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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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 |
| 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 8 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 | how a single tone is held in mind for sixteen seconds, and which areas carry the held content 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 auditory cortex is involved in auditory working memory at all, given limited and conflicting evidence 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 system in which sound-specific representations in auditory cortex are kept active by long-range connections from hippocampus and frontal cortex 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 | auditory working memory 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. duplicate of: mechanisms[4] | 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 | hippocampal activity here may form part of the activated LTM component of WM, because tones changed across trials and were maintained for long intervals of time (16 s) 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 | left inferior frontal gyrus and HG may form a closed loop in which tone-specific frontal representations drive subvocal rehearsal that reactivates auditory cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a retro-cue protects the cued item from decay, which is why cueing one of two tones gives activation where holding both uncued gave suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | PT may hold symbolic templates further from the sensory pattern, which would make its content harder to decode from blood flow Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | posterior hippocampus may be more involved in real-time analysis of auditory stimuli, which predicts stronger connectivity with auditory cortex 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 |
| limitations | Retrieval-phase activity in the dorsal-anterior right IFG cannot be attributed to retrieval rather than motor response. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the retrieval interpretation of the dorsal-anterior right IFG: WE CANNOT DISSOCIATE WHETHER THE ACTIVITY IS RELATED TO MOTOR RESPONSE OR TO RETRIEVAL OF WM INFORMATION | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The rehearsal interpretation of motor-area activity during maintenance is contested in the wider literature. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the rehearsal reading of motor activity: THE ROLE OF MOTOR AREAS IN WORKING MEMORY IS STILL CONTROVERSIAL AS STUDIES USING NONREHEARSABLE STIMULI ALSO SHOW ACTIVITY IN MOTOR AREAS | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Subjects were not instructed to use any particular strategy, so the subvocal-rehearsal account of the LIFG activity is inferred rather than controlled. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the subvocal-rehearsal account of the LIFG activity: WE DID NOT EXPLICITLY INSTRUCT THE SUBJECTS TO FOLLOW ANY PARTICULAR STRATEGY, so rehearsal is inferred and not controlled | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | for the frontal focus active only at retrieval, motor response and memory retrieval cannot be dissociated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[0] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - at retrieval, motor and memory cannot be separated | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | no strategy was instructed, so rehearsal is inferred rather than controlled, and the role of motor areas in working memory is itself contested Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[2], with the standing dispute attached | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | classification was above chance in only two of five regions, and in left inferior frontal gyrus five of thirteen subjects fell below chance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the group-level classification result: FOR HG, 9 OF 13 SUBJECTS PERFORMED ABOVE THE CHANCE LEVEL ... FOR THE LEFT IFG, EIGHT SUBJECTS WERE ABOVE THE CHANCE LEVEL AND FIVE PERFORMED BELOW | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | three subjects were dropped from the pattern analysis for poor performance but kept in the univariate analysis, because the correlation with behaviour needed them Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the sample size, which differs by analysis on purpose: three poor performers WERE DROPPED FROM THE ANALYSIS ... WE DID NOT DROP THESE SUBJECTS FROM THE UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS BECAUSE WE WANTED TO ANALYZE THE CORRELATION OF BRAIN ACTIVITY WITH BEHAVIORAL PERFORMANCE | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | multivoxel pattern analysis of the delay period, imported to ask whether auditory delay activity is content-specific 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 | the retro-cue, whose protective effect is used to explain why two studies of the same question disagree 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 |
| controls | only the middle 10.5 seconds of the maintenance period were modelled, discarding 4 seconds at each end Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the maintenance signal is contaminated by the haemodynamic response to stimulus onset or to the probe at the end · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | subjects performed a pitch discrimination task outside the scanner before taking part Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a failure of memory is really a failure of PERCEPTION - a subject who cannot hear the pitch difference cannot remember it either · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | DMN Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: DMN | concepts[11] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | behavioral performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioral performance | concepts[19] | the paper's words | |
| unhoused_relations | LTM → hippocampus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. COMMON CAUSE, NOT A CHAIN. Subjects who cannot sustain attention rely more on LTM; LTM reliance predicts BOTH greater hippocampal activation AND poorer performance, the latter via proactive interference from previously presented tones. The hippocampal signal and the performance drop are sibling effects. Stated as a PREDICTION, not a result. | unhoused_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | SUSTAINED ACTIVITY IS NOT WORKING MEMORY: a region can hold information in subthreshold patterns without elevated activity, and elevated activity can reflect sustained attention instead 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 | the maintenance regressor is only interpretable because its correlation with the encoding regressor was MEASURED at 0.04 - the phases are adjacent in time and the BOLD response is lagged 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 classifier sees only the middle 10.5 s of the delay, with 4 s trimmed at each end, because the probe tone belonged to the same category and could otherwise leak into the decoding 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 | connectivity is never compared with rest, because heart rate and other physiological variables differ between task and rest and are known to confound functional connectivity 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 inclusion criteria differ BY ANALYSIS and each difference is justified: poor performers are excluded from classification to reduce noise and retained in the univariate analysis because the brain-behaviour correlation requires the spread 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 | d-PRIME is d', the signal-detection sensitivity index, and not a priming prime despite carrying the word: it is the per-subject detection measure (0.89, 0.99, 1.16) used as the exclusion criterion for the pattern analysis 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 |
