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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| 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 |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
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 a repeated stimulus makes a neural ensemble return to the state it was in BEFORE that stimulus was first seen 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 cognitive models of retrieved temporal context can be told apart from short-term memory models at the level of human MTL units 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 | repetition of a stimulus elicited an ensemble pattern resembling the pattern present before that stimulus was first presented, confirming a direct prediction of temporal context models 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 | neural contiguity effect in episodic memory ("jump back in time") 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. | 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 | intrinsic cellular or network properties could produce persistent firing after a transient input, which is what a slowly changing representation would need 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 | recurrent CA3 connectivity could complete a gradually-changing pattern from a partial cue, which would recover the earlier context Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a repeated stimulus recovers a state that is a mixture of earlier inputs weighted by temporal proximity, rather than reinstating its own original input 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 |
| limitations | The data cannot establish whether the ensemble change caused by a stimulus's first presentation was specific to that stimulus. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: what the ensemble change means: WE CANNOT DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY FROM THESE DATA whether the change was specific to the stimulus or general | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The experiment cannot bound the longest time scale over which the ensemble representation is autocorrelated. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the upper end of the timescale: THE RESULTS FROM THIS EXPERIMENT DO NOT PLACE A STRONG CONSTRAINT ON THE UPPER LIMIT OF THE TIME-SCALE OF THE AUTOCORRELATION | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Averaging firing rates over 3 s windows makes any faster regional differences undetectable. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison between regions: WE AVERAGED OVER 3 s INTERVALS SO THAT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REGIONS THAT MANIFEST ON SHORTER TIME SCALES WOULD BE INVISIBLE TO US | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The blocked design leaves some variables (position in block, distribution of recencies, new/old ordering) uncontrolled. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every contrast in the blocked design: IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLETELY CONTROL ALL POSSIBLE RELEVANT VARIABLES, so position in block, recency distribution and new/old ordering ride along | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The analyses do not discriminate among mathematical forms of the gradual change. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the functional form of the change: OUR DATA ANALYSES ASSUME THAT THE ENSEMBLE CHANGES OVER TIME BUT THEY DO NOT UNIQUELY SUPPORT A PARTICULAR MATHEMATICAL FORM OF THE CHANGE | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Recency and contiguity had to be disentangled statistically rather than by design. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the recency-versus-contiguity separation, done statistically rather than by design: FUTURE RESEARCH SHOULD DISENTANGLE RECENCY FROM CONTIGUITY BY, FOR INSTANCE, PRESENTING REPEATED STIMULI AFTER A LONG DELAY | limitations[5] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the mechanistic account of how the jump back in time is accomplished is labelled necessarily speculative Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the mechanistic account that follows: WHILE NECESSARILY SPECULATIVE, IT IS WORTH THINKING ABOUT HOW THESE TWO FUNCTIONS MIGHT BE ACCOMPLISHED | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the data cannot settle what exactly is retrieved when the ensemble state is recovered 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[0] - what exactly is retrieved is undetermined | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | firing was averaged over three-second intervals, so regional differences on shorter timescales could not be seen 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] - the 3 s averaging hides faster regional differences | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | some design variables cannot be controlled at all: the first stimulus of a block is necessarily new and the last necessarily old Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the blocked design: IT IS NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT THE FIRST STIMULUS SHOWN IN A BLOCK IS NEW AND THE LAST STIMULUS IN THE BLOCK IS OLD | limitations[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | autocorrelated units did not show robust stimulus coding by this method, only category specificity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the stimulus-coding claim: ROBUST STIMULUS CODING WAS NOT OBSERVED USING THIS METHOD IN THE TEMPORALLY-AUTOCORRELATED PART OF THE ENSEMBLE, t(15) = 0.46 - only category specificity was | limitations[10] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | retrieved temporal context, brought from list-memory modelling to a prediction about single units 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 | recency and contiguity as the two effects any account must produce 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 |
| controls | the analysis restricted to pairs of events WITHIN THE SAME BLOCK, which were necessarily from the same category Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: category membership as an artefactual source of contiguity - events from one category cluster in time by construction, so a temporal-contiguity effect could be category structure wearing a clock · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | contiguity effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contiguity effect | concepts[0] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | category → event number Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. THE TWO CANNOT BE SEPARATED IN THIS STUDY - the DESIGN form of the negative relation / No edge type can express it: all eight assert that a relation HOLDS. Recorded here because a confounding statement BOUNDS WHAT THE PAPER'S OWN RESULTS CAN MEAN, and it lives in a methods paragraph where nothing downstream will find it. A design confound stated plainly in a methods sentence. | unhoused_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | THE TWO RIVALS ARE MADE TO AGREE EVERYWHERE BUT ONE PLACE: both predict a gradually changing state caused by the stimuli, and the paper says so before testing anything 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 discriminating prediction is an ASYMMETRY: short-term memory predicts resemblance only to states AFTER the original presentation, a jump back in time predicts resemblance in both directions 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 | a jump back in time is defined as recovering the context that existed BEFORE the stimulus was first presented, not as reinstating the stimulus's own input 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 | temporally-autocorrelated is an operational label: units whose lag-one regression coefficient on the previous event's firing rate is significantly above zero, about a quarter of all units Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | each unit is treated as an independent observation and as a one-cell ensemble, because unit counts vary across sessions and sessions were at least 48 hours apart 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 design was chosen over free recall precisely because repetition order is under experimenter control rather than following the subject's own retrieval 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 |
