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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 6 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 P3b tracks what an observer consciously sees or what the observer is asked to report about it 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 neural difference between aware and unaware conditions measures perception or the postperceptual processing that reporting requires 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 | a large P3b when the same stimuli are reported and none at all when they are not, with Bayesian evidence for the null and a replication without masks 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 | null-result Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | neural correlates of perceptual awareness 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 | when stimuli are not perceived such judgments cannot be made, and observers can only report that they did not see anything or provide a random guess 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 | so a difference attributed to awareness may belong to the steps that only the aware condition can perform 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 P3b is concluded to be more tightly linked to carrying out a reporting task than to perceiving the stimulus 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 |
| limitations | Repeating each stimulus several times may inflate the incidental memory test's estimate of how often participants were aware of the stimuli. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the awareness rate from the incidental memory test: THESE RESULTS MAY SOMEWHAT OVERESTIMATE HOW FREQUENTLY PARTICIPANTS WERE AWARE ... BECAUSE EACH INDIVIDUAL STIMULUS WAS REPEATED MULTIPLE TIMES | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | No metacognitive confidence data were collected on the memory tests. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the interpretation of the memory-test responses: WE DID NOT OBTAIN ANY METACOGNITIVE REPORTS ... REGARDING THEIR SUBJECTIVE CONFIDENCE | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The exploratory ERP source estimates are imprecise and the design was not optimised for source localisation. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the ERP source estimates only: SOURCE ESTIMATIONS FROM ERP DATA ARE NOTORIOUSLY IMPRECISE, PARTICULARLY IN EXPERIMENTS SUCH AS OURS IN WHICH THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN WAS NOT OPTIMIZED TO ISOLATE SOURCES | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The study cannot identify alternative signatures of awareness, having been designed only to test the P3b. 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 signatures of awareness other than the P3b: THE CURRENT STUDY WAS NOT DESIGNED TO ISOLATE ANY SUCH SIGNATURES | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the study was not designed to isolate any remaining signature of awareness, only to test predictions about the P3b 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[3] - the design tests P3b predictions, nothing else | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the masking was severe enough to disrupt early sensory processing, which overestimates the neural difference between seen and unseen Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the size of the neural difference between visible and invisible: THE MASKING PROCEDURE WAS SO SEVERE THAT EARLY (PRECONSCIOUS) SENSORY ACTIVITY WAS DISRUPTED ... LEADING TO AN OVERESTIMATION OF NEURAL DIFFERENCES | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | frontoparietal activation might be present in the no-report condition and simply not visible to EEG Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the frontoparietal null in the no-report condition: THERE IS SIGNIFICANT FRONTOPARIETAL ACTIVATION ... BUT WE ARE SIMPLY UNABLE to detect it - absence of evidence from EEG | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | observers may still have engaged in spontaneous postperceptual processing without being asked to report Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the interpretation of the no-report condition itself: WHETHER OUR OBSERVERS ENGAGED IN SPONTANEOUS POSTPERCEPTUAL PROCESSING EVEN IN NO-REPORT CONDITIONS | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the memory test may overestimate awareness because stimuli repeated, and the alternative design would underestimate it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the awareness estimate in both directions: repeating the stimulus OVERESTIMATES awareness and the alternative design underestimates it - there is no unbiased version of the measure | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | no metacognitive confidence was collected on the memory test, though foils allowed response bias to be assessed 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[1], with the partial remedy: no confidence reports, though FOIL items allowed response bias to be assessed | limitations[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | equal numbers of stimulus and blank trials within each masking condition, so that mask-blank-mask ERPs can be subtracted from mask-stimulus-mask ERPs 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 | participants count how many times the green circle appeared during each 64-trial block, with a single button-press response at the end of the block 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 | a Bayes factor against a specified prior, used to argue for an absence rather than merely fail to reject 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 |
| transfers | an unexpected memory test with foils, used as an objective measure of what was consciously seen when no report was collected 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 | false discovery rate correction applied across every mass univariate test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: chance significance arising from the number of comparisons - with a test at every electrode and time point, some will pass at p<0.05 with no effect present at all · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the experimental design AND the planned analyses registered publicly, before any data were collected Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: analytic freedom after seeing the data - which analysis, which window, which exclusion. Preregistration is the institutional form of the enumeration control: it removes the choice rather than asking the reader to trust it · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | P3b → reporting Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. THE INDEXING / PROXY RELATION - 'from' STANDS IN FOR 'to'. We have no type for it: 'causes' asserts production, and 'operationalised-as' says the authors CHOSE a measure, whereas a proxy claim says THIS STANDS IN FOR WHAT WE ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT AND WE KNOW IT IS NOT THE SAME THING. Measured at 8% of papers. PRESERVED BECAUSE THE EDGE IT DEFEATED WAS WITHDRAWN. 