| 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: event-related fMRI with separate encoding, maintenance and retrieval regressors, multivoxel pattern classification, and psychophysiological-interaction connectivity 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: fmri — 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: sustained activity in auditory cortex, hippocampus and inferior frontal gyrus across a sixteen-second maintenance period 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: auditory working memory — 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 | contradicts → Linke et al. (2011) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → Linke and Cusack (2015) 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 | builds-on → Jeneson and Squire (2011) 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 | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Linke 2011's observation of suppression in auditory cortex during maintenance of two tones Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | reconciles → the conflicting reports of increased and decreased auditory cortical activity during auditory working memory 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 | confirms → Linke and Cusack 2015's activation during maintenance of a single sound Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → Jeneson and Squire's account in which hippocampal activity during working memory reflects recourse to long-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → visual working memory studies showing content-specific subthreshold activity during the delay Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[7] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | sustained activity —distinct-from→ WM 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: TWO WAYS THE OLD INDEX FAILS: a region can carry content without elevated activity, and elevated activity can be sustained attention instead also in: sustained activity · WM | concept_edges[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | encoding —distinct-from→ maintenance 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: CONFOUND MEASURED, NOT ASSUMED: the two regressors correlate at 0.04, so maintenance activity is not encoding leaking forward through the lagged BOLD response
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span discusses separating encoding and maintenance regressors; distinct-from is loose. also in: encoding · maintenance | concept_edges[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | retrieval —distinct-from→ maintenance 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: LEAKAGE THE OTHER WAY: the probe was of the cued category, so 4 s is trimmed from each end of the delay before decoding
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says the probe likely re-cued the maintained category; distinct-from is loose. also in: retrieval · maintenance | concept_edges[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | HG —contrasted-with→ PT 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: PT carries 84.42% of the surviving maintenance voxels and yet HG is the one whose PATTERNS decode the tone - activation and content dissociate | concept_edges[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | LIFG —contrasted-with→ RIFG 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: CRITERION: both are active throughout maintenance and only the LEFT carries decodable content - activation and content dissociate here too | concept_edges[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | RETRACTED (TWO EFFECTS OF A COMMON CAUSE, TAGGED AS CAUSING EACH OTHER - a class I have not named before) · hippocampus —causes→ behavioral performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. RETRACTED: TWO EFFECTS OF A COMMON CAUSE, TAGGED AS CAUSING EACH OTHER - a class I have not named before. The edge is 'hippocampus --causes--> behavioral performance'. The span is a chain of PREDICTIONS: '…on LTM, and, THEREFORE, hippocampus WOULD BE ACTIVATED…'. The upstream cause is failure to sustain attention, which produces LTM reliance; LTM reliance produces BOTH greater hippocampal activation AND poor performance. Hippocampal activation is a MARKER of the same upstream process, not a cause of the performance. Reading the two consequences as one causing the other is the classic confound, and here the paper itself lays the structure out. WHAT THE SPAN DOES SAY: housed below as the common-cause structure, since no type can record 'these two share a cause'. — strength of the relation: 0.6 — the record marks this weak · note: SIGN NEGATIVE, AND PREDICTED IN ADVANCE FROM THE RIVAL'S MODEL: more hippocampal activity should mean worse performance if it reflects falling back on long-term memory
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span states a prediction; causes states it as a finding. also in: hippocampus · behavioral performance | concept_edges[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | DMN —causes→ behavioral performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: CORRELATIONAL, NOT INTERVENTIONAL: the paper reports a negative CORRELATION between DMN activity and performance; nothing was manipulated, and the mind-wandering account that follows is offered as an interpretation · direction on the measure: reduces · strength of the relation: 0.7 · note: SIGN NEGATIVE: read as mind wandering during the delay
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but DMN activity was NEGATIVELY CORRELATED with performance, interpreted as mind wandering; causes overstates a correlation. also in: DMN · behavioral performance | concept_edges[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | PPI —operationalised-as→ connectivity 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 the rest BASELINE IS REFUSED for it: heart rate differs between task and rest, so every contrast is task-against-task also in: PPI · connectivity | concept_edges[12] | 1.0 | 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[0] | 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[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | general linear model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: general linear model | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regression | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | multiple-comparison correction (false discovery rate) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | permutation test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: permutation test | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cross-validation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cross-validation | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | small-volume correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: small-volume correction | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | psychophysiological interaction analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | support vector machine Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: support vector machine | content_tags.statistics[9] | 0.7 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | false discovery rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: false discovery rate | content_tags.statistics[10] | 0.7 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | one-tailed t tests Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: one-tailed t tests | content_tags.statistics[11] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | During the 16 s maintenance period, sustained auditory-cortex activity was concentrated in PT, with 84.42% of suprathreshold voxels lying there. 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 | No suppression of auditory cortex activity was observed in any of the three task phases. 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 | Only HG (55.61%) and left inferior frontal gyrus (54.25%) carried information about whether a low or high tone was being held; PT, hippocampus and right inferior frontal gyrus classified at chance. 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 | Univariate analysis found no maintenance-period activity difference between holding a low and a high tone. 