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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
| 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 16 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 | the three terms long-term, short-term and working memory, and whether the distinctions drawn between them are substantive or terminological 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 | do short-term and long-term memory differ in kind — in temporal decay and chunk capacity — and is the further distinction between short-term and working memory a real one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | separates the substantive question (is there decay, is there a capacity limit) from the terminological one (what shall we call the attention-related part), and concludes the second is a matter of usage while the first is not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | short-term, long-term and working memory distinctions 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. | 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 | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | 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. | mechanisms[3] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | the whole argument is organised as contamination control: for each claimed property of short-term memory, name the confounds that could produce the same result, then ask which studies defeated them Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a nuisance parameter is varied by four-fold across two modalities and the limit does not move, which converts an ambiguous number into a capacity rather than a rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a cross-modal additivity prediction is used as the test: if one store holds everything, two modalities together cannot exceed the larger single modality alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the confound is designed out of the experiment rather than corrected for: one trial per participant, gathered by putting the laboratory in a shopping mall Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | chunking is neutralised by choosing tasks in which grouping is impossible — an unpredictable list end, or a four-per-second rate — rather than by trying to measure the chunks Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the chunk is made observable by defining it operationally through the participant's own output rather than by the experimenter's guess about grouping Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a masking step is used to strip away everything except the contested store, so that what remains is the thing being measured Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[10] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a post-stimulus retention cue splits encoding from maintenance, so the modality-specific and modality-general phases can be measured in the same trial Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[11] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a warning against reading a box diagram as an ontology: the boxes record the order in which information arrives, not places where memory exclusively lives Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the paper demonstrates its own subject matter on the reader inside a parenthesis, using sentence structure to load the reader's working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[13] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a mathematical model separates two stores by assuming their contributions are independent, S+L−SL; the paper then reports that the data fit a complementary-resource assumption better Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[14] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a patient dissociation is used to identify which store a response came from: Korsakoff amnesia spares the last few serial positions in immediate recall and not in delayed recall Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[15] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | decay is reconceived from a gradual fade to a sudden collapse at a trial-varying point, which changes what an averaged curve is evidence for Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[16] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | rehearsal is split into two kinds so that the standard control is shown to be incomplete: articulatory suppression stops the covert-speech kind and leaves the attention-based kind untouched Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[17] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Both of the properties on which the short-term/long-term distinction rests remain controversial Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the short-term/long-term distinction itself: BOTH PROPERTIES OF SHORT-TERM MEMORY ARE STILL CONTROVERSIAL - the distinction rests on two properties, neither settled | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Decay in particular is left unresolved by the review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the decay half of the distinction specifically: THE QUESTION OF DECAY IS STILL PRETTY MUCH OPEN TO DEBATE, WHEREAS THERE IS GROWING SUPPORT FOR A CHUNK CAPACITY LIMIT | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | How time limits and chunk capacity limits jointly govern recall is not settled Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any account of recall that invokes both limits: THE EXACT WAY IN WHICH THESE LIMITS WORK TOGETHER IS NOT YET CLEAR | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the decay claim is still not secure after fifty years of work Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every decay-based explanation in the review: THE CONCEPT OF DECAY IS NOT YET ON VERY FIRM GROUND AND WARRANTS FURTHER STUDY | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the two limits cannot be cleanly separated even when both are granted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the content of the term short-term memory: WE CAN SAY THAT SHORT-TERM MEMORY EXISTS, BUT OFTEN WITHOUT GREAT CLARITY AS TO WHETHER THE LIMIT IS A TIME LIMIT OR A CHUNK CAPACITY LIMIT - the category is used while its individuating property is undetermined | limitations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the number of chunks used in recall is not usually observable, so the capacity number is not directly measurable Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every capacity number in the literature: BECAUSE IT IS NOT USUALLY CLEAR WHAT CHUNKS HAVE BEEN USED IN RECALL, IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW MANY CHUNKS CAN BE RETAINED AND WHETHER THE NUMBER IS TRULY FIXED | limitations[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | a design in which the grouping variable is also the grouping measure — Vogel et al. split participants by the very signal being compared Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the Vogel et al. individual-differences result: THE SEPARATION OF PARTICIPANTS INTO HIGH VERSUS LOW SPAN WAS BASED ON THE CDA ALSO - the grouping variable is the measure under test | limitations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the interpretation of the working-memory/aptitude correlation, the field's main reason for using the term, is unsettled Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the field's main justification for the term working memory: MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED ON EXACTLY WHAT WE LEARN FROM THE HIGH CORRELATION BETWEEN WORKING MEMORY AND INTELLECTUAL APTITUDES | limitations[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | a proposed decay experiment is conceded in advance to be reinterpretable as interference, so the design cannot settle the question Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the proposed decay experiment: SUCH RESULTS MIGHT BE ACCOUNTED FOR ALTERNATIVELY AS THE RESULT OF INTERFERENCE ... WITHOUT THE NEED TO INVOKE DECAY - conceded before it is run | limitations[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | how the capacity limit and the time limit combine is left