standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
| 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 | why a stimulus can be discriminated above chance while being reported as unseen, treated as two decisions over the same sensory vector under different sets of response classes 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 objective and subjective tasks can be described by the same inference principles, differing only in the nature and size of the decision space 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 | a geometric decision model that reproduces six standard findings in conscious and unconscious perception without postulating a separate conscious process, and a new experiment confirming one of its predictions 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 | 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 | dissociation between subjective visibility report and objective discrimination (subliminal perception) 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 | simulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: simulation | 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 | each task imposes its own set of response classes on the same continuous vector space, so two tasks can partition it differently and return different answers Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the distance between the two stimulus classes can exceed their distance from the absent class, which is why discrimination survives where detection does not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | internal variability alone makes half of physically identical threshold stimuli fall nearer the absent class and be reported unseen, and those samples sit closer to the discrimination border 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: can explain why | mechanisms[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the variance of the representation is what turns the visibility sigmoid from stepwise to nearly linear Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | raising the prior for one stimulus lowers the visibility threshold for that stimulus alone, which is offered as the mechanism behind hysteresis effects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | if attention changes the variance of the input, it can raise or lower visibility depending on how many trials are already reported unseen Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The account of linear versus nonlinear visibility profiles rests on an internal-variance parameter that cannot be measured in existing experiments. 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 model assumes a decision based on one static input vector rather than an accumulation of samples over time. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Most of the model's coverage of the literature is post hoc rather than predictive. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | most of the account is retrospective, which is why a new experiment was run Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the internal variance that drives the central prediction cannot be determined from existing experiments, so that part of the account remains speculative Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | six computational simplifications are declared in order: the cost function neglected, priors fixed in a given context rather than continuously updated, Gaussian distributions assumed, subjects assumed to have an accurate estimate of stimulus distributions, the same input vector entering different tasks, and stimulus evidence treated as a single discrete point Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the hypothesis that the input vector remains unchanged and identically available for a series of successive judgements may turn out to be simplistic, given temporal decay, an attentional cue presented after the stimulus, the task set imposed by the first task, and the order in which two questions are presented Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the model assumes a single input vector where sequential sampling models assume an accumulation, and extending it that way would be needed to predict reaction times Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the assumption that the decision system is fully informed of the stimulus distributions is called undoubtedly an idealization, with a dynamic model whose likelihood functions, priors and costs are learned and may therefore be ill estimated offered as the route to human deviations from optimality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the predicted exceptions to the all-or-none pattern, at high variance or low signal to noise, remain untested Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the MAP rule, which supplies the decision boundaries instead of their being assumed 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 | likelihood distributions and a decision rule, moved from one axis into a multi-dimensional space 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 |
| transfers | non-commuting projections, offered as a way to model why the order of two questions changes the answers Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | within-category compression and between-category separation as the definition to be met Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | two subjects excluded for failing to converge to a stable threshold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a threshold estimate that never settled, which would put an unmeasurable visibility level into the group analysis · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | discrimination → visibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. A DEPENDENCE, AND A SAMENESS CLAIM UNDERNEATH IT: the model predicts that linear and nonlinear response profiles ARISE FROM THE SAME DECISION MECHANISM, and that the discrimination profile of physically identical stimuli becomes increasingly nonlinear AS VISIBILITY INCREASES. No type expresses 'these vary together because one mechanism produces both'. | unhoused_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | THE SAME INPUT UNDER TWO CLASS STRUCTURES GIVES TWO ANSWERS, AND BOTH ARE CORRECT: each task imposes, top-down, its own categorical structure on one continuous space, and distinct response classes may therefore lead to different conclusions 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 | so a dissociation between what is discriminated and what is reported needs no second process - it is what one inference looks like when the question changes 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 | THE BOUNDARIES ARE DERIVED, NOT POSITED: their placement is stated not to be an additional hypothesis but a consequence of choosing the most probable class 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 | A WIDELY USED TERM WHOSE ORDINARY FORM IS WRONG: criterion suggests a single scalar value, and in this framework it is a set of task-specific boundaries dividing a space, which move when the task or the priors move 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 | THE BIAS IS THE SIGNAL: a shift in visibility criterion reflects the subject's own priors and costs and is argued not to be an experimental confound to be discarded 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 CONTROL CREATES THE CONFOUND IT WAS MEANT TO REMOVE: equating discrimination by masking or by attention introduces physical differences between the visible and invisible stimuli, so the contrast may reflect the stimulus rather than the visibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND THE PAPER SAYS ITS OWN ARGUMENTS ARE RETROSPECTIVE before running a new experiment - the accommodation of six existing findings is not offered as the test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the target set is declared first: six empirical findings that any account should reproduce, listed before the model is built Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND THE ORDER OF THE QUESTIONS MAY CHANGE THE ANSWERS: successive judgements may project the vector onto a task-defined subspace, and projections do not commute Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | an explanation is removed rather than added: a linear-then-categorical pattern previously read as two processes is reproduced by one, with the extra kind declared unnecessary Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: mechanism 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: mechanism — 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: a Bayesian signal-detection model in a multi-dimensional feature space, simulated for six known findings, then tested behaviourally by morphing one bar between two digits at perceptual threshold and collecting identification and visibility on every trial 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: simulation — 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: subliminal perception: above-chance discrimination of a stimulus the subject reports not having seen 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: dissociation between subjective visibility report and objective discrimination (subliminal perception) — 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 → earlier proposals [8, 12] (including Lau's decision-theoretic account) 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 → de Gardelle et al. [47] 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 → Rahnev et al. [26] Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: what drives the visibility rating: Rahnev has attention inducing a bias BY CHANGING THE INTER-TRIAL VARIANCE OF THE STIMULUS, where this model predicts AN INTERACTION BETWEEN THE VARIANCE AND INITIAL VISIBILITY THRESHOLD | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | critiques → accounts on which conscious perception is qualitatively different - more integrated, or dependent on higher-order metacognitive representations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: quantitative against qualitative: CONSCIOUS PROCESSES ARE QUANTITATIVELY MORE COMPLEX, INTEGRATED AND DIFFERENTIATED (Tononi and Edelman) against CONSCIOUS PERCEPTION IS QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT FROM UNCONSCIOUS PERCEPTION, AS IT RELIES ON HIGHER ORDER METACOGNITIVE REPRESENTATIONS (Lau, Rosenthal) | claim_relations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | explains-away → the reading of linear unconscious and categorical conscious priming as two distinct processes 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 | critiques → the methodological position that subjective reports are unreliable and objective sensitivity measures should be preferred Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: whether one measure reduces to the other: WE SHOW THAT SUBJECTIVE REPORTS CANNOT BE REDUCED TO OBJECTIVE MEASURES, against the position that OBJECTIVE MEASURES, FOR EXAMPLE DETECTION SENSITIVITY (d'), SHOULD BE FAVOURED | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → Lau and colleagues' designs that equate discrimination across seen and unseen trials, which do so at the cost of physical stimulus differences Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: what the design holds constant and what it lets vary: DISCRIMINATION PERFORMANCE IS EQUATED AT THE EXPENSE OF INTRODUCING PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES between the conditions, since masking and attention BOTH MAY CHANGE THE SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO OF THE INCOMING EVIDENCE | claim_relations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Rahnev and colleagues' account of attention as inducing a conservative visibility bias through inter-trial variance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: the same parameter as item 2: variance alone against AN INTERACTION BETWEEN THE VARIANCE AND INITIAL VISIBILITY THRESHOLD | claim_relations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → signal detection theory, extended from its usual one-dimensional depiction to multiple dimensions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → de Gardelle and colleagues' morphed-face priming result, replicated here with digits and an explicit visibility scale Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | task —causes→ classes 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 WHOLE ARGUMENT: each task imposes, top-down, its own categorical structure on a continuous space, and distinct response classes may therefore lead to different answers about the same input
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says each task imposes a categorical structure of classes; causes is loose. | concept_edges[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | response classes —part-of→ task 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 a confidence judgement is just another set of classes, so there is one confidence per task rather than one confidence
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but confidence judgements add response classes to a task; part-of is loose. also in: response classes · task | concept_edges[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | identification —operationalised-as→ posterior probability 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: three tasks over the same three classes: identification across all of them, discrimination with the absent class excluded, visibility as absent against not-absent also in: identification · posterior probability | concept_edges[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | input vector —distinct-from→ sequential sampling 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 single point where the newer models use a trajectory, which is why this model says nothing about reaction times
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the model assumes a SINGLE input vector, which sequential sampling models supersede; distinct-from is loose. also in: input vector · sequential sampling | concept_edges[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | discrimination —contrasted-with→ detection 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 distance between the two stimuli exceeds their distance from the absent class - in two dimensions by a factor of root two - so one can be significant when the other is not also in: discrimination · detection | concept_edges[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | unseen —distinct-from→ seen 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: internal variability alone splits physically identical threshold trials, and the unseen half necessarily sits closer to the discrimination border
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span explains why some identical stimuli are reported unseen; distinct-from is loose. | concept_edges[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | variance —causes→ sigmoid 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 parameter that turns the visibility function from stepwise to nearly linear is the variance in representational space, not a change of process
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span names a parameter driving the sigmoid's slope; causes 'sigmoid' is loose. | concept_edges[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | attention —causes→ visibility 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: and the disagreement with the rival account is stated as a testable difference rather than an interpretation