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 | Hippocampus was significantly active in all three phases of the task - encoding, maintenance and retrieval. 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 | Along the hippocampal long axis, encoding activity was stronger anteriorly and retrieval activity stronger posteriorly. 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 | Hippocampal activity during maintenance correlated negatively with task accuracy: subjects with more hippocampal activity performed worse. 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 | Auditory cortex was strongly connected to the right hippocampus, both posterior and anterior. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | no suppression of auditory cortical activity was seen in any phase of the task 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 | during maintenance 84.42 percent of surviving auditory voxels lay in PT 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 | hippocampal activity was constant along the anterior-posterior axis during maintenance but rose posteriorly during encoding and retrieval 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 | THE UNIVARIATE NULL THAT MOTIVATED THE PATTERN ANALYSIS: mean activity did not differ between holding a low and a high tone 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 | only HG at 55.61 percent and left inferior frontal gyrus at 54.25 percent classified the held tone above chance 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 THE PER-SUBJECT SPLIT IS REPORTED: 9 of 13 above chance in HG, and only 8 of 13 in left 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[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | PARAMETRIC ASSUMPTION CHECKED: a permutation test over 100,000 resamples gave p values almost identical to the t tests 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 | THE REGRESSOR CONFOUND MEASURED: encoding and maintenance regressors correlated at only 0.04 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 | and the analysis was repeated on only the middle of the delay period, with very similar results 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 | DECODING LEAKAGE PREVENTED: the probe belonged to the cued category, so 4 s was trimmed from each end before classification 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 REST BASELINE WAS REFUSED for connectivity, because physiological variables differ between task and rest and confound functional connectivity 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 | INCLUSION CRITERIA DIFFER BY ANALYSIS, each justified: three poor performers dropped from classification and kept in the univariate analysis 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 | A PREDICTION DERIVED FROM THE RIVAL'S MODEL: if hippocampal activity means falling back on long-term memory, it should correlate NEGATIVELY with performance 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 that is what was found - activity in both hippocampi increased as performance worsened 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 | default mode network activity also correlated negatively with performance, read as mind wandering 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 | as did right inferior frontal junction activity, read as updating working memory from long-term memory 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 | parietal activity correlated POSITIVELY with performance, read as sustained attention 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 | A CONTRADICTION RESOLVED BY A DESIGN VARIABLE: the earlier suppression finding used two uncued tones, this study cued one of two after presentation 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 | and a later study holding a single sound found activation, agreeing with this one 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 | in that comparison auditory cortex showed no long-range connectivity, only connections between HG and PT within it 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 | during maintenance auditory cortex connected to right hippocampus and to left 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[28] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | accuracy ranged from 67 to 98 percent and was better for the first tone than the second 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 | seventeen adults with normal hearing and no musical training took part 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 | auditory working memory (AWM) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: auditory working memory (AWM) | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | multivoxel pattern analysis (MVPA) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multivoxel pattern analysis (MVPA) | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | activated LTM component Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: activated LTM component | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | AWM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: AWM | content_tags.definitions[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | MVPA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: MVPA | content_tags.definitions[4] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | activated LTM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: activated LTM | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | BOLD activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: BOLD activity | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | accuracy scores Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accuracy scores | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | age of the subjects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: age of the subjects | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | maintenance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: maintenance | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | sustained activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: Serences et al., 2009 ; Riggall and Postle, 2012 ) have shown - 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: sustained activity | content_tags.variables[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 16 s — duration for which a single cued tone had to be held in working memory 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 | Seventeen healthy adults — number of participants recruited for the fMRI 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% to 98% (mean, 83.5%; SD, 10%) — range and mean of participants' overall task accuracy 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 | first tone, 85.7%; second tone, 81.3% — accuracy advantage for retaining the first rather than the second tone of the pair 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 | 0.04 — correlation between the encoding and maintenance regressors in the design matrix, used to argue maintenance activity is not contaminated by encoding 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 | 100,000 — number of resamples used to build the null distribution for group classification accuracy 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 | 0.0013 and 0.015 — nonparametric p values for above-chance decoding in HG and left inferior frontal gyrus, matching the parametric t test values Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 0.04 — correlation between encoding and maintenance regressors, the measured bound on contamination 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 | 55.61% and 54.25% — above-chance classification accuracy in HG and left IFG, where chance is 50% 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 | 9 of 13 and 8 of 13 — subjects above chance in the two decodable regions 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 | 84.42% — share of maintenance-surviving auditory voxels lying in PT 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 |
| content_tags | 67% to 98% — range of behavioural accuracy across subjects, the spread the correlations depend on Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | 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.