unresolved 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[2] - how the two limits combine | limitations[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the practical demand that created the modern short-term memory task — operators holding rapid dot-dash series, then subscriber numbers — which the paper offers as the ecological source of the nonsense-syllable laboratory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the cell assembly, imported to give short-term memory a physical criterion independent of awareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the independence rule for a union of two events, S+L−SL, used to split a single recall probability into contributions from two stores Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a NON-STUDIED control condition, against list words that were each presented exactly four times; what varied was only how many of those presentations were paired Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: sheer exposure frequency as the explanation of recall - every studied word is seen the same number of times, so a difference between conditions must come from the PAIRING rather than from familiarity · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | long-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: long-term memory | concepts[0] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: working memory | concepts[2] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | focus of attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: focus of attention | concepts[8] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | central executive Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: central executive | concepts[10] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | articulatory suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: articulatory suppression | concepts[15] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | recency effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: recency effect | concepts[25] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | contralateral delay activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contralateral delay activity | concepts[28] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | short-term → working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. NO BOUNDARY CAN BE DRAWN - the CONCEPTUAL form of the negative relation / This is a claim about the concepts themselves, not about this study's data. No edge type can express it: all eight assert that a relation HOLDS. From the paper that also says short-term memory exists 'without clarity as to whether the limit is time or capacity'. Here the field's two central terms are said to have no clear boundary AT ALL from one influential standpoint - and our corpus separately carries edges that treat them as distinct things. | unhoused_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | working memory — three discrepant definitions named together in one sentence: short-term memory applied to cognitive tasks; a multi-component system; the use of attention to manage short-term memory 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 | working memory — Cowan's own sense: short-term memory plus the mechanisms that make use of it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | working memory — Engle's sense: the attention-related aspects only, which redefines short-term memory in the same move Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | working memory — Miller, Galanter and Pribram's original functional sense: memory as it is used to plan and carry out behaviour, with no distinction from short-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | short-term memory — broader than primary memory, because a temporarily accessible idea need not have been conscious Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | short-term memory — as a neural sense: an active cell assembly, whether or not the individual is aware of it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | rehearsal — covert verbal (articulatory) versus attention-based; only the first is stopped by articulatory suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | rehearsal — as even-paced covert articulation versus as a grouping operation; participants asked what they did overwhelmingly reported grouping Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | capacity limit — as duration (items decay from storage over time) versus as number (a ceiling on how many items are held); the paper treats these as the two separable ways stores could differ Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | decay — as gradual degradation of trace quality versus as sudden collapse at a trial-varying moment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | attention in working memory — its control versus its scope; Cowan et al. treat these as independent contributors to aptitude Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | forgetting — as inevitable decay versus as interference during the retention interval, the split that founded the unitary-memory tradition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[11] | 0.95 | 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: existence — 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: conceptual review — assembles experimental evidence around a contamination framework, naming for each claimed limit the confounds that must be overcome before the evidence counts 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: memory over the short term — its duration limit, its capacity limit, and its relation to attention 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: short-term, long-term and working memory distinctions — 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 → Cowan's own earlier theoretical framework (Cowan 1988, 1995, 1999, 2001, 2005) 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 | extends → Baddeley and Hitch's multi-component working memory model 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 → Engle (2002) definition reserving 'working memory' for attention-related aspects of short-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: the SCOPE of the term: some researchers WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE THE TERM WORKING MEMORY TO REFER ONLY TO THE ATTENTION-RELATED ASPECTS OF SHORT-TERM MEMORY, where this paper uses it more broadly | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | critiques → the field's use of the term working memory, which the paper diagnoses as a usage dispute rather than a substantive disagreement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: nothing substantive - the paper says so: THIS, HOWEVER, IS NOT SO MUCH A DEBATE ABOUT SUBSTANCE, BUT RATHER A SLIGHTLY CONFUSING DISCREPANCY IN THE USAGE OF TERMS | claim_relations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → Miller's magical number seven, on the authority of Miller's own later account of it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: whether the original number was ever a claim: HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY INDICATES THAT HE WAS NEVER VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THE NUMBER SEVEN; IT WAS A RHETORICAL DEVICE THAT HE USED TO TIE TOGETHER THE OTHERWISE UNRELATED STRANDS OF HIS RESEARCH FOR A TALK | claim_relations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → the unitary-memory tradition (Melton, Crowder, Nairne, Lewandowsky and others) which holds that one set of principles covers memory at every timescale Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Baddeley and Hitch's multi-component working memory, kept as a shape but not as a component list Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → Cocchini et al.'s conclusion that dissimilar memory loads do not interfere, which would argue against a general cross-domain store Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS INTERFERENCE BETWEEN DISSIMILAR LISTS. 'Quotation withheld.' The critique targets an INFERENCE rather than a measurement: the interference result is not disputed, the conclusion drawn from it is. | claim_relations[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → Vogel et al. (2005), for splitting participants on the same signal used as the dependent measure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: circularity in the split: THE SEPARATION OF PARTICIPANTS INTO HIGH VERSUS LOW SPAN WAS BASED ON THE CDA ALSO, AND THE TASK USED TO MEASURE THE CDA INEVITABLY REQUIRED SELECTIVE ATTENTION ON EVERY TRIAL - the grouping variable is the dependent measure | claim_relations[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → Broadbent's and Cowan's revision of the capacity limit from seven to three or four units Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | episodic buffer —same-as→ focus of attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.6 — the record marks this weak