'P3b --causes--> report' was retracted in an earlier note of ours for turning a tracking relation into a causal one; without this record the paper's actual finding would have left the corpus with the bad edge. 'the P3b DOES NOT TRACK what observers are perceiving, but instead TRACKS what observers are REPORTING' - and the paper's point is that indexing report is NOT being a marker of awareness. | unhoused_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | THE SIGNATURE TRACKS THE READOUT, NOT THE THING: the P3b does not track what observers are perceiving, it tracks what they are reporting, and it vanishes entirely when the same stimuli are not reported 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 EVERY STUDY THAT ESTABLISHED IT SHARED THE STEP THAT CREATES IT: the pattern is widely replicated and routinely cited, and those prior studies always had participants report their experiences 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 | so replication across a literature is not independent evidence when every study inherits the same procedure - the confound is in the method, not in any one paper Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | THE SAME STIMULI IN BOTH CONDITIONS, WITH ONLY THE TASK CHANGED: all stimulus parameters identical, the key change being what the participant was instructed to do 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 | THE NULL IS ARGUED FOR RATHER THAN ASSUMED: Bayesian analyses use the report condition's own effect as the prior, and a second version specifies a minimum effect of interest eight times smaller 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 | and the design, the analysis windows and the electrode pool were preregistered before any data were collected 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 | AN INDEPENDENT CHECK ON WHAT WAS SEEN, WITHOUT ASKING: an unexpected memory test after the no-report blocks, with never-presented foils to measure how much of the yes rate is bias 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 | and both directions of error in that check are named - repeating each stimulus may overestimate awareness, showing each once would underestimate it, and neither design is free 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 | THE SECOND EXPERIMENT IS BUILT AGAINST NAMED OBJECTIONS, with what each possible outcome would license stated in advance 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 | AND THE SCOPE OF THE CONCLUSION IS FENCED: the result rules out one proposed signature and is stated not to disprove the theories that proposed it 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 |
| 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: null-result — 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: the same masked stimuli shown in a report block, where observers judged each one, and a no-report block, where they counted an unrelated green circle instead, with incidental memory tests to check what was seen 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: the P3b: a late centroparietal positivity that appears for stimuli observers are aware of and disappears for stimuli they are not 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: neural correlates of perceptual awareness — 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 → Dehaene et al. (2001) 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 | replicates → Dehaene et al. (2001) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → global neuronal workspace theory's prediction that the P3b is a signature of conscious processing (Dehaene, 2014) 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 | contradicts → the proposal that the P3b is a neural signature of conscious processing 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 | replicates → the sequence of event-related potentials distinguishing visible from masked stimuli reported by Dehaene and colleagues, in the report condition 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 | qualifies → global neuronal workspace theory, whose core hypotheses are said to survive even though this particular prediction 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 PART OF THE THEORY IS AT ISSUE. 'Quotation withheld.' A theory and its diagnostic marker are separated, and only the marker is contested - so a citation reading 'Cohen2020 challenges global workspace theory' asserts more than the paper does, in the sentence where the paper says so. | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → earlier no-report studies, which used nonstandard awareness manipulations or passive viewing and so carried less weight Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS THE STANDARDNESS OF THE AWARENESS MANIPULATION. 'To date, however, Quotation withheld.' The no-report literature already existed and is discounted for its paradigms, not its findings - and this record's [7] makes the mirror-image objection to the REPORT-BASED literature. ONE PAPER OBJECTING TO BOTH SIDES ON THE SAME DIMENSION. | claim_relations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the entire literature establishing the P3b as a marker, on the ground that all of it required reports 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 TASK REQUIRED A REPORT. 'While this particular neural activation pattern has been widely replicated and continues to be systematically put forth as a possible neural signature of consciousness, these prior studies always had parti[CIPANTS REPORT].' Replication is granted in full and then bounded by a design feature common to every replication - so the weight of the literature is not evidence against the objection, because the objection is about what they all share. | claim_relations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | P3b —distinct-from→ aware 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: a robust P3b when the stimuli are reported and none whatsoever when the same stimuli are not | concept_edges[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | P3b —operationalised-as→ postperceptual 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: and the conclusion is stated as a comparison of tightness rather than as an identity
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the P3b is 'more tightly linked with carrying out reporting tasks'; operationalised-as postperceptual is loose. also in: P3b · postperceptual | concept_edges[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | no-report —contrasted-with→ report 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: a robust P3b in one and none whatsoever in the other, with everything about the stimulus held identical | concept_edges[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | no-report —operationalised-as→ green circle 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: counted across a block and reported once at the end, so nothing is judged trial by trial
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the no-report condition used a green-circle counting task; operationalised-as is loose. also in: no-report · green circle | concept_edges[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | masked —contrasted-with→ visible 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: validated by the reports themselves: nothing seen on 99.6 percent of heavily masked trials, the target seen on 98.2 percent of lightly masked ones | concept_edges[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | foil —part-of→ memory test 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: and rejecting them is what separates recognition from a vague sense of familiarity
