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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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.| 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 |
| 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 |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
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 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | critique 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 | masked semantic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | 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 | |
| limitations | The results do not settle whether the priming effects rest on conscious or nonconscious prime perception. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Experiment 4's masked-vs-unmasked comparison was underpowered for small differences. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Semantic processing of primes in this paradigm is bounded by what was practised beforehand, limiting claims about semantic depth. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | participants were randomly assigned to the evaluative-decision or the animacy-decision task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a difference between the two decision tasks is a difference between the people doing them · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | unconscious perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: unconscious perception | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | intentional control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intentional control | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | automatic Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: automatic | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | masked priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: masked priming | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | IT ARGUES IN 2007 WHAT hesselmann2016 OFFERS IN 2016 AS SPECULATION: `Quotation withheld. We challenge this view by arguing that some automatic processes may indeed be under intentional control.` hesselmann2016 closes with `SPECULATIVELY, the category task might have DESENSITIZED perceptual pathways ... the shape task SENSITIZED` them, citing Kiefer 2012. This paper made it the thesis of three experiments nine years earlier, and the 2016 paper does not cite it. Two records, one claim, nine years, no link - the corpus can show that without asserting anyone should have known Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND THE AWARENESS RESULT CUTS ACROSS Finkbeiner2011 FROM THE OTHER SIDE: `Quotation withheld.` The same primes are above chance under one awareness test and at chance under another. Finkbeiner2011 argues the prime-classification task UNDERESTIMATES awareness because it is harder; this shows the answer depends on WHICH TASK, not only how hard. Every subliminal claim in this corpus rests on a single such test 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 | AND ONE SENTENCE MAKES THE WHOLE FRAMING AWKWARD: `priming was as pronounced when the primes were visible as when they were invisible.` If visibility does not change the effect, awareness was never the variable. Schmidt2010 reaches the same place from a different paradigm - a qualitative dissociation with the stimuli in plain view - and this is the second record today to arrive there. Two papers, two methods, one conclusion the masked-priming literature is organised against 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 | AND THE MECHANISM IS THE TASK, NOT THE STIMULUS: `Quotation withheld.` Same words, same masks, same subjects - only the instruction changed, and the priming changed with it. That is a manipulation of the observer rather than of the stimulus, which is rare in this corpus and is why the result bears on what `automatic` can mean 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 |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Klinger et al. (2000); Draine & Greenwald, 1998; Greenwald et al., 1995 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 → Klinger et al. (2000), Experiment 1 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 → Logan, 1988; Pashler & Baylis, 1991; Singley & Anderson, 1989 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 | builds-on → Hommel, 2000; Monsell, 1996; Neumann, 1990 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | automatic —distinct-from→ intentional control 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 · note: THE ENTAILMENT THE PAPER BREAKS, AND IT IS THE CLEANEST THING IN THE RECORD. The field treats 'automatic' as implying 'not under intentional control'; Eckstein and Perrig argue 'some automatic…'. So the two properties come apart, and 'distinct-from' says exactly that. Weight 0.95: both terms are in the quote and the separation is the article's whole contribution. also in: automatic · intentional control | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | signal detection sensitivity index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: signal detection sensitivity index | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | planned contrast Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: planned contrast | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | power analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: power analysis | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | alpha level Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: alpha level | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | With one and the same word set, masked priming appeared only on the dimension the current task required: valence congruency affected only the valence task and animacy congruency only the animacy task. 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 | A brand-new, never-practised classification (a disjunction/conjunction of the two practised categories) produced larger task-relevant priming than the simple single-dimension tasks did. 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 | Prime discrimination in the direct test was clearly above chance in both groups (accuracy 0.66 and 0.74). 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 | Participants could not discriminate masked word from nonword primes in a lexical decision task. 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 | Unmasking the primes did not cancel priming. 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 | Amount of priming was unrelated to how well an individual could discriminate the primes. 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 main effect of test half was not significant. 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 | priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | short-lived priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: short-lived priming | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming effect | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | affect priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: affect priming | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | combined priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: combined priming | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | task-set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task-set | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | test task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: test task | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime masking | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | accuracy of target classification responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime discrimination Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime discrimination | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | stimulus set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stimulus set | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | F(1, 22) = 29.85, p < .001 — the task x type-of-priming interaction in Experiment 1, showing priming was confined to the task-relevant dimension 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 | F(1, 14) = 20.95, p < .001 — the same interaction in Experiment 3, where the task was switched within subjects every 16 trials 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 | da = 0.42 — prime discrimination in Experiment 3, above chance despite the shortened 42 ms prime 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 | t(7) = 3.51, p = .01 vs t(6) = 1.67, p = .15 — lexical-decision prime discrimination was above zero only for unmasked primes, not for masked ones 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 | 0.91 — post-hoc statistical power to detect a borderline-conscious discrimination effect (da = 0.3) in the masked group 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 | 482 ms — the deadline within which classification responses had to be produced under the response-window procedure 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 | 56 ms — prime presentation duration in Experiments 1 and 2, between a 156 ms premask and a 14 ms postmask 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 | 60% — share of inaccurate responses on incongruent trials even when primes were fully visible 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 | 26 — number of participants recruited for Experiment 1 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | the tagger's words |
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.