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the episodic buffer is 'POSSIBLY the same as' the focus of attention 'or at least a closely similar concept'; same-as is hedged. also in: episodic buffer · focus of attention | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | phonological loop —part-of→ activated memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85 also in: phonological loop · activated memory | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | focus of attention —part-of→ activated memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'the activated information', not 'activated memory'. also in: focus of attention · activated memory | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | short-term memory —part-of→ long-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85 also in: short-term memory · long-term memory | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · temporal decay —distinct-from→ chunk capacity limits Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span named neither. This sentence names both and states them as TWO fundamental ways of differing - which is exactly the distinctness the edge records. — strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span lists 'temporal decay' and 'chunk capacity limits' as the two ways long- and short-term memory could differ; it does not say the two are distinct from each other. also in: temporal decay · chunk capacity limits | concept_edges[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | temporal distinctiveness —contrasted-with→ temporal decay Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'decay', not 'temporal decay'. also in: temporal distinctiveness · temporal decay | concept_edges[6] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | interference —contrasted-with→ temporal decay Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHAT HAPPENS DURING THE RETENTION INTERVAL, AND THE DECIDING OBSERVATION IS IN THE SAME SENTENCE. 'Quotation withheld.' Decay predicts a monotone loss; the improvement case is what decay cannot produce, so the two are separated by a possible observation rather than by definition. · strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'decay of memory', not 'temporal decay'. also in: interference · temporal decay | concept_edges[7] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | chunk capacity limits —distinct-from→ memory span 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
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says a span of seven items does not guarantee seven separate chunks; distinct-from is loose. also in: chunk capacity limits · memory span | concept_edges[8] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | covert verbal rehearsal —distinct-from→ attention-based rehearsal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'that type of rehearsal' = attention-based reactivation (previous sentence). also in: covert verbal rehearsal · attention-based rehearsal | concept_edges[9] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | control of attention —distinct-from→ scope of attention 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 also in: control of attention · scope of attention | concept_edges[11] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | control of attention —operationalised-as→ antisaccade task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: ATTRIBUTED TO A NAMED STUDY, AND THIS IS A REVIEW, so reporting the field's operationalisations IS the paper's content: 'Quotation withheld correlates well with the ability to inhibit the natural tendency to look toward a suddenly appearing stimulus'. The edge is right about the field and silent about whose measurement it is - which is what this field records. · strength of the relation: 0.75
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the antisaccade task measures the ability to inhibit a look; 'control of attention' is not in the span, so operationalised-as is loose. also in: control of attention · antisaccade task | concept_edges[12] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | working memory —operationalised-as→ contralateral delay activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: ATTRIBUTED TO A NAMED STUDY IN A REVIEW: 'VOGEL ET AL. Quotation withheld' The operationalisation is Vogel et al.'s and the reporting is Cowan's. · strength of the relation: 0.85 also in: working memory · contralateral delay activity | concept_edges[13] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | central executive —part-of→ working memory 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
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'an influential model' = the working memory model (previous sentences); part-of is loose. also in: central executive · working memory | concept_edges[14] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | short-term memory —part-of→ working memory 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 also in: short-term memory · working memory | concept_edges[15] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | chunk capacity limits —operationalised-as→ running memory span Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but running memory span makes grouping IMPOSSIBLE, which is why it bears on chunk capacity; operationalised-as is loose. also in: chunk capacity limits · running memory span | concept_edges[16] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | sensory memory —distinct-from→ categorical memory 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 also in: sensory memory · categorical memory | concept_edges[17] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | interaction effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: interaction effect | content_tags.statistics[0] | 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[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | M Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: M | content_tags.statistics[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | significant interaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: significant interaction | content_tags.statistics[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | S+L−SL Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: S+L−SL | content_tags.statistics[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | correlate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlate | content_tags.statistics[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | mathematical model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mathematical model | content_tags.statistics[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Reviewing the evidence, the chapter concludes that the chunk capacity limit is well supported whereas temporal decay remains unsettled. 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 | Later studies suggested the capacity limit is more typically three or four units. 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 | Chen and Cowan (2005) showed the time limit and the chunk capacity limit in short-term memory are separate. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: Chen and Cowan (2005) showed - 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[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The results suggest there could be decay in short-term memory. 