal cortex and hippocampus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	Pearce-Hall: a stimulus captures attention when its meaning surprisingly changes, which then enhances learning about it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	removing cholinergic input to PPC impairs learning only in the Surprise condition, leaving the Consistent condition intact Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	a double dissociation: the same cholinergic lesion kills surprise-induced learning but leaves five-choice serial reaction time performance untouched Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	immediate-early gene expression rises in PPC when the predictive relationship between stimuli is violated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	the proposed split: PPC is not needed for attention that guides a well-learned task, but is needed when a stimulus changes meaning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	Because the anatomical definition of PPC has varied across studies, results cannot be compared cleanly and firm functional conclusions are hard to draw. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison across the PPC literature: THE REGIONAL BOUNDARIES OF PPC HAVE VARIED ACROSS STUDIES, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO COMPARE RESULTS AND FURTHER COMPLICATING ATTEMPTS TO DRAW FIRM CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE FUNCTION OF PPC IN RATS	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Any verdict on rat-primate functional homology for attention is premature given how few studies restricted damage to PPC as currently defined. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the rat-primate homology verdict for attention: DRAWING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE FUNCTIONAL HOMOLOGY (OR LACK THEREOF) BETWEEN THE RAT AND PRIMATE PPC WITH REGARD TO ATTENTION MAY BE PREMATURE	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The evidence base is almost entirely lesion/inactivation work, with very little electrophysiological recording during attentional manipulations. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim about PPC activity during attention: THERE IS A PAUCITY OF ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL STUDIES INVESTIGATING NEURAL ACTIVITY IN PPC DURING ATTENTIONAL MANIPULATIONS	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The review deliberately excludes the spatial learning and navigation literature on PPC. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: spatial learning and navigation, excluded by the review: STUDIES INVOLVING SPATIAL LEARNING AND NAVIGATION WILL NOT BE INCLUDED SINCE THEY ARE THE TOPIC OF SEVERAL OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE	`limitations[3]`		the tagger's words
limitations	the regional boundaries of PPC have varied across studies, which the review states makes results incomparable 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] - cross-study comparison, defeated by a moving boundary	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	aspiration and electrolytic lesions cannot separate damage to an area from destruction of fibres of passage Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: attributing a function to the AREA rather than to what runs through it: THE ASPIRATION AND ELECTROLYTIC TECHNIQUES USED IN THESE STUDIES PREVENT A FUNCTIONAL ROLE FROM BEING ASCRIBED TO A SPECIFIC CORTICAL AREA DISTINCT FROM DESTRUCTION OF FIBERS OF PASSAGE	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	many of the informative lesions were not restricted to PPC, so their effects could have come from outside it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the neglect and inattention findings: THOSE STUDIES DID NOT RESTRICT DAMAGE TO PPC AS IT IS CURRENTLY DEFINED, so the symptoms need not come from PPC	`limitations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the rat cannot fixate a central point, so the covert-attention task had to be rebuilt and may not measure the same thing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the rat covert-attention task: EYE MOVEMENT IS ALSO UNRESTRICTED DURING THE PROCEDURE AND RAISES THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE SAME COVERT ATTENTIONAL MECHANISMS ARE BEING MEASURED	`limitations[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	a negative homology result may be a failed task translation rather than a real species difference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the negative homology result: ALTHOUGH THE CURRENT DATA MAY INDICATE THAT THE RAT AND PRIMATE PPC DO NOT HAVE SIMILAR ROLES IN COVERT ATTENTIONAL ORIENTING, IT SEEMS HIGHLY LIKELY THAT THE PROCEDURES USED WITH HUMANS AND MONKEY WERE NOT COMPARABLE	`limitations[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	activity in PPC does not establish that PPC is necessary for the task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: necessity claims: ACTIVITY IN PPC DOES NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE THAT THE REGION IS ESSENTIAL FOR TASK PERFORMANCE	`limitations[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	there is a paucity of electrophysiological studies of PPC during attentional manipulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[2] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[2] - the recording literature that would settle it does not exist	`limitations[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the proposed subregions of rat PPC are treated as one area because no functional differences have been described Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the treatment of rat PPC as a single area: RECENT STUDIES HAVE BEGUN TO PARCEL THE RAT PPC INTO SUBREGIONS BASED PRIMARILY ON CYTOARCHITECTURAL AND HISTOCHEMICAL DIFFERENCES, and to date few functional differences have been described	`limitations[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	Posner's covert orienting paradigm, rebuilt for rats - the transfer this review argues may have failed in translation 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 Wisconsin Card Sorting task, transferred as a rodent perceptual set-shifting procedure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[1]`	0.85	the tagger's words
transfers	the Pearce-Hall account of attention as driven by violated prediction, used as the framework for interpreting lesion effects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	PPC in rats is defined by thalamic and cortical connectivity plus cytoarchitecture, NOT by function - and the review says the definition changed, earlier studies having used a larger area 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	attention is split by this review into two senses with different substrates: attention directing performance on a well-learned task (frontal), and attention engaged when a stimulus changes meaning (parietal) 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	covert orienting cannot mean the same thing in rat and primate, because the rat version permits eye movement and requires a nosepoke instead of fixation 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	neglect is characterised as an attentional deficit rather than a sensory one, because it occurs without sensory or motor loss and across modalities 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	functional homology is treated as an open empirical question distinct from anatomical homology, which is granted 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
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: narrative review, triaging behavioural studies by lesion extent relative to the connectivity-based definition of PPC and by task demand 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: review — 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: attention and its effect on associative learning 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: posterior parietal cortex function in attention and working memory in rats — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.phenomenon`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Bucci & Chess, 2005; Bucci et al., 1998; Maddux et al., 2007 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	qualifies → reports of contralateral neglect after posterior cortical lesions in rats Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	reconciles → the contradictory literature on rat PPC and attention, by task demand 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