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but foils were part of the memory test design; the span implies it. also in: foil · memory test | concept_edges[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | repeated-measures ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repeated-measures ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | paired-samples t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: paired-samples t-test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Bayes factor analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Bayes factor analysis | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | nonparametric mass univariate permutation analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | false discovery rate correction for multiple comparisons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | repeated-measures ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repeated-measures ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Bayes factor Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Bayes factor | content_tags.statistics[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | paired-samples t test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: paired-samples t test | content_tags.statistics[8] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | mass univariate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mass univariate | content_tags.statistics[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A robust P3b appeared in the report condition and no P3b at all in the no-report condition. 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 predicted visibility-by-reporting-task interaction on P3b amplitude was confirmed, alongside main effects of both factors. 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 | Bayesian analysis showed the null P3b result in the no-report condition was positive evidence for absence rather than insensitivity. 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 | Experiment 2 closely replicated Experiment 1 while addressing remaining concerns about stimulus visibility in the no-report condition. 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 | High accuracy (78.5%) on a surprise word memory test suggests the unreported stimuli were perceived and encoded at an abstract conceptual level. 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 | Early (70-300 ms) and late (600-1000 ms) visible-versus-invisible ERP differences survived in both conditions, so only the 300-600 ms window was report-dependent. 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 MARKER TRACKS THE READOUT: a robust P3b when observers reported their experience and none whatsoever when they did not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | and the same pattern held in a second experiment with the masks removed entirely Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the pattern is widely replicated and put forward as a signature of consciousness, but all of those studies had participants report their experiences Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: prior studies always had participants report - THE SUBJECT OF THIS RESULT IS AN INDEFINITE STUDY, NOT THIS PAPER. 'Previous studies reported', 'studies in guinea pig showed', 'recent studies have reported' - somebody else's work under a common noun rather than a name, with a citation in the sentence and no first-person marker. The quote is verbatim and the claim is true; only the attribution is wrong. FOUND BY MEASURING MY OWN CUE'S RECALL: the first sweep required a NAMED author as the subject ('Sperling (1960) demonstrated') and found 17. Reading eleven citation-bearing findings on 'Plakke2016' by hand showed four the cue could not see - 'A study examining recognition found', 'studies of typical human subjects have demonstrated', 'A follow up study found' - so the named cue's 17 was a floor and not a count. A CUE'S FALSE POSITIVES TELL YOU NOTHING ABOUT ITS FALSE NEGATIVES, and the only way to find these was to read a record's whole layer. | content_tags.findings[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the confound is stated structurally: when a stimulus is not perceived no judgement can be made, so the aware condition contains extra steps by construction 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 report condition closely replicated the sequence reported by the study being argued against, and then it vanished under the same stimuli and visibility manipulation 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 | early components were present in both conditions and the divergence was late 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 | the interaction between visibility and reporting task was the largest effect in the analysis 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 | THE NULL WAS ARGUED FOR RATHER THAN ASSUMED, with the report condition's own effect supplying the prior 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 | and a second Bayesian test set a minimum effect of interest eight times smaller, returning the same answer 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 data-driven sweep across every electrode and timepoint was run beside the preregistered test 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 | and everything found that way is labelled exploratory, after the planned analysis is reported 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 | design, analysis windows and electrode pool were preregistered before data collection 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 | with the window and electrode pool taken from the published literature on the component 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 | a stopping rule fixed collection at twenty non-excluded participants 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 | with five exclusion criteria stated in advance, including one that excluded nobody 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 share of trials removed for blinks and eye movements did not differ significantly between conditions 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 | stimulus groups were counterbalanced across participants so no image was tied to a condition 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 | equal numbers of stimulus and blank trials in each masking condition allowed the mask's own response to be subtracted 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 | all stimulus parameters were identical across conditions, with only the instructed task changing 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 | masking was validated by the reports themselves - nothing seen on 99.6 percent of heavily masked trials 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 | AND BY AN INCIDENTAL MEMORY TEST FOLLOWING THE NO-REPORT CONDITION: yes