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span predicts how attention affects visibility ratings; causes states a prediction. also in: attention · visibility | concept_edges[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | RETRACTED (AN ATTRIBUTED PROPOSAL, AND THE CONTAINMENT IS A CATEGORY CONFUSION) · global workspace —part-of→ conscious perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. RETRACTED: AN ATTRIBUTED PROPOSAL, AND THE CONTAINMENT IS A CATEGORY CONFUSION. The edge is 'global workspace --part-of--> conscious perception'. The span: 'These areas have been proposed to form A “GLOBAL WORKSPACE”…'. A workspace is a proposed ARCHITECTURE in which conscious information is held - it is not a PART of conscious perception, and the sentence attributes the proposal to others rather than asserting it. — strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: the neural sketch is left explicitly as future work, with prefrontal, anterior temporal and parietal areas as the categorical decision system
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but these areas 'HAVE BEEN PROPOSED to form' a global workspace that contributes to conscious perception; part-of is loose. also in: global workspace · conscious perception | concept_edges[36] | 0.8 | 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[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | model fitting (binomial / logistic psychometric fit) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | correlation (coefficient of determination) 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 | d’ Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: d’ | content_tags.statistics[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | binomial Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: binomial | content_tags.statistics[5] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | t 16 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t 16 | content_tags.statistics[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A single Bayesian/signal-detection decision framework, differing only in the response classes each task imposes, reproduces the standard dissociation between objective discrimination and subjective report. 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 decision model suffices to account for several classical characteristics of conscious and unconscious perception. 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 | Geometrically, the two-dimensional model implies that discrimination sensitivity exceeds detection sensitivity, which is why above-chance discrimination can coexist with chance-level detection. 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 | In a new experiment with morphed digits at threshold, subjects identified the digit above chance even at the lowest visibility rating. 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 steepness of the identification sigmoid rose systematically with reported visibility, as the model predicted. 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 | Unseen trials produced a near-linear relation between morph level and response, whereas seen trials produced a near step-function, all-or-none pattern. 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 | Because one decision process yields both response profiles, no qualitative difference between conscious and unconscious processing need be postulated. 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 | SIX EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ARE DECLARED IN ADVANCE as the set any account must reproduce, before the model is introduced 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 | each task is taken to impose its own class structure on one continuous space, so distinct response classes can give different answers about the same input 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 | the conscious percept is modelled as the most probable class among all classes, with negative classes such as I did not see anything included Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE DECISION BOUNDARIES ARE DERIVED RATHER THAN POSITED - their placement is explicitly not an additional hypothesis 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 | SIX SIMPLIFICATIONS ARE LISTED IN ORDER: no cost function, fixed priors, Gaussian distributions, a calibrated observer, a task-invariant input vector, and a single point rather than a trajectory 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 | a degraded stimulus can fall in the unseen region and still be discriminated above chance when the choice excludes the absent class 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 | and this is not a response bias - the simulation is Bayes-optimal and still produces the dissociation 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 | the geometry gives discrimination a root-two advantage over detection in two dimensions, so one can be significant while the other is not 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 | internal variability alone explains why about half of physically identical threshold trials are reported unseen, and why those trials discriminate worse Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE TERM CRITERION IS RECONSTRUCTED: it suggests a single scalar value, and here it is a task-specific set of boundaries that move when the task or the priors move Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | three distinct mechanisms are offered for equating discrimination while visibility varies, each with its own manipulation to test it 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 slope of the visibility sigmoid is driven by the variance of the representation, so all-or-none and graded patterns come from one process 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 | and that part is marked speculative, because internal variance cannot be determined from existing experiments Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | in a hysteresis paradigm, subjects reported letters as more visible in the descending than in the ascending sequence, once they knew the letter's identity 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 | and the account is immediately qualified, since subjects also learn the sequence structure and would expect more absent trials at its ends 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 | with a discriminating prediction attached: the same sequences should shift the bias but leave discrimination unchanged 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 | attention modelled as a variance change can raise or lower visibility depending on how many trials are already reported unseen 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 | which is stated as a testable disagreement with the rival account rather than an interpretation of it 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 PAPER STATES THAT ITS ARGUMENTS SO FAR ARE RETROSPECTIVE and runs a new experiment for that reason 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 prediction under test is that identical stimuli give increasingly nonlinear discrimination as visibility rises 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 continuum is built by varying the contrast of a single bar between two digits, so one physical dimension carries two categories 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 | stimuli were held at perceptual threshold so that a fixed stimulus produced both seen and unseen reports 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 | contrast was set per subject by staircase to about 70 percent accuracy, and two subjects who would not converge were excluded 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 | the visibility scale was validated against target-absent trials before being used 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 | THE RESULT: choices tracked bar contrast at every visibility level, and the sigmoid steepened significantly as visibility rose 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 | three predictions verified - above chance throughout, rising with visibility, and increasingly nonlinear with visibility 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 NO QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE HAD TO BE POSTULATED between conscious and unconscious processing to get it 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 | an earlier