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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 2 relations 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 | context-specific improvements in interference resolution (priming of control) 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 | fmri Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fmri | 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. status: the paper's own words: we propose that | 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 | |
| limitations | The functional profile of mSPL was only sampled at two conflict-frequency levels and would need parametric variation of cues or load to be characterised properly. 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 | How the reduced FFA lateralisation in the high-conflict context actually produces the behavioural benefit is not established. 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 | the stimulus-response mapping was counterbalanced across subjects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a conflict effect is a fixed stimulus-response preference · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the first trial of each run and all responses faster than 150 ms or slower than 2000 ms were discarded - 1.6 per cent of trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the mean is pulled by anticipations and lapses rather than by the manipulation · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | conflict frequency was manipulated BY LOCATION - one side of fixation 25 per cent congruent, the other the reverse Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a contextual control effect is a global strategy rather than one bound to a location · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | dichotomy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dichotomy | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | contextual cues Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contextual cues | concepts[1] | 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[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | interference resolution Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: interference resolution | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | A FALSE DICHOTOMY, NAMED AS SUCH: `Quotation withheld.` The distinction between bottom-up association and deliberate top-down control is the oldest working partition in this literature, and the paper's contribution is to show a case that sits on both sides of it - an ASSOCIATIVE trigger for a CONTROL state 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 | PRIMING APPLIED TO A CONTROL SETTING - a fifth kind of thing for the word in this corpus, beside a concept, a behaviour, a goal and a sentence structure. `top-down control states can be bound into episodic event representations and can subsequently be primed by other features of those representations.` The claim is that a control configuration is storable and retrievable like any other feature of an episode, so the machinery already built for priming concepts applies to it unchanged 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 | THE MIRROR OF Kiefer2012, tagged earlier tonight. Kiefer argued that top-down configuration GATES unconscious processing - control reaching down into the automatic. This paper argues the other direction: an automatic associative cue TRIGGERS a control state. Between them the boundary is crossed both ways, and neither needs the other to be wrong. What is left of `automatic` after both is the pair of criteria Kiefer kept - not conscious, not deliberately initiated - and nothing about autonomy 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 | AWARENESS CHECKED, NOT ASSUMED, AND THE CONCLUSION IS DEFINITIONAL: the effect occurred `despite the participant's lack of awareness of systematic variation in conflict frequency, illustrating the implicit nature of the phenomenon and delivering further evidence questioning the notion that controlled processing is inherently volitional`. A survey after scanning quantified what participants noticed. The target is not a finding but a property the word `controlled` is usually taken to carry 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 | extends → Vandenberghe et al., 2001; Yantis et al., 2002; Serences et al., 2004; Shulman et al., 2009 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 | replicates → Crump et al., 2006 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 | contextual cues —causes→ top-down control 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 PAPER'S CLAIM, and the direction is the surprising half: the ASSOCIATIVE process is the cause and the CONTROL state is the effect, which is the reverse of how the dichotomy arranges them. 'suggestive of' is the hedge in this span - the fMRI result is what upgrades it, and that is a separate edge.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but implicit cues modulate performance 'in a way SUGGESTIVE of' triggering control states; causes is hedged. also in: contextual cues · top-down control | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | contextual cues —causes→ interference resolution 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 behavioural expression, and the paper's own summary sentence. 'support the proposal' is its strength - this is an fMRI study confirming and localising a behavioural phenomenon rather than establishing it. also in: contextual cues · interference resolution | concept_edges[1] | 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 | 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 | 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[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | binomial test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: binomial test | 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 | Monte Carlo simulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Monte Carlo simulation | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | maximum likelihood estimation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: maximum likelihood estimation | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Interference (flanker congruency) effects in reaction time were smaller for stimuli appearing in the location associated with frequent conflict than in the low-conflict location. 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 | Two regions, left dorsal premotor cortex and right medial superior parietal lobule, showed the context-by-congruency interaction in hemodynamic activity. 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 | mSPL activity for differential conflict processing covaried with activity in both visual cortex ROIs. 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 | Reduced interference was not evident on trials following a switch from the low- to the high-conflict context. 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 | Participants were essentially unaware of the location-based conflict-frequency manipulation, establishing that the effect is implicit. 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 | FFA lateralization present in the low-conflict context was absent in the high-conflict context. 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 | Individual differences in the FFA lateralization reduction tracked individual differences in the behavioural interference reduction. 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 | priming of control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming of control | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | conflict frequency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conflict frequency | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | context transition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: context transition | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | individual mean RT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: individual mean RT | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean reaction times Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean reaction times | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | error rates Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: error rates | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 94 ms vs 123 ms — size of the flanker interference effect in the high-conflict versus low-conflict location 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 | 25 — number of participants retained for analysis after exclusions 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 | 93% — overall accuracy on the flanker task 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 | 783 ms vs 674 ms — mean reaction time on incongruent versus congruent trials 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 | p = 0.054 — binomial test on the 17-vs-8 split of participants correctly forced-choosing the high-conflict side, taken as evidence of implicit knowledge 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 | 25% congruent/75% incongruent — the conflict-frequency ratio defining the high-conflict context (reversed for the low-conflict context) 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 |
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.