| 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: microwire single-unit recording during a continuous recognition task, with ensemble similarity analysed as a function of recency and of lag from the original presentation 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: temporal autocorrelation of MTL ensemble firing over tens of seconds, with a contiguity effect superimposed on it 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: neural contiguity effect in episodic memory ("jump back in time") — 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 | builds-on → retrieved temporal context models of episodic memory 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 → Manning et al. (2011) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Norman and O'Reilly (2003) 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 → accounts identifying the MTL ensemble with persistent stimulus-specific activation in short-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → short-term memory accounts in which contiguity comes from persistent stimulus activation and direct inter-item associations 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 | supports → retrieved temporal context models of recency and contiguity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Manning 2011's finding that recall reinstates the pattern present during study of preceding items Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: the paper's own words: is not clear | claim_relations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → models in which the gradually changing memory representation is independent of the stimuli presented 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 |
| claim_relations | builds-on → evidence for temporal autocorrelation and stimulus selectivity in MTL neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[8] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | jump back in time —distinct-from→ short-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: 1 · note: AND THEY DIFFER IN EXACTLY ONE PLACE: short-term memory predicts resemblance only FORWARD of the original presentation, a jump back predicts it in both directions also in: jump back in time · short-term memory | concept_edges[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | jump back in time —part-of→ temporal context 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 recovered state is a mixture of earlier inputs weighted by proximity, NOT a reinstatement of the stimulus's own input also in: jump back in time · temporal context | concept_edges[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | block —distinct-from→ temporal autocorrelation 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 block structure is removed by restricting every comparison to pairs of events inside one block
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span isolates autocorrelation from block effects; distinct-from is loose. also in: block · temporal autocorrelation | concept_edges[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | recency —causes→ ensemble similarity 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 recency gradient is then ESTIMATED and SUBTRACTED, so what remains is the contiguity effect alone
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span is a counterfactual ('if recency were the only factor'); causes states it as a finding. also in: recency · ensemble similarity | concept_edges[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | persistent firing —causes→ temporal autocorrelation 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 the autocorrelation 'COULD RESULT FROM' properties leading to persistent firing; causes is hedged. also in: persistent firing · temporal autocorrelation | concept_edges[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | pattern completion —causes→ jump back in time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: offered as the recovery mechanism, from the recurrent structure of CA3
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but CA3's structure 'COULD BE USED FOR' pattern completion to recover the state; causes is hedged. also in: pattern completion · jump back in time | concept_edges[11] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | hippocampus —contrasted-with→ amygdala 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: A REGIONAL NULL: hippocampus, parahippocampal region and entorhinal cortex all far exceed the Type I error rate and do not differ from each other; the amygdala does not exceed it at all
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span is cut before the regional contrast is stated. also in: hippocampus · amygdala | concept_edges[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | continuous recognition —operationalised-as→ jump back in time 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: chosen over free recall BECAUSE the repetition order is set by the experimenter rather than by the subject's retrieval
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the continuous recognition experiment gives 'a better opportunity to assess' the jump back in time; operationalised-as is loose. also in: continuous recognition · jump back in time | concept_edges[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | recency effect —contrasted-with→ contiguity effect 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 two behavioural effects any account must produce, and here they appear superimposed in one curve also in: recency effect · contiguity effect | concept_edges[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | linear regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: linear regression | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | paired t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: paired t-test | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | chi-squared test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-squared test | content_tags.statistics[3] | 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[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | z-score standardisation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: z-score standardisation | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | lag one regression coefficient Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lag one regression coefficient | content_tags.statistics[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Type I error rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Type I error rate | content_tags.statistics[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | paired t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: paired t-test | content_tags.statistics[8] | 0.7 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | MTL ensemble activity changed gradually over tens of seconds, and the change was causally affected by which stimulus was shown. 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 | Repeating a stimulus recovered ensemble activity that had been present before its original presentation — a reliable backward contiguity effect. 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 | Ensemble similarity also fell off in the forward direction, which is consistent with either short-term memory or retrieved-context accounts. 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 | Ensemble similarity was greater for same-category than for different-category pairs. 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 temporally autocorrelated part of the ensemble did not show robust stimulus coding. 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 contiguity analysis gives very strong evidence against all of the temporal autocorrelation being artifactual. 