standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | masked semantic priming (N400) 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 | |
| limitations | The cueing manipulation may have been too weak to fully disengage temporal attention from the prime, which could explain why behavioural priming was unaffected. 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 | Some backward priming from target to prime cannot be entirely ruled out in Experiment 2. 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 | |
| controls | a CONTROL EXPERIMENT identical to Experiment 1 except that the cue stimulus was not task-relevant and did not direct attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the modulation follows from the cue's physical presence rather than from the attention it directs · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | filler trials at an intermediate cue-prime interval were included Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that subjects learn the trial-length structure and prepare differently for short and long intervals · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | automatic processes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: automatic processes | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | temporal attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: temporal attention | concepts[1] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | masked priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: masked priming | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | N400 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: N400 | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE DEFINITIONAL CLAIM IS QUOTED HERE VERBATIM AND THEN CONTRADICTED BY THE SAME PAPER. `Quotation withheld (Posner & Snyder, 1975).` If independence from attention is what makes a process automatic, and the process turns out not to be independent of attention, then either it is not automatic or the definition is wrong. The paper takes the second option and keeps the word - which is precisely the move this corpus exists to make visible, and it is made in an introduction without comment 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 | THE RESULT, AND `PREREQUISITE` IS A STRONGER WORD THAN `MODULATES`: `Quotation withheld` Not amplified, not enhanced - required. Without attention in the prime's time window there is no masked N400 priming at all. neely1977 built a design to separate the automatic component from the attentional one; this says the separation does not hold at the boundary 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 | AND THE CONTROL THAT MAKES IT INTERESTING IS ONE CLAUSE IN THE HYPOTHESIS: masked priming is amplified when attention is directed to the stimulus stream in the prime's time window, `even in the absence of any prime awareness.` Attention moves; awareness stays at zero. Without that clause the result reads as `attending made the prime visible` - a different and far less interesting paper. Same manoeuvre as marcel1983's second mask and eckstein2007's awareness measures. Sixth record running where the instrument turns out to be part of the phenomenon, and the first where the thing being modulated is the definition itself Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Naccache, Blandin & Dehaene (2002) 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 | contradicts → Schneider & Shiffrin (1977); Posner & Snyder (1975) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → Deacon et al. (2000); Kiefer & Spitzer (2000); Brown & Hagoort (1993) 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 | |
| concept_edges | temporal attention —causes→ N400 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: 0.95 · direction on the measure (stated by the tagger, no quotation): increases · note: 'PREREQUISITE' IS WHY THIS IS 0.95 AND WHY 'increases' UNDERSTATES IT. The enforced axis vocabulary offers increases / reduces / eliminates / no-change, and the claim here is stronger than any of them: without temporal attention the effect does not occur. The nearest available value is 'increases' and it is recorded with that gap stated rather than papered over. A fifth value - 'is-required-for' - would be the honest one, and that goes to Shir with the other schema items rather than being invented here. Both endpoints named as words, the sentence is a results statement, no hedge to preserve. also in: temporal attention · N400 | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | 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 | F-test / main effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: F-test / main effect | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | post hoc multiple comparison test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: post hoc multiple comparison test | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Huynh-Feldt correction for sphericity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | signal detection sensitivity (d-prime) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regression | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | between-subjects factor in mixed ANOVA 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 | The masked N400 priming effect was strongest when the cue interval and the SOAs were short. 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 | Temporal attention to the prime is a prerequisite for masked N400 priming. 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 | With a task-irrelevant cue, N400 priming was considerably reduced and no longer modulated by the cue-prime interval. 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 | Masked behavioural priming was significant but did not vary with the cue-prime interval. 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 | Prime visibility was at chance for the analysed participants, supporting the claim that the primes were unconscious. 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 | Regression found no significant correlation between priming effects and prime identification scores. 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 | semantic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic priming | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | masked priming procedure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: masked priming procedure | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | N400 priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: N400 priming effect | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cue prime interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cue prime interval | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | stimulus onset asynchrony Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stimulus onset asynchrony | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | SOA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SOA | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cue relevance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cue relevance | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | N400 amplitude Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: N400 amplitude | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | objective measure of prime identification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | RT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: RT | content_tags.variables[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ER Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ER | content_tags.variables[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | F(1,15) = 31.064, MSE = 948, p < .0001 — Main effect of semantic relatedness on lexical decision reaction time in Experiment 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 | F(1,15) = 34.405, MSE = 17.83, p < .0001 — Main effect of semantic relatedness on N400 amplitude in the 400-599 msec window of Experiment 1 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 | 16 subjects, mean age 25.1 years — Analysed sample of Experiment 1 after excluding three participants whose prime identification exceeded chance 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 | 49.45% and 49.38% — Masked prime identification accuracy in the short and long cue-prime interval conditions, both at the 50% chance level 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 | 67 msec or 200 msec — The two prime-target stimulus onset asynchronies used to track the time course of masked priming 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 | 33.5 msec — Duration of the masked prime word presentation 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 | 800 trials — Total trials per participant, split into five blocks of 160 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 | 0.97% versus 1.79% — Lexical decision error rates for semantically related versus unrelated word pairs in Experiment 1 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | 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.