Distinct relationships of parietal and prefrontal cortices to evidence accumulation

Hanks, Kopec, Brunton, Duan, Erlich, Brody · Nature · 2015 · neuroscience · 10.1038/nature14066 · record Hanks2015-distinct-relationships-of-parietal-and-prefr
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (xml); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. The paper carries two claim shapes at once: a method contribution (the tuning-curve assay) and a mechanistic/critical conclusion about FOF. 'mechanism' was chosen because the tuning curves and optogenetics are used to establish what each area does in decision formation; the method framing is stated in the same abstract sentence. Prior work is cited only by number in the main text, so claim relations targets are described rather than named; the named forms (Brunton et al. 2013, Erlich et al.) appear only in Extended Data figure captions. 2026-08-13 and 2026-08-15 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

10 quotations on this page contain a reference number where the paper printed a superscript. This journal style prints citations as raised numerals — parameters^12,13 — and the extraction flattened them into the line, so the sentence reads parameters 12 , 13 . The digits are citation markers and not part of what the author wrote. The quotes keep them for the same reason they keep every other extraction fault: a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in 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.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
bias 38 fields · bootstrap 2 fields · confidence interval 2 fields · latency 2 fields · likelihood ratio 2 fields · SEM 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 32 concept tags on this paper, none is grounded in a quoted sentence. All carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

accumulation accumulator tuning curve graded categorical firing rate side-selective pre-movement period click-triggered average Poisson latency zero-crossing steepness motor preparation optogenetic inactivation ipsilateral bias post-categorization accumulator shift input gain input noise decision borderline behavioral model lapse rate sticky bootstrap histology choice residual response blinded random the FOF does not integrate evidence; it reads out the sign of an accumulator computed upstream and converts it into a discrete motor plan at the moment the go signal could arrive, which is why perturbing it matters only at the end of the stimulus unilateral FOF silencing biases behavior by flipping already-categorized contralateral choices into ipsilateral ones, rather than by corrupting the accumulation itself Poisson Clicks task tuning curves post-categorization bias Easy trials difficult trials trial difficulty brain region ipsilateral choice bias non-inactivation trials total mean click rate held fixed at 40 Hz ROC analysis Receiver operating characteristic nonparametric bootstrap procedures resampling ... with replacement Mann-Whitney U test nonparametric Mann-Whitney U (rank sum) test nonlinear curve fitting four-parameter sigmoid log-likelihood model comparison overall log-likelihood of the fit likelihood ratio distribution of likelihood ratios Fano factor confidence interval standard error of the mean mean ± SEM across rats smoothing / kernel estimation nonparametric resampling bootstrap 95% CI SEM electrophysiology

Legend

second reading	`alternatives`	an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees
relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
contribution	`contribution`	what the paper claims to add
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
object of study	`object_of_study`	what the paper is about — the thing it investigates
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
research question	`research_question`	the question the paper sets itself
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it
transfer	`transfers`	a method or concept carried in from another field

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14066. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

alternatives 3 · claim_relations 8 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 14 · content_tags 97 · contribution 1 · controls 1 · limitations 10 · mechanisms 6 · method 1 · object_of_study 1 · phenomenon 1 · research_question 1 · senses 9 · transfers 4

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 14 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
object_of_study	whether parietal and frontal cortex relate to accumulating evidence in the same way, tested by asking what each region's firing rate says about the value of the accumulator at each moment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`object_of_study`		the paper's words
research_question	whether frontal premotor activity participates in the graded accumulation of evidence or only in converting it into a discrete choice 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	parietal cortex encodes the accumulator as a graded value while frontal cortex encodes the sign of it, and silencing frontal cortex changes behaviour only at the end of the stimulus 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	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	evidence accumulation in perceptual decision-making Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	electrophysiology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electrophysiology	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the FOF does not integrate evidence; it reads out the sign of an accumulator computed upstream and converts it into a discrete motor plan at the moment the go signal could arrive, which is why perturbing it matters only at the end of the stimulus	`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. also in: unilateral FOF silencing biases behavior by flipping already-categorized contralateral choices into ipsilateral ones, rather than by corrupting the accumulation itself	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	parietal firing answers what the value of the accumulated evidence is, through a graded map that is stable across time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	frontal firing answers which choice the evidence so far favours, clustering into a positive and a negative group Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	the shorter click latency in frontal cortex suggests sensory information reaches it through circuits that bypass parietal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[4]`	0.7	the tagger's words