result read as two processes - unconscious analogue against conscious discrete - is reproduced by one 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 | conscious percepts are held to a borrowed definition of categorical perception, with three separate signatures promised in a companion paper 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 | perception is framed as a massive classification problem, with a picture-naming task involving tens of thousands of classes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[36] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | subjective reports are argued not to be reducible to objective measures nor to second-order confidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[37] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE BIAS IS THE SIGNAL: a criterion shift reflects the subject's own priors and costs and is argued not to be discarded as a confound Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[38] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE CONTROL CREATES A CONFOUND: equating discrimination by masking or attention introduces physical differences between visible and invisible stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[39] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the predicted exceptions to the all-or-none pattern remain untested Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[40] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the assumption that one vector serves several successive tasks is supported by a four-guess experiment, and its limits are named Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[41] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | including decay, retro-cueing, task set and the order of the questions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[42] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND PROJECTIONS DO NOT COMMUTE, so question order could change the answers - left open as a possible addition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[43] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the single-vector assumption is contrasted with sequential sampling models, which is what would be needed for reaction times Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[44] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the ideal-observer assumption is named as an idealization, with learned and miscalibrated priors offered as the route to deviations from optimality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[45] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the classic one-dimensional depiction of signal detection theory is argued to miss the interaction between features, classes and tasks Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[46] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the vast representational space is placed in posterior unimodal and multimodal sensory areas, whose role may be to augment the dimensionality of sensory inputs and turn decisions into linearly separable problems Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[47] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | with the global workspace named as the candidate for the categorical decision system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[48] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | vast representational space Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: vast representational space | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | categorical structure of classes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: categorical structure of classes | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | forced-choice discrimination Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: forced-choice discrimination | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | visibility judgement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: visibility judgement | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | subliminal perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal perception | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | representational space Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: representational space | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: criterion | content_tags.definitions[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | categorical perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: categorical perception | content_tags.definitions[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | identification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: identification | content_tags.definitions[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | sequential sampling Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sequential sampling | content_tags.definitions[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | parameter λ Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: parameter λ | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | identification performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: identification performance | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | subjective visibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subjective visibility | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | target contrast Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: target contrast | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | visibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: visibility | content_tags.variables[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | discrimination Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: discrimination | content_tags.variables[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | variance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: variance | content_tags.variables[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | prior probability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prior probability | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: evidence | content_tags.variables[8] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | n = 17 — number of subjects contributing to the reported results (two of nineteen were excluded) 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 | 29% males, age: 25 ± 5 — composition of the volunteer sample recruited for the experiment 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 | 67.7% — identification accuracy on unambiguous targets, confirming the staircase hit its ~70% goal 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 | 36.7 versus 16.9% — proportion of trials given the lowest (0%) visibility rating on target-absent versus target-present 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 | √2 — the factor by which discrimination sensitivity exceeds detection sensitivity in the two-dimensional version of the model 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 | 1000 trials divided into 25 blocks — total trial count per subject in the main experiment 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 | r ²(15) = 0.79 — strength of the relation between reported visibility level and the steepness of the identification sigmoid 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 | 50% — the share of physically identical threshold trials reported unseen through internal variability alone 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 | 36.7 versus 16.9% — use of the zero-visibility response on target-absent against target-present trials, the check that the scale was used properly 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 | r ²(15) = 0.79 — the increase in sigmoid slope with visibility rating - the tested prediction 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 | 70% — the accuracy the per-subject staircase targeted before the experiment began 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 |
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.