standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| 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 4 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | subliminal masked priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The model's central neural assumption, a prefrontal top-down signal modulating posterior pathway sensitivity, has not yet been tested in detail. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The theory is not yet formally specified, so its predictions about the dynamics of attentional control remain imprecise. 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 | |
| transfers | The gain parameter of neural network models, together with attentional gain modulation observed in primate single-cell recordings, is imported as the computational mechanism of the psychological attentional sensitization model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concepts | automaticity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: automaticity | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | autonomous Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: autonomous | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | attentional sensitization Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: attentional sensitization | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | top-down control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: top-down control | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | subliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal priming | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | task sets Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task sets | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | attentional resources Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: attentional resources | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | automaticity, CLASSICAL - and the sense worth recording is the OPERATIONAL consequence rather than the phrasing: if automatic processes are autonomous, then a behavioural or neurophysiological effect `has to be INVARIANT in order to index a truly automatic process`. The definition dictates a test, the test is invariance, and invariance is what gets measured. A conceptual assumption turned into an experimental criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | A DEFINITION REJECTED BECAUSE ITS EXTENSION IS EMPTY. Attention and task demands modulate nearly every effect that has been looked at, so `it is difficult to identify processes that actually meet the classical criteria` - and `the apparent lack of processes that fully meet the criteria of automaticity renders the classical view UNSATISFACTORY`. Not refuted by a counter-example: retired because nothing in the world satisfies it. That is a distinct way for a term to change and the corpus should be able to find the cases Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | automaticity, REVISED - the same word with one criterion removed: automatic now means `does not depend on conscious awareness` and `is initiated without deliberate intention`, and no longer means unmodulable. The paper states the consequence explicitly - unconscious automatic processing and attentional control `is NOT A CONTRADICTION as it has been previously thought`. Two criteria kept, one dropped, and the dropped one is the one that was selecting nothing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | subliminal priming used as the HARD CASE for a general claim about automaticity: it is the field's prototypical automatic process, so showing four separate top-down influences on it - attentional resources, stimulus expectations, action intentions, task sets - is an argument about automaticity in general rather than about priming. The corpus's central phenomenon serving as somebody else's test object Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → classical theories of automaticity (Posner & Snyder, 1975; Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977) 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 → Kiefer & Martens, 2010 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 | |
| concept_edges | attentional sensitization —contrasted-with→ autonomous Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER AN UNCONSCIOUS PROCESS CAN BE REACHED FROM ABOVE - the classical account makes autonomy definitional, this one makes prior attentional configuration a PRECONDITION for the process running at all. Not a weaker version of the same claim: the direction of dependence is reversed · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE PAPER'S ARGUMENT, and the abstract states both sides in one sentence pair - 'In contrast to these classical conceptions'. Confidence 0.95. also in: attentional sensitization · autonomous | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | top-down control —causes→ subliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: The direction is recorded as 'increases' because the paper's own summary is 'enhances OR attenuates' - attention moves the effect in either direction depending on congruence with the task set, which is the point. A 'no-change' reading would be wrong and a purely positive one incomplete; the quote carries both words.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but attentional manipulations 'MODULATE' subliminal priming; the 'increases' sign is not stated. also in: top-down control · subliminal priming | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | task sets —causes→ subliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: One of the four enumerated influences, kept as its own edge because 'what the participant is set up to do changes what an unseen stimulus does' is the concrete form of the configuration claim.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but subliminal priming 'is modulated by task sets' and attention 'enhances or attenuates'; the 'increases' sign is not stated. also in: task sets · subliminal priming | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | attentional resources —causes→ subliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: The sharpest of the four against the classical view: a process that consumes attentional resources is not autonomous by anybody's definition. also in: attentional resources · subliminal priming | concept_edges[3] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A semantic induction task performed shortly before a masked prime enhanced subsequent subliminal semantic priming in both reaction time and N400, whereas a perceptual induction task attenuated it. 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 reversed at the long response-prime interval, with priming present after the perceptual but not the semantic induction task. 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 | Semantic and visuo-motor priming were doubly dissociated by induction task type, with visuo-motor priming appearing only after the perceptual task. 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 | Attentional sensitization operates even within the perceptual domain: only a shape induction task, not a colour one, produced occipito-parietal ERP priming. 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 | A phonological letter-classification induction task, which discourages word reading, abolished subsequent subliminal semantic priming. 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 | attentional sensitization model of unconscious cognition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | gain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: gain | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | preemptive control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: preemptive control | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | reactive control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reactive control | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | task set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task set | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | conditional automaticity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conditional automaticity | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | masked visuo-motor response priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: masked visuo-motor response priming | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | masked semantic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: masked semantic priming | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | N400 ERP component Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: N400 ERP component | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | induction task paradigm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: induction task paradigm | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | type of induction task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: type of induction task | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | RPI Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: RPI | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | subliminal priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal priming effect | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 200 or 800 ms — The two response-prime intervals between the induction-task response and masked prime onset, manipulated to track how the task set decays 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 | about 600 ms — Duration a task representation is claimed (from the task-switching literature) to remain active after task completion, motivating the choice of the two RPIs 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 | 40 targets — Large target set size in the cited Kiesel et al. expectancy manipulation, contrasted with a small four-target set 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 |
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.