standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| 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 |
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 9 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 the active components of working memory can operate without intention and outside conscious awareness 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 | can working memory operate implicitly, given that every existing WM task presupposes that it cannot 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 | shows across five studies that patterns are extracted, maintained and used to bias responding without intention or awareness, and argues the field's view of working memory must widen to include an implicit mode Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | implicit working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | the field's instruments are read as evidence about the field: every standard WM task is explicit, so the tasks record what researchers believe rather than test it 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 question cannot be asked with the existing instruments because they presuppose its answer, so the paradigm has to be built before the experiment can exist Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a functional definition is adopted deliberately, so that whether the new task counts as a working memory task is settled by what it requires rather than by precedent Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the design forecloses statistical learning by construction: pattern-following and pattern-breaking endings are equiprobable, so learning history predicts chance on the critical disk Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the first block is analysed separately as the empirical version of the same argument, since each pattern has appeared only once and there is nothing yet to have learned Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | awareness is attacked from four directions rather than one — open debriefing, immediate reconstruction, forced-choice recognition, and a correlation between reconstructed and actual moves Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | in the fourth study awareness is manipulated instead of measured, which converts a null result about awareness into a predicted dissociation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the excluded participants are turned into a test: if awareness drove the effect it should be larger in those who noticed the patterns, and it is smaller Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a self-undermining fact — that every finite sequence follows some rule — is stated and then shown to bias the study against its own hypothesis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the alternative account is not tested but reasoned through: imagine long-term memory doing this task, and it turns out to need the very operations attributed to working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | stimulus position is jittered specifically to block a strategy that would let attention narrow to the local level and bypass the global stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[13] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the fifth study changes the material from spatial to algebraic so the claim rests on the function rather than on the modality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[14] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Whether pattern naming, anticipation and control are done by working memory alone or by working memory interacting with long-term memory is left unresolved. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the attribution to working memory alone: WHETHER THE PROCESSES OF NAMING THE PATTERNS, CREATING ANTICIPATIONS FOR FUTURE LOCATIONS, AND CONTROLLING COGNITION, ARE DONE SOLELY BY WM or involve other systems as in other WM paradigms | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The comparison between excluded (aware) and included participants is heuristic rather than a formal test. 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 unequal group sizes prevented a direct statistical comparison of aware and unaware participants. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the aware-versus-unaware comparison: GIVEN THESE HUGE DIFFERENCES IN NUMBERS WE CANNOT DIRECTLY COMPARE THE EFFECTS USING AN ANOVA | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The proposed implicit "aha" account of the asymmetry between speedup and slowdown is speculative. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the subject pool was contaminated by the laboratory's own research programme — participants arrived suspecting a hidden manipulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every unawareness claim in the paper: HASSIN'S LAB (WHERE THIS STUDY WAS CONDUCTED) RUNS MANY NON-CONSCIOUS GOAL PRIMING STUDIES, and TOWARDS THE END OF THE ACADEMIC YEAR, MANY PARTICIPANTS COME TO THE LAB SUSPECTING THAT THERE IS MORE TO OUR EXPERIMENTS | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the excluded-participant analysis is conceded to be informal, compared by effect size because the group sizes forbid a test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[2], with what was done instead: HENCE, WE USE AS HEURISTICS THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE EFFECT IN MILLISECONDS AND EFFECT SIZES | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the predicted pattern is asymmetric in a way the hypothesis did not anticipate: the slowdown is reliable and the speedup mostly is not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: which comparison held in which study: THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BROKEN PATTERN AND CONTROL SETS WERE SIGNIFICANT IN THREE STUDIES (1, 2, & 3), AND MARGINALLY SIGNIFICANT IN ONE (4), while the Pattern-versus-control difference was significant in fewer | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the explanation offered for that asymmetry is labelled speculation by the authors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | establishing that anything is non-conscious is acknowledged as never fully achievable Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | whether long-term memory also contributes is left open, defended by parsimony rather than by data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[0] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - whether long-term memory also contributes, left open | limitations[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | block-level data exist for only two of the five studies because the analysis was thought of late Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: block-level analyses, and only two studies have them: THE IDEA TO EXAMINE THE EFFECTS OF PATTERNS IN THE FIRST BLOCK CAME PRETTY LATE IN THE PROJECT. HENCE, WE HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT BLOCKS ONLY IN EXPERIMENTS 1 AND 4 | limitations[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | whether implicit and explicit WM are one system in two modes or two systems is unresolved Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the one-system-or-two question: WHETHER THEY BELONG TO THE SAME SYSTEM OR TO TWO SEPARATE SYSTEMS, and what the PUTATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT WM are | limitations[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the compound stimulus — a large digit built from small characters — borrowed so the cover task can be about the components while the pattern lives in the whole Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the finding that conscious search damages extraction of complex structure, imported as the prediction that an explicit version of the task will show no effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a YOKED control condition in which the first three disk locations are random and only the fourth and fifth follow the pattern - the mirror image of the experimental condition, matched on everything except where the regularity sits Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that performance on the fourth and fifth disks reflects the regularity carried by the first three - the yoked condition matches everything except WHICH disks carry the pattern · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): absent-stated-about-other · would have ruled out, had it been run: the mere presence of a pattern, and the visual properties of the display, as the explanation - both conditions contain a pattern, so a difference between them cannot be attributed to having one | controls[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | working memory — defined functionally, by the operations a task demands, rather than by membership in the established task set; the move that makes the new paradigm admissible Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | working memory — as the field's tasks define it in practice: materials explicitly presented and explicitly manipulated 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 | implicit — as unintentional (not deliberately recruited) versus as unconscious (not available to awareness); the paper claims both and tests them separately 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 | conscious involvement in WM — as attaching to some components (Cowan, Baddeley) versus to all active operations (Baars and Franklin) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | pattern — visual, drawn by connecting disk locations, versus conceptual, constituted by the algebraic relation between successive numbers 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 | pattern — the one the experimenters built in, versus the mathematical rule any finite sequence trivially satisfies; the second sense makes every broken pattern a pattern 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 | implicit working memory — as a mode of one system versus as a separate system; the paper says which it assumes and why, and leaves the question open Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | extraction — deliberately left open to cover identification and recognition, because the argument needs only the operations, not the label Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: existence 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: existence — 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: two purpose-built incidental paradigms — sequential disks forming spatial patterns, and sequential digits forming algebraic ones — with a perceptual cover task and four converging awareness checks 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: behavioural-experiment — 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: implicit working memory — unintentional, non-conscious operation of the active components of working memory 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: implicit working memory — 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 | replicates → McKone (1995) verbal and Maljkovic & Nakayama (1994) visual implicit short-term memory findings Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → previous implicit short-term memory findings (McKone; Maljkovic and colleagues) 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 | critiques → the prevalent view that the active components of working memory are intentional and conscious, and the task set that encodes it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Baars and Franklin's claim that all active components of classical working memory are conscious Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → McKone's and Maljkovic's demonstrations of implicit short-term memory, from maintenance alone to updating, computation and control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → the social-cognition literature showing that high-order processes and goal pursuit can occur non-consciously Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → models of non-conscious high-order processes, which currently contain no working memory component Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → the implicit-learning finding that directing attention to a complex structure can prevent its extraction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | implicit working memory —part-of→ Working Memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 also in: implicit working memory · Working Memory | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | implicit working memory —distinct-from→ implicit learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'pattern extraction', not 'implicit working memory'. also in: implicit working memory · implicit learning | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | implicit working memory —distinct-from→ long term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span POSES the question whether the effect is working memory or long-term memory; distinct-from is not asserted as a finding. also in: implicit working memory · long term memory | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Pattern sets —contrasted-with→ Broken Pattern Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'Broken Pattern condition' and 'a set'; the Pattern sets are named in the previous sentences. also in: Pattern sets · Broken Pattern | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | pattern extraction —operationalised-as→ reaction time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span names reaction time as the dependent measure; 'pattern extraction' is not in it, so operationalised-as is loose. also in: pattern extraction · reaction time | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | pattern extraction —causes→ anticipations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 also in: pattern extraction · anticipations | concept_edges[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | conscious awareness —operationalised-as→ immediate reconstruction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'awareness' and 'reconstruct', not 'conscious awareness' / 'immediate reconstruction'. also in: conscious awareness · immediate reconstruction | concept_edges[6] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | conscious awareness —operationalised-as→ recognition test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but a recognition test was GIVEN after each set; operationalised-as is loose. also in: conscious awareness · recognition test | concept_edges[7] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Implicit condition —contrasted-with→ Explicit condition 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: Implicit condition · Explicit condition | concept_edges[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 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[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test (planned comparisons) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test (planned comparisons) | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | effect size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effect size | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard deviation (outlier trimming) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | interaction test in a mixed factorial design Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | partial η 2 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: partial η 2 | content_tags.statistics[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | within subjects’ ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: within subjects’ ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Planned comparisons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Planned comparisons | content_tags.statistics[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | MSE Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: MSE | content_tags.statistics[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | mixed design Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mixed design | content_tags.statistics[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | one tailed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: one tailed | content_tags.statistics[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation | content_tags.statistics[13] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Participants responded faster to the final disk of pattern-following sets than to pattern-breaking sets, with control sets in between, even though the patterns were irrelevant to their explicit task. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The pattern effect was already present in the very first block, which rules out gradual implicit learning as its source. 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 | Judges could detect no awareness of the patterns in participants' immediate reconstructions of the last set they had seen. 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 | Only 5 of the remaining 30 participants (20%) correctly recognized the last set. 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 pattern effect appeared only when instructions kept the task incidental; telling participants to search for patterns abolished it. 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 effect replicated conceptually with numeric (algebraic) rather than visuospatial patterns. 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 effect is asymmetric: the slowdown on broken-pattern sets is more reliable than the speedup on pattern sets. 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 | Participants excluded for reporting awareness showed a smaller, not larger, pattern effect than the unaware participants. 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 | An accompanying fMRI analysis found right prefrontal activation for pattern relative to control sets. 