mechanisms	the inactivation effect is modelled as converting a fraction of already-categorised contralateral choices into ipsilateral ones, which is a step after accumulation rather than during it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: mechanisms[1]	`mechanisms[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	There is no primate frontal eye field dataset against which the click-triggered-average result can be compared. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the click-triggered-average result: NO EQUIVALENT EXPERIMENT FROM PRIMATE FEF EXISTS AS YET FOR COMPARISON	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Data collection and analysis were not blinded to experimental group. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every group comparison in the paper: INVESTIGATORS WERE NOT BLINDED TO EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS DURING DATA COLLECTION OR ANALYSIS	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The 500 ms and 250 ms optogenetic groups were run sequentially, so group assignment was not randomised. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the comparison between the two optogenetic durations: THE ASSIGNMENT OF GROUP WAS NOT RANDOMIZED - the groups were run sequentially	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Two rats were dropped from the fine-timing optogenetic analyses on the basis of their full-trial effects. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the fine-timing optogenetic results: TWO RATS WERE NOT INCLUDED ... BECAUSE THEY DID NOT EXHIBIT SIGNIFICANT FULL-TRIAL EFFECTS - the exclusion criterion is the effect being measured	`limitations[3]`		the tagger's words
limitations	investigators were not blinded to experimental groups during data collection or analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[1] - unblinded collection and analysis	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	two rats were dropped from the finer-timing experiments because they had not shown a significant full-trial effect, and the two timing groups were run sequentially so group assignment was not randomized Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[3] - selection on the outcome	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the accumulator value used to build the tuning curves is estimated partly from the choice the animal went on to make Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every accumulator tuning curve: A BETTER ESTIMATE OF THE ACCUMULATED EVIDENCE CAN BE OBTAINED BY ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CHOICE MADE AT THE END OF THE TRIAL - the regressor is informed by the outcome it is used to explain	`limitations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the encoding difference does not survive the end of the decision, since the parietal map becomes categorical during motor preparation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the scope of the PPC/FOF encoding difference in time: THE DIFFERENCE IN ENCODING BETWEEN PPC AND FOF WAS NOT MAINTAINED AFTER THE END OF THE DECISION PROCESS	`limitations[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	no comparable click-triggered measurement exists in the primate frontal eye fields for comparison Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the cross-species comparison: no comparable click-triggered measurement exists in the primate frontal eye fields, so the analogy is not tested against one	`limitations[8]`	0.9	the tagger's words
limitations	preferred sides are mixed rather than uniformly contralateral, at about 59 percent in both areas Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any contralateral-preference claim: THE PREFERRED SIDE WAS CONTRALATERAL FOR 59.1% OF THE PPC NEURONS AND 59.4% OF THE FOF NEURONS - mixed selectivity, not a uniform map	`limitations[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	a fitted trial-by-trial accumulator, used as the independent variable that neural responses are plotted against Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	the click-triggered average, isolating one stimulus quantum's effect by subtracting the expected response for that Poisson rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	halorhodopsin silencing on a random quarter of trials, used to convert an encoding claim into a timing prediction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	single-parameter variants of one behavioural model compared by bootstrapped likelihood ratio Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
controls	MODEL-FREE analyses run alongside the model-based ones Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the accumulation model itself as the source of the conclusion - if only the fitted model showed gradual accumulation, the finding could be a property of the model rather than of the rats · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.9	the tagger's words
senses	THE STANDARD ANALYSIS SAYS THE TWO AREAS ARE THE SAME AND A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS ON THE SAME DATA SAYS THEY ARE NOT: trial-averaged ramping looks alike in both, and the tuning curve assay separates a graded code from a categorical one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	and the same firing rate is read as the answer to two different questions - what is the value of the accumulated evidence, against which choice should I make if the signal came now 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 RIVAL ACCOUNTS ARE SORTED BY WHEN THEY ACT: two of the four modelled biases must operate throughout accumulation and two only at its end, which is exactly what the timed silencing can separate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	so the model comparison and the causal experiment are testing the same distinction in two ways rather than checking each other Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.9	the tagger's words
senses	THE STIMULUS IS DESIGNED SO THAT THE ANALYSIS IS VALID: because clicks come from a Poisson process, one click's timing says nothing about another's, which is what licenses the click-triggered average at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	THE LATENT VARIABLE IS INFERRED PARTLY FROM THE OUTCOME: the better estimate of accumulated evidence uses the choice the animal went on to make, and the frontal claim is about encoding that same choice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	ENCODING IS NOT NECESSITY: parietal cortex carries a veridical graded code for the accumulator, and the same laboratory reports that its activity is not needed for the behaviour Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the sample is declared unselected and then selected: every isolatable neuron was recorded regardless of response properties, and the analysis keeps the side-selective ones for a stated reason Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	and both disclosures are made - the recording area was assigned randomly, the timing groups were not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
