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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 | 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 | subliminal 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. status: the paper's own words: We suggest that | 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 | |
| limitations | Even with 240 prime-classification trials the design remains open to the low-power criticism levelled at subliminal priming studies. 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 | The prime-classification measure used here may itself have been insufficiently sensitive to prime awareness. 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 | The .95 posterior criterion used to declare subliminality may be too strict, and the priming result is also reported under a relaxed .90 criterion. 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 | the letters in the backward mask were randomly repositioned on every trial Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the masking effect is specific to one mask arrangement rather than to masking as such · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | subliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal priming | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | prime-classification task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime-classification task | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | task difficulty Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task difficulty | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | task-difficulty artifact Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task-difficulty artifact | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE CRITERION STATED AS AN IF-THEN, WHICH IS WORTH HOLDING VERBATIM: `If, in a separate task that assesses PRIME AWARENESS, subjects are not able to identify the prime stimuli at BETTER THAN CHANCE levels (i.e., d' is not statistically different from zero), then subliminal priming is said to have occurred.` `is said to have occurred` - the phenomenon is the conjunction of two measurements, and the paper is explicit that the word is licensed by the second one. dehaene1998 and holcomb2005 argue about WHAT was processed without awareness; this record is about what licenses the word `subliminal` at all, which is the prior question and the corpus had no clean statement of it 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 CRITIQUE IT ANSWERS IS AN ATTACK ON THE MEASUREMENT, NOT ON THE EFFECT: `In a recent critique of subliminal priming, Pratte and Rouder (2009) suggested that previous claims of subliminal priming may have been due to A failure to control the task difficulty between the experiment proper and the prime-classification task.` If the certifying task is simply harder, chance performance on it certifies nothing. That is the strongest form of methodological criticism - it does not dispute a result, it disputes what the result is evidence OF - and a corpus that records priming findings without recording this cannot represent why the literature is contested 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 | THE ANSWER IS BUILT INTO THE STIMULUS RATHER THAN ARGUED IN A DISCUSSION - PRINT THE PRIMES IN COLOUR: `Quotation withheld.` 92.1% on colour, chance on identity, same stimulus, same trial, within subject. The colour report proves the task was easy and the subject was attending, so the identity failure cannot be blamed on difficulty. A control made of the stimulus, not of an argument - and the cleanest reply to an artifact objection I have tagged 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 A FOOTNOTE CARRIES THE STRONGEST SENTENCE IN THE PAPER: `The primes that were presented for 40 to ~60 ms were VISIBLE (d' > 2.0); the primes presented for LESS THAN 40 ms were NOT VISIBLE (d' not different from zero), and yet they produced reliable priming effects.` Visible primes prime and invisible primes prime. So the priming function and the awareness function are separable, and a study that finds priming has learned nothing about awareness until it measures awareness separately - which is the whole argument of this paper, stated in a footnote about a different experiment 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 | contradicts → Pratte and Rouder (2009) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Pratte and Rouder (2009) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → Finkbeiner & Forster (2008); Kouider & Dehaene (2007) 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 → Morey et al. (2008) mass-at-chance (MAC) model 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 | subliminal priming —distinct-from→ task-difficulty artifact Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: THE RESULT, AND 'distinct-from' IS DOING REAL WORK HERE. The artifact was proposed as an ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION of subliminal priming; this record separates them by controlling the artifact and keeping the effect. So the edge records not that two concepts differ, but that one was offered as the other and failed. Weight 0.9 rather than 0.95 because the paper itself attributes the contrast with Pratte and Rouder to 'important differences…' - which is a second unresolved difference between the labs, stated by the author. also in: subliminal priming · task-difficulty artifact | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | 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 | one-sample t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: one-sample t-test | content_tags.statistics[1] | 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[2] | 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[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | hierarchical Bayesian model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hierarchical Bayesian model | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | posterior probability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: posterior probability | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | null-hypothesis significance testing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: null-hypothesis significance testing | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | signal-detection sensitivity (d-prime) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | LOESS local regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: LOESS local regression | content_tags.statistics[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | confidence interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: confidence interval | content_tags.statistics[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Reliable masked congruence priming was obtained at both 40 ms and 50 ms prime durations. 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 | Presenting primes in colour let subjects report the prime's colour almost as accurately as they classified targets, which the author takes as successful equating of difficulty across the two tasks. 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 identification was 51.8%, not above chance, with 40-ms primes and 55.6%, above chance, with 50-ms primes. 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 | Subliminality was confirmed for 16 of 21 subjects with 40-ms primes but for only 1 with 50-ms primes. 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 | Restricting the priming analysis to only those subject-by-duration cells whose subliminality was confirmed still yielded a significant priming effect. 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 | The priming effect did not decrease as the criterion for subliminality increased. 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 authors conclude subliminal priming can be observed even when guarding against the task-difficulty artifact. 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 | subliminal priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal priming effect | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | target-classification task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: target-classification task | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | task-difficulty artifact Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task-difficulty artifact | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mass-at-chance model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mass-at-chance model | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | null-sensitivity problem Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: null-sensitivity problem | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime duration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime duration | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime type Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime type | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | RTs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: RTs | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Prime Color Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Prime Color | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime–target SOA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime–target SOA | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | M = 92.1% — mean accuracy of reporting the prime's colour in the prime-classification task 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 | both greater than 90% — colour-report accuracy and target-classification accuracy, showing the two tasks were matched for difficulty 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 | 51.8% ... 55.6% — prime identity accuracy at 40 ms and at 50 ms prime durations 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 | 16 of the 21 — subjects judged to be performing at chance on prime identity with 40-ms primes by the MAC model 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 | 21 — number of participants in the experiment 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 | Bayes factor of 0.26 — Bayes factor for the priming effect among subliminality-confirmed cells, i.e. the alternative is 3.85 times more likely than the null 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 | 9:1 ... 16:1 — odds in favour of subliminality and the resulting odds in favour of priming under the relaxed .90 criterion 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 | approximately 570 — prime-classification trials that would be needed, at n = 21 and 52% true performance, to keep the chance of wrongly accepting the null below 5% 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 |
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.