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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 | mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | cortical visual pathways for perception and action 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 | |
| limitations | The proposed division of labour between the two streams is not claimed to be absolute. 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 | Correlating human neuropsychological findings with monkey neurophysiology requires caution. 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 evidence base lacks detailed analyses of how task-specific most visuospatial disorders are. 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 | |
| limitations | The paper replaces the principle by which the same two pathways are divided. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison between findings filed under the two accounts: the authors propose that the what-versus-how distinction, rather than the distinction between object vision and spatial vision, captures the functional dichotomy between the ventral and dorsal projections | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | An earlier term is criticised by name for grouping behaviours it could not separate. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any use of the earlier localization account: the authors state that the notion of localization failed to distinguish between the many different patterns of behaviour that vary with the spatial location of visual stimuli, only some of which rely on tectal mechanisms | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | two control subjects put through the same manual matching task as the patient DF, over a series of randomly ordered trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the dissociation being a property of the task rather than of DF's lesion - the controls do the identical task, and the random order removes anticipation for everyone · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | ventral stream Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ventral stream | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | dorsal stream Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dorsal stream | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | localization Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: localization | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | functional dichotomy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: functional dichotomy | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | tectal mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: tectal mechanisms | concepts[4] | the paper's words | |
| senses | the dorsal/ventral division - THE SAME ANATOMY, A NEW DIVIDING PRINCIPLE: the authors propose that what-versus-how, rather than the object-vision versus spatial-vision distinction, captures the functional dichotomy between the two projections; the fibre bundles are unchanged and the question used to sort them is not, so findings filed under the two accounts sort the same tissue differently 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 | localization - A TERM THAT FAILED TO DISTINGUISH: the notion is said not to separate the many different patterns of behaviour that vary with the spatial location of a stimulus, only some of which rely on tectal mechanisms, so one word covered several mechanisms and the paper says so Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the ventral stream - DEFINED BY WHAT IT IS FOR, NOT BY WHERE IT GOES: proposed to play the major role in the perceptual identification of objects, in the sentence that also names the dorsal stream as the other half of the proposal; the stream is identified here by a function rather than by its anatomical destination Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Ungerleider and Mishkin's (1982) two-visual-systems model ('what' versus 'where') Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE STAGED TEXT WAS SPLICED AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. A page foot - 20 © 1992, Elsevier Science PublishersLtd, (UK) 0166- 2236192150500 TINS, VOI. 15, NO. I, 1992 - sat between 'it is' and 'proposed', inside the sentence, and the quote was cut faithfully from that corrupt copy. So every check we own passed: the offsets were right, the recorded hash of the staged text matched, and the quote was findable. The staged file was repaired rather than only this string, because leaving the corrupt paragraph staged reproduces the fault in the next tag drawn from it; the pre-repair copy is in an internal file and the original quote in evidence as extracted. | claim_relations[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | ventral stream —contrasted-with→ dorsal stream Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: ventral stream · dorsal stream | concept_edges[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[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | When reaching to pick up a block, DF's grip aperture changed systematically with the object's width, as in normal subjects. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The same patient's manual estimates of object width bore no relation to actual object size and were highly variable trial to trial. 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 | The dorsal/ventral division cannot be reduced to the magnocellular/parvocellular retinal division, because both streams receive input from both pathways. 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 | Spatial attention is physiologically non-unitary and may be as much associated with the ventral system as with the dorsal. 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 authors believe functional modularity in cortical visual systems extends from input right through to output. 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 | Despite being unable to recognize objects' size, shape and orientation, DF guided her hand and finger movements to those objects accurately. 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 | ventral stream Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ventral stream | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | dorsal stream Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dorsal stream | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | width of the target Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: width of the target | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | approximately 45 cm — viewing distance at which the plaques were presented in the matching and grasping tasks 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 | 5 x 5 cm to 2.5 x 10 cm — range of plaque dimensions used as the stimulus set (all of equal top-surface area) 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 |
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.