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 | responses to the last disk were faster after an intact pattern than after a broken one, with controls in between Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the pattern effect was already highly significant in the first block 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 | reconstruction correlations with the actual moves did not differ from zero, individually or on average 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 | recognition of the last set was 5 of 30 (20%), exactly the chance rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the effect held even when only participants who failed the recognition test were analysed 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 | telling participants the patterns exist abolished the effect — a significant Instructions by Pattern interaction, with the effect present implicitly and absent explicitly 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 | the effect replicated with algebraic patterns: fourth terms were answered faster in pattern than in broken-pattern sets 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 participants excluded for being aware showed a SMALLER effect than those included — 17 ms against 31 ms, with effect size half again as large in the unaware group 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 | there is both speedup and slowdown, with the slowdown after a broken pattern the stronger 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 | the companion fMRI work found increased right prefrontal activation during pattern sets relative to controls Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[18] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | prior work found an implicit short-term memory component in visual popout lasting 15-30 s 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 | in study 2 the pattern effect replicated with faster overall responding, 462 ms against 489 ms for broken patterns 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 | working memory paradigm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: working memory paradigm | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | subset hypothesis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subset hypothesis | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | active contents or processes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: active contents or processes | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Pattern sets condition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Pattern sets condition | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | implicit working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: implicit working memory | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | subset hypothesis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subset hypothesis | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a working memory paradigm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: a working memory paradigm | content_tags.definitions[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Pattern sets Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Pattern sets | content_tags.definitions[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Broken Pattern Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Broken Pattern | content_tags.definitions[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Control | content_tags.definitions[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | lag 0 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lag 0 | content_tags.definitions[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Random Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Random | content_tags.definitions[12] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | active contents or processes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: active contents or processes | content_tags.definitions[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | reaction time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reaction time | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | instructions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: instructions | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | reaction time to the last disks Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reaction time to the last disks | content_tags.variables[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Pattern: Pattern, Broken Pattern, Control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Instructions: Implicit vs. Explicit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Instructions: Implicit vs. Explicit | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Block Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Block | content_tags.variables[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | awareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: awareness | content_tags.variables[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | lag Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lag | content_tags.variables[10] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | M = 528 ms vs. M = 565 ms — mean reaction time to the last disk in Pattern versus Broken Pattern sets in Study 1 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 | 31 ms / 17 ms — size of the broken-pattern minus pattern RT difference for included (unaware) versus excluded (aware) participants 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 | 20% — proportion of participants who correctly recognized the last pattern set, exactly the chance rate in a 5-alternative test 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 | 24 (columns) by 18 (rows) — dimensions of the matrix into which the display screen was divided for disk locations 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 | Twenty — number of participants in Study 1 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 | partial η 2 = .40 — effect size of the Pattern factor within the Implicit instruction condition in Study 4 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 | M = 547 ms, SD = 84 vs. M = 561 ms, SD = 82 — mean RT to the fourth term in Pattern versus Broken Pattern number sets in Study 5 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 | 24 by 18 — the matrix of columns and rows dividing the screen 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 | five millimeters — disk diameter 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 | sets of five — stimuli per set, demarcated by a 1500 ms fixation point 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 | 150 ms — interval between response and the next disk 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 | 10 patterns, 10 broken, 10 controls, 70 random — composition of each 100-set block Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 3.125 — average distance in matrix units between successive disks in experimental sets Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 528 vs 565 ms — Study 1 pattern against broken pattern reaction times Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 20% — recognition accuracy in the five-alternative test, exactly chance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 31 ms vs 17 ms — the pattern effect in included (unaware) against excluded (aware) participants Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | partial η 2 = .20 and .14 — effect sizes for included against excluded participants Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 20 excluded, 79 included — participants across studies 1–4 in the awareness comparison Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 15–30 s — duration of Maljkovic's implicit popout memory effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ∼140 ms at lag 0, asymptoting at approximately 50 ms at lag 4 — McKone's short-term repetition priming component Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 200 ms / three SDs — the response-time exclusion window applied in every study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[20] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | twenty — participants in Study 1 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[21] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | fifty-four — participants in Study 4, the implicit/explicit contrast Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[22] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | twenty-eight — participants in Study 5, the algebraic replication Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[23] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 25% of the trials — share of pattern and broken-pattern sets in Study 5 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[24] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
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.