responses 3.8% of the time for stimuli that were masked and 3.1% of the time for foil stimuli 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 | BOTH DIRECTIONS OF ERROR IN THAT CHECK ARE NAMED: repeating each stimulus may overestimate awareness, showing each once would underestimate it, and neither design is free 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 no metacognitive confidence was collected, though foils allowed response bias to be assessed 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 | the second experiment was built against named objections - whether the stimuli were really seen, and whether memory could reflect an iconic trace or mere familiarity 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 | WITH WHAT EACH OUTCOME WOULD LICENSE STATED IN ADVANCE for the conceptual memory test 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 | word memory accuracy was high (78.5%), suggesting the task-irrelevant stimuli were encoded at an abstract conceptual level 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 | with foils rejected in both tests, separating recognition from a vague sense of familiarity 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 | in the no-report condition, P3b-ROI voltage did not differ between stimuli and blanks 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 | SOMETHING SURVIVES THE MANIPULATION: differences from about 600 to 800 ms appeared in both conditions, distinct from the P3b 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 | so differences at 300 to 600 ms depend on the reporting task while earlier and later ones do not 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 study is stated not to have been designed to isolate any remaining signature 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 masking is acknowledged to be severe enough to overestimate the seen-against-unseen difference 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 | THE SCOPE IS FENCED: the result is stated not to disprove the theories that proposed the marker 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 | frontoparietal activation might be present and simply invisible to this method 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 | and the other proposed signatures are explicitly left standing, named as the next thing to test the same way 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 | while one long-standing prediction of global workspace theory is said to be challenged directly 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 | three separate reasons are given that the stimuli were seen without being reported 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 | the standing worry about spontaneous postperceptual processing is named, and answered by noting it would only matter had a P3b been found 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 | earlier no-report studies are described as having used nonstandard awareness manipulations or passive viewing 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 | and the P3b was chosen because it is the largest and most replicable piece of neural evidence cited by cognitive theories Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[45] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | P3b event-related potential Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: P3b event-related potential | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | no-report paradigm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: no-report paradigm | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | sandwich masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sandwich masking | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | no-report Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: no-report | content_tags.definitions[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | postperceptual Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: postperceptual | content_tags.definitions[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | P3b Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: P3b | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | memory test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: memory test | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | stimulus presence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stimulus presence | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | P3b Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: P3b | content_tags.variables[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task | content_tags.variables[6] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | visible Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: visible | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | memory test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: memory test | content_tags.variables[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | stimulus visibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stimulus visibility | content_tags.variables[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | reporting task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reporting task | content_tags.variables[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | F (1,19) = 151.13, p < 0.001 — the visibility-by-reporting-task interaction on P3b amplitude in experiment 1 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | BF(10) of 0.001 — Bayes factor for the no-report P3b against a half-t prior derived from the report condition, i.e. strong support for the null 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 | 99.6% (SD = 0.5%) — proportion of heavily masked animal/object trials on which participants reported seeing nothing, validating invisibility 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 | 17.4% — average share of trials discarded for EEG artifacts in experiment 1, leaving about 180 trials per condition 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 | 20 — preregistered final sample size of experiment 1, reached after exclusions from 33 tested participants 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 | 99.6% — trials on which heavily masked stimuli were reported as nothing - the validation of invisibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 86.3% — yes responses to visible stimuli on the surprise memory test after the no-report blocks, against 3.1 percent for foils Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 69.4% — yes responses to words naming task-irrelevant stimuli, the evidence that meaning was encoded without any report Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | BF(10)] of 0.001 — Bayes factor for the absence of a P3b in the no-report condition, against a prior taken from the report condition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | F (1,19) = 151.13 — the interaction between visibility and reporting task, larger than either main effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 300 and 600 ms — the preregistered P3b window, fixed in advance from the published literature 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 |
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.