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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| 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 |
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 6 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | Hannula and Ranganath's fMRI study of short-term associative memory, read for what it shows about the hippocampal contribution to holding novel associations in mind. 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 | How — at which task phase and by what signal — does the hippocampus support short-term memory for novel associative information? 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 | |
| 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 | hippocampal contribution to short-term associative 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 | review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: the paper's own words: One possibility is that | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | The hippocampus may hold associations through transient changes in synaptic efficacy rather than sustained firing, which would explain why no delay-period signal appears 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 | Active maintenance might still occur by a mechanism fMRI cannot see, such as theta/gamma oscillations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | The hippocampus is proposed to act as a comparator, detecting discrepancies between predictions from past experience and current input Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | The commentary's own resolution of the conflicting match/mismatch results: the size of the hippocampal response to novelty depends on what task is being performed, with top-down influence present in explicit recognition and absent in automatic detection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | Under explicit recognition the pattern resembles match enhancement in monkey inferotemporal and perirhinal cortex, whereas automatic novelty detection may show the comparator signal uncontaminated by top-down input Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The commentary's central conclusion rests on a null delay-period result in the study it reviews, which it flags as requiring caution. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the commentary's central conclusion, which rests on an absence: ALTHOUGH CAUTION IS ADVISED IN INTERPRETING SUCH A NULL FINDING, THIS RESULT DOES SUGGEST THAT PERSISTENT NEURAL FIRING IN THE HIPPOCAMPUS DOES NOT OCCUR DURING THE DELAY PERIOD | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Absent confidence ratings, a performance/confidence confound in the match-versus-mismatch comparison it relies on cannot be entirely excluded. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the match-versus-mismatch comparison it relies on: WITHOUT CONFIDENCE RATING DATA, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ENTIRELY EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT SUBJECTS MAY HAVE BEEN MORE CONFIDENT IN MAKING (CORRECT) MATCH ... JUDGMENTS | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The commentary's own caution: without confidence ratings, better performance on match trials cannot be fully separated from the neural difference attributed to match 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[1], and it is a re-raising rather than a new objection: THE AUTHORS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND DISCOUNTED SUCH AN EFFECT | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The central conclusion about maintenance rests on an absence of difference, which the commentary flags as a null result 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] - the maintenance conclusion is a null finding | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The formal models that would make the comparator account testable do not yet exist in the required form Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the comparator account: ONE IMPORTANT DIRECTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH WILL BE TO DEVELOP AND EMPIRICALLY TEST FORMAL COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF RECOGNITION MEMORY ... AND AUTOMATIC NOVELTY PROCESSING | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | Match enhancement, established in monkey inferotemporal and perirhinal single-unit work, imported to read a human hippocampal fMRI result Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | The subsequent-memory design, developed for long-term recognition memory, applied to a short-term task - which required deliberately making the task hard enough to avoid ceiling performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | memory - the textbook dichotomy: short-term and long-term as distinct processes with distinct substrates, which is the view under challenge 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 | memory - the revised view: short-term and long-term as sharing neural mechanisms rather than being qualitatively distinct 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 | subsequent memory - at the sample phase: encoding-side activity predicting later success, which alone cannot distinguish associative from item encoding 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 | subsequent memory - at the test phase: retrieval-side activity, whose presence is what rules out the item-encoding explanation 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 | hippocampal novelty signal - under explicit recognition: largest for MATCH, resembling match enhancement 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 | hippocampal novelty signal - when novelty is incidental to the task: largest for MISMATCH, the opposite direction, which is the discrepancy the commentary sets out to explain 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 | spatial strategy - allocentric: world-centred, hippocampally mediated, the one the task was designed to force 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 |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Hannula and Ranganath (2008) 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 → Kumaran and Maguire (2006) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHETHER THE MEMORY JUDGMENT IS EXPLICIT OR INCIDENTAL. 'Quotation withheld (i.e., subjects are not required to make explicit recognition memory judgments), a qualitatively different pattern of findings has been observed with hippocampal activation maximal under conditions of mismatch rather than match.' The direction of the hippocampal effect REVERSES on a task-instruction parameter - the strongest form this field takes, because the two literatures are not in conflict at all once the parameter is named. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Norman and O'Reilly (2003) comparator model of the hippocampus 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 → the dichotomous short-term/long-term memory account (Squire, 1992) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | critiques → the textbook dichotomy of short-term and long-term memory as separate systems (Squire 1992) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | supports → Norman and O'Reilly (2003), the hippocampus as comparator Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Cohen and Eichenbaum (1993), the hippocampus as relational binder in 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] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | perirhinal cortex —contrasted-with→ hippocampus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION IS BEING HELD. 'Whereas the perirhinal cortex appears to support short-term memory for novel object information, neuropsychological evidence suggests that the hippocampus is critical when associative information is involved.' Both structures support short-term memory; the division is BY CONTENT, NOT BY DURATION - which is the point, since duration is what the literature usually divides them by. · strength of the relation: 1 also in: perirhinal cortex · hippocampus | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | allocentric —distinct-from→ egocentric Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS THE REFERENCE FRAME, AND THE MANIPULATION THAT ENFORCES IT IS GIVEN. 'Quotation withheld, subjects were asked to FORM A mental image of the scene rotated 90 [degrees].' The two frames are not observed and distinguished - one is INDUCED BY AN INSTRUCTION, so the result is conditional on subjects complying with it. A row of Kravitz2011 in this corpus gives the same axis as an anatomical tendency, hedged on both sides. · strength of the relation: 1 also in: allocentric · egocentric | concept_edges[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | hippocampus —distinct-from→ active maintenance 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
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the hippocampus supports encoding and retrieval 'but PERHAPS NOT' active maintenance; distinct-from is hedged. also in: hippocampus · active maintenance | concept_edges[8] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | novelty —contrasted-with→ familiarity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: novelty · familiarity | concept_edges[9] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | match enhancement —part-of→ perirhinal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but match enhancement was OBSERVED IN monkey inferotemporal/perirhinal cortex; part-of is loose. also in: match enhancement · perirhinal cortex | concept_edges[10] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | hippocampal amnesia —causes→ short-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but patients with hippocampal amnesia were IMPAIRED at remembering locations across a short delay; the edge lacks its direction (reduces). also in: hippocampal amnesia · short-term memory | concept_edges[12] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Hippocampal activity measured during the sample (encoding) phase predicted whether the later recognition judgment would be correct. 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 | A subsequent-memory effect in the perirhinal cortex appeared only in the sample phase, consistent with that region encoding item-specific rather than associative information. 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 | Hippocampal delay-period activity did not differ with later recognition accuracy. 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 | On correct trials, hippocampal activation was higher for match displays than for either type of mismatch display. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: The authors used a region-of-interest analysis to demonstrate - 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. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The direction of the hippocampal match/mismatch response reverses when novelty is incidental rather than the object of an explicit recognition judgment, with activation then peaking for mismatch. 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 hippocampus contributes to short-term memory for novel associations at encoding and retrieval but apparently not during active maintenance. 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 | Finding a hippocampal subsequent-memory effect at test as well as at sample excludes the alternative that sample-phase activity merely reflected encoding of the individual objects rather than the object-location associations. 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 | short-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: short-term memory | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | match-mismatch detector Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: match-mismatch detector | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | short-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: short-term memory | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | comparator Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: comparator | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | allocentric Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: allocentric | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | egocentric Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: egocentric | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | match enhancement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: match enhancement | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Journal Club Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Journal Club | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | types of test trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: types of test trials | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | memory for the positions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: memory for the positions | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | hippocampal activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: The authors used a region-of-interest analysis to demonstrate - 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: hippocampal activation | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 33% — chance level of correct responses in the three-alternative test classification 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 | 78, 65, and 60% — accuracy on match, mismatch-position and mismatch-swap displays respectively 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 | 11 s — length of the delay over which the rotated scene had to be maintained 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 | four objects (out of a set of nine objects), nine possible locations — composition of each sample scene: four of nine objects placed in nine possible grid positions 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 |
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.