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 focus of attention again held three to four items for both unimodal visual and bimodal stimuli. 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 | Retention after the cue showed dual-task effects that were not modality-specific. 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 | Because the four-item limit appears in vision and audition despite very different sensory persistence, it is a capacity limit and not a transfer-rate limit. 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 | Individual capacity varies from roughly two to six items in adults and predicts cognitive aptitude. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Whether short-term and working memory differ may be a matter of semantics. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the capacity limit is more typically three or four units, not seven 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 | Miller was never serious about seven — by his own later account it was a rhetorical device to tie unrelated strands of research together for a talk 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 | individual capacity ranges from about two to six items in adults and is a strong correlate of cognitive aptitude 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 | visual and auditory experiments give a common four-item limit despite very different transfer times, so it is best viewed as a capacity rather than a rate limit 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 focus of attention held between three and four items for unimodal visual or bimodal stimuli 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 | after initial encoding, working memory storage over several seconds may occur abstractly, in the focus of attention 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 | Lewandowsky et al. found no decay across response intervals from 400 to 1600 ms under articulatory suppression 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 | when recall timing had to match presentation timing, a long first half of the response intervals hurt recall (.67 vs .70) 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 Peterson delay effect is absent on the first few trials and when delays are tested in separate blocks Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: ested in separate trial blocks ( Turvey et al., 1970 ; Greene, 1996 ). - THE RESULT IS THE CITED WORK'S AND THE CITATION TRAILS THE SENTENCE. A plain noun phrase is the subject of the result verb and the attribution is a bracket at the end - 'Neurons within the dorsal temporal pole demonstrated match suppression ... ( Ng et al., 2014 )'. Neither of my two cues could see this shape, so THESE WERE READ RATHER THAN SWEPT: 36 candidates of the shape, 20 read, 11 marked, 9 refused. THE REFUSALS ARE WHY IT IS NOT A CUE: 'Aru2012 findings[16]' is the paper's OWN result with a citation supporting the localisation, 'Natan2015 findings[3]' ends 'consistent with previous findings ( Szymanski et al., 2009 )' where the main clause is the paper's, and 'Drieu2019' x3 are 'One cannot entirely rule out...' - a limitation, not an attribution. About 55% precise, which is a list to read and not a sweep to run. | content_tags.findings[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | an effect of test delay appeared within the first 5 s but not at longer delays 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 | in delayed recall the amnesic patients show a deficit at all serial positions 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 | when recalling from a long-term category such as US states, people produce items in spurts of about three 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 | capacity estimated at about 3.5 chunks in every learning condition, with prior exposure changing the chunk composition rather than the number 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 | in adults asked how they did a digit span task, grouping was by far the most common answer and saying the items to themselves was rarely mentioned 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 | at four items per second in running span, instructions to rehearse make performance worse rather than better 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 | the time limit and the chunk capacity limit are separable: long free-recall lists are governed by capacity, short strictly-scored serial lists by time 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 | a random seven-digit list interfered with visual array comparison but the participant's own telephone number did not, and only when recited aloud 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 | in schizophrenia the working memory deficit was in capacity, not in the control of attention — against the authors' own expectation 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 | of the central executive functions, updating correlated with aptitudes while inhibition and shifting did not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: Friedman et al. (2006) 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[27] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | high-span individuals notice their own name in an ignored dichotic channel much less often than low-span individuals Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: Conway et al. (2001) 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[28] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | in children too young for covert verbal rehearsal, even a plain digit span task correlates excellently with aptitudes 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 | recognition of earlier list portions, but not the last few items, activated hippocampal areas associated with long-term retrieval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: Talmi et al. (2005) 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[30] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a possible sudden collapse rather than gradual fade, seen for tone memory between 5 and 10 s with temporal distinctiveness controlled Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: Cowan et al. (1997a) 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[31] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | free recall of word lists at every level of structure yielded an average of four to six chunks 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 | long-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: long-term memory | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | short-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: short-term memory | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: working memory | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | duration difference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: duration difference | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | capacity difference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: capacity difference | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | focus of attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: focus of attention | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | chunk Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chunk | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | covert verbal rehearsal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: covert verbal rehearsal | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | articulatory suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: articulatory suppression | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | contralateral delay activity (CDA) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contralateral delay activity (CDA) | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Long-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Long-term memory | content_tags.definitions[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Short-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Short-term memory | content_tags.definitions[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | primary memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: