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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 | existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | cross-modal semantic priming (picture-word) 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. | 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 sample was restricted to male subjects, so gender effects on the reported lateralisation and language processing are untested here. 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 | Only artifact (man-made object) concepts were used, so the findings may not extend to natural/living concepts or to manipulable versus non-manipulable relations. 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 PRE-TEST established that the word pairs really were strongly related Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a null or weak priming effect is a failure of the materials rather than of the hypothesis · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | four pseudo-randomised versions of the experiment counterbalanced across subjects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the conditions systematically influence one another through their order · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | 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 | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | cross‐modal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cross‐modal | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | response suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response suppression | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | lexical decision Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lexical decision | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | unimodal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: unimodal | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | A NULL WHERE THE DESIGN EXPECTED A DIFFERENCE: `Quotation withheld` A picture priming a word behaves like a word priming a word. Set beside Chen2018, tagged earlier tonight - which separated two cross-modal primes by their time courses - this says the modality BOUNDARY itself costs nothing, while what crosses it still can 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 SHORT SOA IS A CONTROL AND THE ALTERNATIVE IS NAMED: `In order to avoid strategic influence or expectancy which can affect priming‐specific patterns of activation ... we wanted to use fast, automatic, implicit processing, i.e., semantic priming with an short stimulus onset asynchrony.` The SOA is not a parameter, it is a fence - it makes strategy impossible rather than unlikely. Eighth record this sitting where a time course is load-bearing, and the first where it is used as a CONTROL rather than reported as a result 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 | `response suppression` DEFINED BY SCOPE rather than by mechanism: it is `a special form of BOLD response deactivation, response enhancement a special form of BOLD activation in the context of semantic priming experiments in an fMRI SETTING`. The definition carries its own boundary - the same neural word means this only here - which is exactly the move this corpus exists to record 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 | A SAMPLING DECISION WITH ITS REASON, AND ITS COST: `Quotation withheld` The rationale is stated and is statistical rather than theoretical - homogeneity bought at the price of generalising to half the population. Worth a row because the trade is made explicit rather than left to be noticed by a reader 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 | builds-on → Caramazza et al. [1990] (Organized Unitary Conceptual Hypothesis) 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 → Paivio, 1991 (multiple semantic systems) 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 → Caramazza et al., 1990; Vandenberghe et al., 1996 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 | cross‐modal —distinct-from→ unimodal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHERE IN THE BRAIN, NOT HOW MUCH - both produce a behavioural priming effect and the comparison of the two revealed NO behavioural difference, while the neural suppression sits in bilateral fronto-parietal regions for unimodal and in the right inferior frontal gyrus for cross-modal · strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: Weighted 0.85 rather than higher because the distinction is NEUROANATOMICAL ONLY - behaviourally the paper reports no difference at all, and an edge read without that qualifier would overstate the separation. The null has its own sense row.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span reports priming for both cross-modal and unimodal pairs; distinct-from is loose. also in: cross‐modal · unimodal | 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 | 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 | 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[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | outlier trimming by standard deviations 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 | 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[4] | 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[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | multiple comparison correction / type I error rate 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 | A significant behavioural priming effect was obtained in both the picture-word and the word-word conditions. 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 size of the cross-modal priming effect was statistically indistinguishable from the unimodal one. 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 | Unimodal word-word priming produced response suppression across bilateral fronto-parietal cortex. 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 | Cross-modal picture-word priming produced response suppression confined to the right inferior frontal gyrus. 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 direct contrast between the two modalities yielded no significant modality-specific clusters. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The authors conclude their data support an amodal semantic system rather than multiple semantic systems. 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 | priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming effect | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | response suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response suppression | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | response enhancement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response enhancement | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | association Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: association | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Organized Unitary Conceptual Hypothesis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | automatic processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: automatic processing | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | modality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: modality | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | relation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: relation | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | reaction time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reaction time | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | percentage of errors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: percentage of errors | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | session Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: session | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | lexical frequency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lexical frequency | content_tags.variables[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | word length Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: word length | content_tags.variables[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 16 — number of participants scanned (all male) 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 | 350 ms — stimulus onset asynchrony chosen to keep processing automatic rather than strategic 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 | F (1, 15) = 14.73, P < 0.005 — main effect of relatedness on reaction time (the behavioural priming effect) 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 | 638.54 ... 39.13 (53.69) — mean reaction time on cross-modal related trials and the resulting cross-modal priming effect in milliseconds 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 | t (15) = −0.45, P = 0.66 — test comparing cross-modal and unimodal priming effect sizes, showing no difference 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 | 3.9% — proportion of reaction time trials removed as outliers before analysis 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 | 1 (= unrelated) to 7 (= highly‐related) — rating scale used in the norming pre-test to select strongly related word pairs 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 |
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.