alternatives	claim_type: mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: mechanism — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.claim_type`		the tagger's words
alternatives	method: tuning curves relating firing rate to a trial-by-trial estimate of the accumulator from a fitted behavioural model, compared between areas, and unilateral optogenetic silencing in four separate time windows Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: electrophysiology — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.method`		the tagger's words
alternatives	phenomenon: gradual accumulation of sensory evidence toward a binary choice, and its neural correlates in more than one cortical area 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: evidence accumulation in perceptual decision-making — 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	contradicts → the prevailing view that prefrontal cortex is part of the neural circuit for evidence accumulation (refs 3, 5, 7, 8) 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	builds-on → the previously developed "Poisson Clicks" accumulation task (ref. 10) 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 → previous findings of pre-movement side selectivity in rat PPC (refs 14, 15) and FOF (ref. 13) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → the prevailing view that prefrontal cortex is part of the circuit that accumulates evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHEN IN THE TRIAL THE PERTURBATION MATTERS. 'Unilateral FOF perturbations Quotation withheld, when the provisional choice must be converted into a motor act.' The prevailing view is not denied a role for prefrontal cortex - it is denied the ACCUMULATION role, on the evidence of WHEN the effect appears.	`claim_relations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	supports → primate work reporting ramping correlates of accumulation in parietal and frontal eye field neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → the graded parietal encoding seen in monkeys, which was measured in a task that did not require temporal accumulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHETHER THE TASK REQUIRED TEMPORAL ACCUMULATION AT ALL. 'Quotation withheld.' The earlier finding is granted in full and its task is named as lacking the thing this paper is about - so a 'similar encoding' across species is a similarity of signal, not of computation, and only the task says which.	`claim_relations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	qualifies → the idea of a single distributed decision process shared across parietal and frontal areas Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → the authors' own trial-by-trial behavioural model of the clicks task, which supplies the accumulator estimate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	tuning curve —operationalised-as→ firing rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: THE NEW ASSAY: a fitted behavioural model supplies a moment-by-moment estimate of the accumulator, and firing rate is plotted against it at each timepoint also in: tuning curve · firing rate	`concept_edges[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	graded —distinct-from→ categorical Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: THE STANDARD ANALYSIS SAYS THE AREAS ARE ALIKE AND THE NEW ONE SAYS THEY ARE NOT - same neurons, same trials, opposite conclusions also in: graded · categorical	`concept_edges[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	graded —operationalised-as→ firing rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: the parietal rate answers what the value of the mentally accumulated evidence is, through a map that is stable across time Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but graded encoding was read from firing rates; operationalised-as is loose. also in: graded · firing rate	`concept_edges[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	categorical —operationalised-as→ firing rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: and the frontal rate answers a different question about the same quantity - which choice to make if the go signal came now Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but categorical encoding was read from firing rates; operationalised-as is loose. also in: categorical · firing rate	`concept_edges[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	steepness —operationalised-as→ tuning curve Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: and it holds per neuron as a distribution shift, with the two populations overlapping Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but steepness was computed per tuning curve; operationalised-as is loose. also in: steepness · tuning curve	`concept_edges[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	click-triggered average —operationalised-as→ firing rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: one click has a sustained effect in both areas, decaying only in frontal cortex, and no primate frontal comparison exists also in: click-triggered average · firing rate	`concept_edges[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	latency —operationalised-as→ click-triggered average Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: and the 200 against 100 ms difference is read as a bypassing route rather than as a processing delay Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but latency was measured on the click-triggered average; operationalised-as is loose. also in: latency · click-triggered average	`concept_edges[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	side-selective —operationalised-as→ pre-movement period Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: 23 percent of parietal and 32 percent of frontal neurons qualify, kept because they are the ones most likely to matter for the decision also in: side-selective · pre-movement period	`concept_edges[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	side-selective —operationalised-as→ firing rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: and in both areas those neurons ramp with a slope proportional to stimulus strength, which is the correlate the classical analysis finds Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but side-selective neurons showed ramping FIRING RATES; the side-selectivity itself is defined by a firing-rate difference, so operationalised-as is loose. also in: side-selective · firing rate	`concept_edges[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	inactivation —causes→ bias Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: full-trial silencing gives a 10.3 percent ipsilateral bias also in: inactivation · bias	`concept_edges[16]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	post-categorization —operationalised-as→ bias Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: defined as flipping a fraction of already-categorised contralateral choices, with that fraction the only free parameter Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span defines the post-categorization bias; operationalised-as 'bias' is circular. also in: post-categorization · bias	`concept_edges[20]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	input gain —distinct-from→ input noise 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: input gain · input noise	`concept_edges[21]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	graded —distinct-from→ choice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: ENCODING IS NOT NECESSITY: parietal cortex carries a veridical graded code and is reported elsewhere not to be needed for the behaviour Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says PPC is not necessary for choice; distinct-from is loose. also in: graded · choice	`concept_edges[25]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	accumulator shift —contrasted-with→ input gain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHEN IN THE ACCUMULATION THE MECHANISM ACTS. 'Quotation withheld.' Four candidate mechanisms fall into two groups by timing, and the grouping is what an experiment could test. Replaces the retracted within-group edge. · strength of the relation: 0.8 also in: accumulator shift · input gain	`concept_edges[28]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	ROC analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ROC analysis	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	bootstrap Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bootstrap	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Mann-Whitney U test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Mann-Whitney U test	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	nonlinear curve fitting Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: nonlinear curve fitting	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	log-likelihood model comparison Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: log-likelihood model comparison	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	likelihood ratio Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: likelihood ratio	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Fano factor Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Fano factor	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		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[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	standard error of the mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error of the mean	`content_tags.statistics[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	smoothing / kernel estimation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: smoothing / kernel estimation	`content_tags.statistics[9]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Receiver operating characteristic Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Receiver operating characteristic	`content_tags.statistics[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	nonparametric resampling bootstrap Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: nonparametric resampling bootstrap	`content_tags.statistics[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	95% CI Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: 95% CI	`content_tags.statistics[12]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	SEM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SEM	`content_tags.statistics[13]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	Posterior parietal cortex encodes the running value of the accumulated evidence as a graded quantity, through a map that does not change over the course of the trial. 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 frontal orienting fields instead encode mainly the sign of the accumulator, splitting activity into two clusters corresponding to the two available choices. 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 FOF tuning curve was significantly steeper at the zero-crossing than the PPC tuning curve, quantifying the graded-versus-categorical distinction. 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	Clicks influenced FOF firing about 100 ms earlier than PPC firing, suggesting sensory input reaches FOF by a route that does not pass through PPC. 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	Silencing FOF across the whole trial produced a significant bias toward choices on the same side as the inactivation. 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	Of the four inactivation windows, only peri-choice inactivation produced a significant ipsilateral bias (10.6%). 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	With 250-ms windows only the peri-choice perturbation affected behaviour; perturbation 250 ms earlier had a smaller, non-significant effect. 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	Model comparison favored a bias applied after categorization over biases acting on the accumulation process itself. 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	The inactivation-induced bias was uncorrelated with how many clicks were played or how long the stimulus lasted, as expected if FOF is not part of the accumulator. 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 authors conclude that evidence accumulation happens upstream of the FOF, challenging the view that prefrontal cortex implements accumulation. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[9]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	THE CLASSICAL ANALYSIS MAKES THE TWO AREAS LOOK ALIKE and the tuning curve assay separates them 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	side-selective neurons in both PPC and FOF ramped upwards for preferred-direction stimuli with a slope proportional to the stimulus strength, and downwards for anti-preferred ones 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	parietal cortex encodes the accumulator as a graded value through a map stable across time 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	frontal cortex clusters by the sign of the accumulator, which is the choice currently favoured 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	the whole distinction reduces to the slope at the zero crossing, 0.058 against 0.158 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	and it holds per neuron as a distribution shift, with the populations overlapping 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	the difference survived scaling the integration time constant and the sticky bound, varying response latencies, and fitting the behavioural model per rat or in aggregate 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	but it does not survive the end of the decision - during motor preparation the parietal code becomes categorical too Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[17]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	single clicks have a sustained effect on firing in both areas, slowly decaying only in frontal cortex 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	and the click latency is about 200 ms in parietal against 100 ms in frontal, read as a route that bypasses parietal cortex 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	THE STIMULUS IS DESIGNED SO THE ANALYSIS IS VALID: Poisson clicks are independent in time, which is what lets the residual isolate one click's effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[20]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	THE ENCODING CLAIM IS TURNED INTO A TIMING PREDICTION: if frontal cortex only converts evidence into a choice, silencing it should matter only at the end 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	full-trial silencing produced a 10.3 percent ipsilateral choice bias 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	of four 500 ms windows only the peri-choice one biased behaviour, and the early accumulation window was not different from zero 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	at 250 ms resolution the same held, with a window ending 250 ms earlier having no significant effect 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	and the peri-choice bias fully accounted for the full-trial bias, at ratios of 1.17 and 0.93 in the two groups 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	a post-categorization bias fitted the silencing data better than biases acting on the accumulation itself 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	THE FOUR RIVAL BIASES ARE SORTED BY WHEN THEY ACT - two throughout accumulation, two only at its end Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[27]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	each rival is a single added parameter on a model whose original bias term was one decision borderline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE QUOTE ENDS ON A COLON: the paper goes on with the four sources of side bias it compared, each described in its own paragraph, too long to quote here; what this row states is in that list, not in the quoted words.	`content_tags.findings[28]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	with control trials fitted first and each variant then fitted to the inactivation trials from that starting point 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	and the comparison made over 200 bootstrap resamples rather than once Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[30]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	no correlation was found between the induced bias and click counts or stimulus duration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[31]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	ENCODING IS NOT NECESSITY: parietal cortex carries the graded code and is reported elsewhere not to be needed for the behaviour 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	the conclusion is that accumulation happens upstream of frontal cortex, against the prevailing view Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[33]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	394 neurons were recorded in PPC of 4 rats and 397 in FOF of 6 rats, and all isolatable neurons encountered were recorded regardless of response properties Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[34]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	and 93 neurons in PPC (23%) and 128 in FOF (32%) differed significantly in pre-movement firing rate by the choice that followed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[35]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	with an explicit rate floor and significance test as the criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[36]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	preferred sides were mixed rather than uniformly contralateral, near 59 percent in both areas Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[37]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	THE ACCUMULATOR ESTIMATE USES THE CHOICE THE ANIMAL WENT ON TO MAKE, by backward propagation from the end of the trial Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[38]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	neurons were combined by weighting each by the inverse variance of its conditional distribution, so less noisy representations count for more Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[39]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the model was fitted separately to each rat, and the analysis repeated with one aggregate fit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[40]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the two parameters probed are the ones measuring how far accumulation departs from optimality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[41]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	and response lag was varied for both areas jointly, as a matrix rather than a single choice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[42]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	graded and categorical encoding schemes were simulated with matched lags to predict what each would look like Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[43]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	model-based and model-free analyses were both used to