primary memory | content_tags.definitions[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: working memory | content_tags.definitions[13] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A chunk Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: A chunk | content_tags.definitions[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | covert verbal rehearsal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: covert verbal rehearsal | content_tags.definitions[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | articulatory suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: articulatory suppression | content_tags.definitions[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A duration difference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: A duration difference | content_tags.definitions[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A capacity difference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: A capacity difference | content_tags.definitions[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | continual distractor list recall Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: continual distractor list recall | content_tags.definitions[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | running memory span Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: running memory span | content_tags.definitions[20] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | contralateral delay activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contralateral delay activity | content_tags.definitions[21] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | temporal distinctiveness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: temporal distinctiveness | content_tags.definitions[22] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | central executive Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: central executive | content_tags.definitions[23] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | scope Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: scope | content_tags.definitions[24] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | three or four units — the capacity limit of short-term storage once chunking is controlled 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 | about 3.5 chunks — model-estimated capacity limit, constant across learning conditions, in the paired-word list study 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 | approximately seven items — adult memory span, which the chapter argues overstates capacity because items are not separate chunks 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 | four to six chunks — average number of chunks recalled across all structure conditions in the free-recall chunk study 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 | M = .70 vs M = .67 — recall proportion with short versus long first-half response intervals when recall timing had to match presentation, the pattern taken as evidence of decay 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 | M =.71 vs M =.74 — recall proportion with short versus long first-half intervals under free-paced recall, where no decay cost appeared 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 | 5 s — delay window within which a proactive-interference-free study found a genuine test-delay effect 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 | two to six items — range of individual adult capacity 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 | three or four units — the revised chunk capacity limit 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 | about seven items — adult memory span, which is not the same as the chunk capacity 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 | about two to six items — range of individual capacity in adults 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 | three items — Broadbent's error-free limit, and the size of recall spurts from a long-term category 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 | about 3.5 chunks — capacity estimated by the chunk model in every learning condition 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 | four to six chunks — average recalled across all levels of list structure in Tulving and Patkau 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 | 400 and 1600 ms — range of inter-item response time over which Lewandowsky et al. found no decay 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 |
| content_tags | M = .70 versus M = .67 — recall with a short versus long first half when recall timing had to match presentation timing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | M =.71 versus M =.74 — the same comparison when participants recalled at their own pace — the effect reverses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | up to 18 s — the filled delay in the Peterson and Peterson trigram procedure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | first 5 s — window in which a delay effect survived the one-trial-per-participant control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | between 5 and 10 s — delay range over which tone memory appeared to collapse suddenly Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | about 4s — auditory sensory memory decay period in Darwin et al., against about 1 s for Sperling's visual case Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[20] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 4 per second — presentation rate in running span fast enough to make rehearsal impossible Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[21] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0.5 s and 2 s — the short and long inter-digit intervals in the Cowan and Aubuchon timing design Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[22] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 31 days — longest retention interval in Ebbinghaus's self-experiments Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[23] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | more than 200 subscribers — the Lowell telephone exchange that introduced numbers, in 1879 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[24] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0, 1, 2, or 4 prior word–word pairings — the learning levels used to vary chunk composition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[25] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | seven printed digits — list length in the Cowan and Aubuchon timing experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[26] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 75% — proportion of trials on which the probed set was the cued one in Gold et al. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[27] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | memory span Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: memory span | content_tags.variables[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | inter-digit blank intervals Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inter-digit blank intervals | content_tags.variables[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | response cue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response cue | content_tags.variables[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | presentation rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: presentation rate | content_tags.variables[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | memory load Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: memory load | content_tags.variables[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | contralateral delay activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contralateral delay activity | content_tags.variables[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | serial position Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: serial position | content_tags.variables[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | cognitive aptitude Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive aptitude | content_tags.variables[7] | 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.