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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 3 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 | masked cross-modal repetition priming in word recognition 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 post-experiment mask-effectiveness test probably overstates how visible the primes were during the ERP experiment itself. 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 larger, earlier cross-modal effect at 67 ms may reflect removal of an early reversed priming effect rather than a genuinely larger N400; the authors cannot yet decide between these. 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 | That alternative explanation is untested in the present data and awaits further experiments. 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 | Cross-study comparison of effect magnitude is difficult; the auditory priming effect obtained here is small and late relative to a previous cross-modal study. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | the response hand for the 'oui' and 'non' keys was counterbalanced across subjects AND across lists Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the cross-modal priming effect is a hand or key preference, or bound to a particular stimulus list · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | cross-modal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cross-modal priming | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | within-modality priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: within-modality priming | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | N250 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: N250 | 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 |
| concepts | bimodal interactive-activation model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bimodal interactive-activation model | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | prime duration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime duration | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THEY CONSIDER Holcomb2005'S DISTINCTION FOR THIS CASE AND DECLINE IT - AND Holcomb AND Grainger ARE AUTHORS ON BOTH PAPERS. The obvious extension of `pre-activation versus establishing connections` is that cross-modal priming, being slower and later, is the connection-building kind. `Quotation withheld.` The argument is that the distinction does not APPLY here, not that it is wrong - a author group declining to extend its own account into the case it most obviously fits 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 | AND THEY BACK THE REFUSAL WITH AN EMPIRICAL DISCRIMINATOR RATHER THAN LEAVING IT AS REASONING: the Holcomb et al. (2005) semantic effect `was mainly evident on the middle portion and trailing edge of the N400, while cross-modal repetition priming was evident on the rising edge of the N400 at the longest prime duration of the present study.` Different position within the same component, so the two effects are not one phenomenon wearing two names. That is a much harder claim to make than a verbal distinction, and it is the kind of evidence a corpus of definitions should be able to retrieve: two papers, one lab, one component, and a measurable difference in WHERE on the waveform each effect sits 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 | A METHODOLOGICAL CRITERION FOR WHETHER AN ERP COMPONENT EXISTS AT ALL, cited to a standard and RANKED BY STRENGTH: `Quotation withheld (Rugg & Coles, 1995).` The first two pieces of evidence are morphological - two peaks with a positivity between them, different scalp distributions - and the authors say plainly that the functional one beats them. A component is real when something moves it that does not move its neighbour, and that is a rule about how to individuate a measure, not a finding about words 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 | THE PAPER'S OWN DISSOCIATION SUPPLIES THAT CRITERION, AND IT IS A DOUBLE ONE: `within-modality priming revealed an early N250 effect that was absent in the cross-modality condition. Quotation withheld.` One variable moves the early component and not the late one; the other moves both. So the N250's null in the cross-modal condition is not a weak result - it is the evidence that the N250 is a component rather than a shoulder of the N400 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 |
| senses | THE MODEL IS TESTED ON TWO PREDICTIONS AND THE PAPER REPORTS BOTH OUTCOMES, INCLUDING THE FAILURE. The first holds - `Quotation withheld.` The second does not: `However, contrary to this prediction we failed to find any evidence for standard priming effects ... in early ERP components (i.e., the N250) with auditory targets at the longer prime duration.` They then explain the failure within the model - the sublexical units get only one source of activation where whole-word units get two - and mark that explanation as owing a test: whether another small increase in prime duration would produce the effect `remains to be seen in further research` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | replicates → Grainger et al. (2003) behavioural cross-modal masked priming result Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Holcomb and Grainger (in press), the N250 component 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 → the second prediction of the bimodal interactive-activation model (early, pre-N400 cross-modal effects at 67 ms primes) 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 | within-modality priming —contrasted-with→ cross-modal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: BOTH THE KIND OF DIFFERENCE AND ITS SIZE - the two words are the paper's own. Qualitatively: within-modality priming moves the early N250 and cross-modal priming does not, so they engage different processing stages rather than the same stage to different degrees. Quantitatively: at 50 ms prime exposures the cross-modal N400 effect is much the weaker of the two, though at 67 ms it is not · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: GROUNDED ON THE RESULT RATHER THAN ON THE INTERPRETATION, AND THAT WAS A CORRECTION. The span I first chose here - 'whereas priming…' - states an account the authors DECLINE two sentences later. Grounding the contrast on it would have recorded a position as this paper's when it is the one being argued against. That reasoning is in the sense rows instead, with the refusal attached to it. also in: within-modality priming · cross-modal priming | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | prime duration —causes→ cross-modal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.6 — the record marks this weak · note: WEIGHT 0.6 BECAUSE THIS IS AN OPEN QUESTION THE AUTHORS FLAG, NOT A RESULT - 'it remains to be seen in further research', and the hedge is the first clause of the quote. The established half of this relation (50 ms to 67 ms made the cross-modal N400 effect earlier and larger) is already on the record as content_tags.findings[2]; what is added here is the part the paper does NOT know - whether the same dial reaches the pre-N400 components its model predicted and Experiment 3 failed to find. No effect direction: a conditional has no measured sign.