confirm the rats were accumulating throughout the stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[44]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	INVESTIGATORS WERE NOT BLINDED to experimental groups during collection or analysis, stated outright Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[45]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	recording area was assigned randomly per rat and confirmed by histology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[46]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	AND THE OTHER HALF OF THE DISCLOSURE: two rats were dropped for showing no full-trial effect, and the timing groups were not randomized Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[47]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	laser illumination occurred on a random quarter of trials interleaved with controls Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[48]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	Poisson Clicks task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Poisson Clicks task	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	tuning curves Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: tuning curves	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	click-triggered average Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: click-triggered average	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	post-categorization bias Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: post-categorization bias	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	accumulator shift Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accumulator shift	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	pre-movement period Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pre-movement period	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	tuning curve Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: tuning curve	`content_tags.definitions[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	click-triggered average Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: click-triggered average	`content_tags.definitions[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	post-categorization Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: post-categorization	`content_tags.definitions[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	pre-movement period Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pre-movement period	`content_tags.definitions[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	Easy trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Easy trials	`content_tags.definitions[11]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	difficult trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: difficult trials	`content_tags.definitions[12]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	trial difficulty Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: trial difficulty	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	brain region Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: brain region	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	ipsilateral choice bias Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ipsilateral choice bias	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	non-inactivation trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: non-inactivation trials	`content_tags.variables[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	total mean click rate held fixed at 40 Hz Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: total mean click rate held fixed at 40 Hz	`content_tags.variables[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	firing rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: firing rate	`content_tags.variables[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	accumulator Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accumulator	`content_tags.variables[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	bias Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bias	`content_tags.variables[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	latency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: latency	`content_tags.variables[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	steepness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: steepness	`content_tags.variables[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	394 ... 397 — neurons recorded in PPC (from 4 rats) and in FOF (from 6 rats) 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	23% ... 32% — proportion of recorded neurons in PPC and in FOF that were side-selective before movement onset 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	PPC: 0.058 ± 0.003, FOF: 0.158 ± 0.015 — slope of the tuning curve at the zero-crossing in each region; the roughly threefold steeper FOF slope is the paper's core quantitative contrast 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	10.3 ± 3.0% — ipsilateral choice bias caused by full-trial unilateral FOF silencing 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	5.4 ± 0.8% — ipsilateral bias from silencing only the final 250 ms of the click train 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	59.1% ... 59.4% — share of side-selective neurons preferring the contralateral choice in PPC and FOF, i.e. only a mild contralateral bias in both regions 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	0.058 ± 0.003, FOF: 0.158 ± 0.015 — slope at the zero crossing of the tuning curve - the single number the graded against categorical claim rests on Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	10.3 ± 3.0% — ipsilateral choice bias from silencing the whole trial Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	1.17 ± 0.45 and 0.93 ± 0.33 — peri-choice bias divided by full-trial bias in the two groups - the last window accounts for all of the effect 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	394 neurons in PPC of 4 rats and 397 neurons in FOF of 6 rats — the recorded sample, taken without regard to response properties 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	~200 ms — click latency in parietal cortex against about 100 ms in frontal cortex 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	59.1% — share of parietal neurons preferring the contralateral side, against 59.4 percent in frontal cortex - selectivity is mixed 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

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located 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.