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 RIVALS SHARE TWO PREDICTIONS BY CONSTRUCTION: both require a gradually changing state caused by the presented stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND DIFFER IN ONE ASYMMETRY: short-term memory predicts resemblance only to states following the original presentation, a jump back in time predicts both directions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | so the signature sought is a repeated stimulus recovering activity present BEFORE its original presentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | lag one regression coefficients were above zero overall and about a quarter of units qualified as temporally autocorrelated 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 | autocorrelated units fired above baseline BEFORE the stimulus appeared, so they were not simply responding to it 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 | hippocampus, parahippocampal region and entorhinal cortex all far exceeded the Type I error rate; the amygdala did not 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 | BLOCK STRUCTURE REMOVED BY RESTRICTION: all comparisons confined to pairs of events within one block, which are necessarily same-category 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 | A LOWER BOUND ON THE TIMESCALE: excluding the eight nearest recencies still left a significant slope, so the ensemble kept changing past 27 seconds 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 | CATEGORY AND RECENCY SEPARATED BY MATCHING: comparisons made across pairs of similarities at the same recency 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 | so the category effect cannot be attributed to the confounding of recency with category structure 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 | A DISSOCIATION INSIDE THE ENSEMBLE: the autocorrelated units showed category specificity but not robust stimulus coding, t = 0.46 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[16] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | while the non-autocorrelated units showed both stimulus and category selectivity 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 ARTEFACT CLASS DEFINED BY WHAT IT CANNOT KNOW: no recording artefact would make spike shape depend on which picture was shown 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 | ONE ANALYSIS SERVING TWO PURPOSES: the contiguity analysis both diagnoses a causal link to the stimulus and looks for the jump back in time 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 | and the question is declared meaningless for units that are not autocorrelated in the first place 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 | SORTING ERROR ONE ANSWERED: splitting one neuron across units could fake autocorrelation but not stimulus specificity, block sensitivity, or retained information about preceding stimuli 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 | SORTING ERROR TWO ANSWERED: merging neurons could fake conjunctions, but not a response to the neighbours of a particular stimulus's original presentation 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 | curves peaked at zero and falling off both ways would otherwise require the particular picture to change the shape of recorded spikes 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 | AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL CLASS RULED OUT TOO: a fan or other sound present during part of a session cannot produce a contiguity 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 | the artefactual and stimulus-independent accounts would both have predicted a flat curve 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 | THE DECIDING RESULT: the backward effect is not predicted by persistent stimulus activation but is predicted by a jump back in time 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 recency gradient was estimated and subtracted so that what remained on the lag axis was contiguity alone 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 | SOME CONFOUNDS ARE STRUCTURAL AND UNCONTROLLABLE: the first stimulus of a block is necessarily new and the last necessarily old Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[28] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the prior free-recall result had two named limitations: it was not at unit level, and recall order was set by the subject 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 | which is why repetition under experimenter control gives a better test of the causal relationship 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 | UNIT CRITERIA STATED NUMERICALLY: clear refractory periods, amplitude over 100 microvolts, under 1 percent of spikes below 3 ms 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 | with a power-spectrum check discarding units carrying significant 60 Hz line noise 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 | and every unit inspected by a human observer as well as by the clustering algorithm 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 | the three-second analysis window is shorter than the minimum inter-stimulus interval, so no spike is counted twice 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 | patients discriminated new from old reliably with no bias, hit rate .82 and correct rejection .83 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 | recency effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: recency effect | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | temporally-autocorrelated units Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: temporally-autocorrelated units | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | lag one regression coefficient Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lag one regression coefficient | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | contiguity effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contiguity effect | content_tags.definitions[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | jump back in time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: jump back in time | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | temporal autocorrelation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: temporal autocorrelation | content_tags.definitions[6] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ensemble similarity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ensemble similarity | content_tags.definitions[7] | 0.7 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | repetition of a stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition of a stimulus | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | average firing rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: average firing rate | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ensemble similarities of event vectors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | recency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: recency | content_tags.variables[5] | 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[6] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | temporal autocorrelation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: temporal autocorrelation | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | .248 — proportion of recorded units classified as temporally autocorrelated 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 | 44/270 — number of units that were category-selective 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 | mean .094 ± .01 — average lag one regression coefficient across units, significantly above zero 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 | hit rate = .82 ± .07; correct rejection rate = .83 ± .07 — patients' recognition performance on the continuous recognition task 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 | .0042 ± .0015, F (1, 9) = 7.48, p < .03 — backward-direction regression of ensemble similarity on |lag| — the key jump-back-in-time result 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 | more than 27 s — lower bound on the time scale over which the ensemble kept changing reliably 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 | four patients, eight recording sessions — size of the human single-unit dataset 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 | .248 — share of units classified as temporally autocorrelated 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 | more than 27 s — lower bound on the timescale over which the ensemble kept changing 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 | > 100 microvolts and less than 1% — amplitude and refractory-violation criteria defining a single unit 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 | 3.10 s — minimum inter-stimulus interval, which is what makes the 3 s window safe 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 | .82 ± .07 and .83 ± .07 — hit rate and correct rejection rate, showing no response bias 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 |
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.