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but 'it remains to be seen' whether a longer prime generates cross-modal effects; causes is hedged. also in: prime duration · cross-modal priming | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | N250 —distinct-from→ N400 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHAT MOVES THEM. Within-modality priming moves the N250; cross-modality priming does not; both move the N400 equally. That is differential sensitivity to an experimental variable, which the authors name as the most compelling evidence for component independence - stronger than the two morphological arguments (two peaks with an intervening positivity, different scalp distributions) that precede it · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: 'at least PARTIALLY distinct' and 'strongly SUGGEST' are the hedges and both are inside the quote. The claim is that two measures are two things - an unusual thing for a concept edge to carry, and the reason this record is worth its senses. | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | repeated measures ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repeated measures ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Geisser-Greenhouse sphericity correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[1] | 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[2] | 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[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean and standard error of the mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean and standard error of the mean | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | z-score normalisation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: Holcomb et al., 1999) revealed - THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS ROW ATTRIBUTES THE WORK TO SOMEBODY ELSE. The cited name is the subject of a result verb and the sentence carries no first-person marker, so the finding, quantity or definition is the CITED author's rather than this record's. The claim is true and the quote is verbatim - what is wrong is whose result the corpus says it is. Nothing edited, nothing withdrawn: the row is marked so a page can name the source. Where the record is a commentary or review, its claim relations layer usually already names the paper being discussed - the record knows at one layer and forgets at another. also in: z-score normalisation | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Behaviourally, masked visual primes speeded lexical decisions to both visual and auditory targets by roughly equal amounts, with no modality-by-repetition interaction. 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 | In the ERPs, within-modality repetition effects appeared early and spanned the N250 and N400, while cross-modal effects only emerged on the trailing edge of the N400 after the visual effect had ended. 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 | Raising the prime duration from 50 ms to 67 ms made the cross-modal N400 priming effect both earlier and substantially larger. 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 | The model's prediction that a longer prime would produce cross-modal effects in pre-N400 components was not supported: no N250 priming appeared for auditory targets even at 67 ms. 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 | Within-modality (visual-visual) priming became smaller, not larger, as prime exposure increased from 50 to 67 ms. 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 | At the short prime duration a small reversed (inverse) priming effect appeared in the cross-modal condition in the 200-300 ms window. 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 | N250 component Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: N250 component | content_tags.definitions[0] | 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.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime and target Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime and target | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | masked priming variant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: masked priming variant | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | repetition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | target modality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: target modality | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime exposure duration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime exposure duration | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | counter-balanced lists Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: counter-balanced lists | content_tags.variables[7] | 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[8] | 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[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 39ms / 40ms — size of the behavioural repetition priming effect for visual and auditory word targets 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 | d' = 0.11 — prime visibility (sensitivity) in the Experiment 1 mask-effectiveness forced-choice test, not different from zero 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 | 64% — proportion of masked primes correctly reported in the post-experiment visibility test with the longer 67 ms prime of Experiment 3 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 | 1.2 microvolt — amplitude of the late auditory (cross-modal) priming effect at Cz 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[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 50 ms to 67 ms — the single manipulated change in prime exposure duration between Experiments 2 and 3 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 |
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.