claim_relations	qualifies → the inference that rat and primate PPC differ functionally in covert orienting 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	supports → a role for PPC in attention required when a stimulus changes meaning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → a significant role for rat PPC in working memory, particularly non-spatial Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	distinguishes-from → the central nucleus of the amygdala, which affects conditioned orienting where PPC does not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHICH KIND OF ORIENTING, AND THE TWO STRUCTURES ARE ALIKE ON ONE AND DIFFER ON THE OTHER. 'Like PPC-lesioned rats, those with central nucleus damage exhibited normal unconditioned orienting. However, RE-EMERGENCE OF THE CONDITIONED ORIENTING RESPONSE FOLLOWING REINFORCEMENT WAS IMPAIRED IN CENTRAL NUCLEUS LESIONED RATS, BUT NOT PPC-LESIONED RATS.' A study measuring only unconditioned orienting would find the two lesions equivalent.	`claim_relations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	PPC —distinct-from→ prefrontal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: a dissociation by task type: attention guiding a well-learned task depends on frontal systems, not PPC Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says this type of attention depends on FRONTAL systems, in contrast to PPC by implication; distinct-from is implied, not stated. also in: PPC · prefrontal cortex	`concept_edges[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	PPC —distinct-from→ central nucleus of the amygdala Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: same pathway, different roles - conditioned orienting is impaired by one and not the other Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'central nucleus' = central nucleus of the amygdala (previous sentence). also in: PPC · central nucleus of the amygdala	`concept_edges[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	extradimensional shift —contrasted-with→ intradimensional shift 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: RE-GROUNDS another row of this record: the relation was always stated, the endpoint names were not in the span. also in: extradimensional shift · intradimensional shift	`concept_edges[4]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	Reviewing the rat literature, the author concludes that current evidence does not establish that rat PPC serves the same attentional or working-memory functions as primate PPC. 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 available data suggest PPC may not be critical for sustained attention. 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	Most studies of a PPC role in rat working memory, especially in non-spatial tasks, found null results. 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	PPC lesions left orienting responses to a light intact, indicating no deficit in this overt form of attention. 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	By contrast, PPC lesions selectively worsened learning after an extradimensional shift while sparing intradimensional 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	Removing cholinergic input to PPC selectively impaired learning in the surprise group. 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	Immediate-early gene expression rose in PPC specifically when the predictive relationship between stimuli was violated, showing increased PPC activity during attentional change. 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	the regional boundaries of PPC have varied across studies, making results hard to compare 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	lesions restricted to PPC gave no evidence of somatosensory neglect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: Ward and Brown (1997) found - THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS ROW ATTRIBUTES THE WORK TO SOMEBODY ELSE. The cited name is the subject of a result verb and the sentence carries no first-person marker, so the finding, quantity or definition is the CITED author's rather than this record's. The claim is true and the quote is verbatim - what is wrong is whose result the corpus says it is. Nothing edited, nothing withdrawn: the row is marked so a page can name the source. Where the record is a commentary or review, its claim relations layer usually already names the paper being discussed - the record knows at one layer and forgets at another.	`content_tags.findings[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the two null-result studies defined PPC differently, so the nulls are unlikely to reflect insufficient damage 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	PPC damage impaired discrimination after an extradimensional shift, suggesting a role in attention when a stimulus's meaning changes 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	cholinergic denervation of PPC removed surprise-induced learning enhancement but not consistent-condition learning 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	most studies of rat PPC in working memory produced null results 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	inactivating PPC mattered only when the task required working memory together with long-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: The authors found - THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS ROW ATTRIBUTES THE WORK TO SOMEBODY ELSE. The cited name is the subject of a result verb and the sentence carries no first-person marker, so the finding, quantity or definition is the CITED author's rather than this record's. The claim is true and the quote is verbatim - what is wrong is whose result the corpus says it is. Nothing edited, nothing withdrawn: the row is marked so a page can name the source. Where the record is a commentary or review, its claim relations layer usually already names the paper being discussed - the record knows at one layer and forgets at another.	`content_tags.findings[13]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	rat and primate PPC share very similar connectivity, yet the functional data do not fully support a similar role 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	PPC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: PPC	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	contralateral sensory neglect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contralateral sensory neglect	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	neglect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: neglect	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	covert orienting of attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: covert orienting of attention	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	extradimensional shift Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: extradimensional shift	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	unconditioned orienting Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: unconditioned orienting	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Pearce-Hall theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Pearce-Hall theory	`content_tags.definitions[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	boundaries of PPC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: boundaries of PPC	`content_tags.definitions[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	contralateral neglect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contralateral neglect	`content_tags.definitions[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	reaction time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reaction time	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	3.5 to 5.0 mm posterior to bregma and 1.0 to 5.0 mm lateral — Stereotaxic boundaries of the rat posterior parietal cortex as the review defines it, on which the whole comparison of studies rests 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	3.5 to 5.0 mm posterior to bregma and 1.5 to 5.0 mm lateral — the PPC boundary as stated in section 2.1, attributed to Chandler 1992 and Reep 1994 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	3.5 to 5.0 mm posterior to bregma and 1.0 to 5.0 mm lateral — the PPC boundary as stated in the conclusions, attributed to the SAME two sources - the lateral extent differs by 0.5 mm from the value given earlier in the same paper Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	immediate-early gene expression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: immediate-early gene expression	`content_tags.statistics[0]`	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.