standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| 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 |
| 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 4 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 | The claim that cognitive control requires awareness, and the inconsistent evidence about whether unconscious events can trigger it. 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 | |
| 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 | cognitive control triggered by unconscious events 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. | 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 | The proposed resolution: control cued by a single explicit signal can be triggered without awareness, while control that has to be inferred from a pattern of events cannot 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 | An implicit cue is one where the environment never signals the need for control - it merely suggests it, so the actor must infer it 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 | Unconscious stimuli are processed only where the system was prepared in advance to process them, so preparation rather than awareness does the work 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 | Conflict adaptation works by reallocating attention toward the relevant stimulus aspects after conflict is frequent or recent 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 | |
| mechanisms | An indirect route could fake unconscious control: the prime stays unconscious while its behavioural consequences do not, and the actor adjusts to those Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The review's own headline result is that the literature it surveys does not settle the question. 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 evidence base the review rests on may be distorted by selective publication of positive findings. 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 | The authors name publication bias in their own literature: positive evidence for control without awareness is publishable and negative evidence is not 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 | The effects at issue are small, so studies claiming them need power that is not always present 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 | |
| limitations | The central claim is stated with an epistemic hedge: awareness seems essential, or else the evidence is merely not consistent Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The failures of implicit control might be failures of the manipulation rather than of the capacity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[5] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The key term is admitted to be poorly defined Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[6] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | control cue - EXPLICIT: a single stimulus that directly signals what to do, such as a task cue or stop signal - and this kind works without awareness 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 | control cue - IMPLICIT: no signal at all, only a pattern in the environment from which the need for control must be inferred - and this kind appears to need awareness 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 claim - as a positive necessity: awareness is essential for implicitly cued control 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 | the claim - as an absence of evidence: the effect has simply not been found consistently, which is a weaker statement the authors deliberately keep in reserve 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 | unconscious effect - genuinely unconscious: the masked event itself drives the adjustment 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 | unconscious effect - indirectly conscious: the event stays unconscious but its behavioural consequences are noticed, and the actor adjusts to those 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 | |
| claim_relations | extends → Crump et al. (2006) and Crump, Vaquero, & Milliken (2008) on context-specific proportion congruency effects 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 | critiques → Dehaene and Naccache's workspace model, which reserves cognitive control for consciousness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHICH PROCESSES NEED CONSCIOUSNESS. 'DEHAENE AND NACCACHE (2001) suggest in their workspace model that routine actions are possible without consciousness, while consciousness is required for cognitive control.' The model is stated precisely enough to be tested and the critique targets exactly the line it draws - so the disagreement is about WHERE the boundary falls, not whether there is one. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | critiques → Jack and Shallice's separation of conscious from automatic action 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 | extends → preparation accounts of subliminal processing, on which unconscious stimuli work only where the system is set up for them Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS AN ASSUMED PRECONDITION. 'Quotation withheld.' Unconscious processing is granted only where the system was set up for it, so a null in an unprepared condition is not evidence against unconscious processing - it is outside the claim. | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | conflict frequency —causes→ cognitive control 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 the span writes 'response-conflict is generally frequent' and 'more attention is devoted', not 'conflict frequency' / 'cognitive control'. also in: conflict frequency · cognitive control | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | RETRACTED (THE DIRECTION IS INVERTED AND THE CLAIM IS ATTRIBUTED) · task switching —part-of→ cognitive control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. RETRACTED: THE DIRECTION IS INVERTED AND THE CLAIM IS ATTRIBUTED. The edge is 'task switching --part-of--> cognitive control'. The span: '…thus cognitive control is believed to be heavily involved…'. The sentence says CONTROL IS INVOLVED IN SWITCHING - the paradigm engages the faculty. The edge says the paradigm is a component of the faculty, which is the other way round; and 'is believed' marks it as the field's view rather than this paper's finding. — strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but cognitive control is 'believed to be heavily INVOLVED IN' task switching; part-of is loose. also in: task switching · cognitive control | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | post-error slowing —part-of→ cognitive control 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 also in: post-error slowing · cognitive control | concept_edges[9] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | subliminal priming —distinct-from→ consciousness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says stimulus awareness is not necessary for processing; distinct-from is loose. also in: subliminal priming · consciousness | concept_edges[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | When the need for control is signalled by a single explicit cue, that cue does not have to be consciously perceived for control to be recruited. 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 | When the need for control is only implied by recent or frequent response conflict, awareness of that event appears to be necessary, and unconscious induction of control is not reliably obtained. 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 | Exactly three control functions have so far been shown to be triggerable by subliminal explicit cues: task preparation, response inhibition, and orienting of attention. 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 | There is little doubt that masked stimuli can induce task sets. 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 | Strategic adaptation to how often conflict occurs is obtained only when the conflicting irrelevant information is consciously seen. 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 | Conflict adaptation requires that the prime in the preceding trial was visible, yet the control settings so established still act on masked primes in the current trial - so awareness is needed to invoke control, not to execute it. 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 | In contrast to Experiment 1, the congruency effect here was not affected by context information. 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 | Taken as a whole the literature is inconsistent: some experiments show control prompted by unnoticed events and others show it fails. 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 | The authors conjecture that cognitive control does not require meta-knowledge of when and how to apply it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | control cued by a single explicit signal appears to work without awareness; control that must be inferred from a pattern does not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | masked primes speed and improve responses when mapped to the same response or category as the target Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the literature on unconscious control is inconsistent, and the authors treat that inconsistency as the thing to be explained Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the field may be shaped by publication bias favouring positive evidence for unconscious control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[12] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cognitive control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive control | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | explicit events Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explicit events | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | implicit events Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: implicit events | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime stimulus | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Gratton effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Gratton effect | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | interference tasks Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: interference tasks | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cognitive control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive control | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | subliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal priming | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 54 ms ... 32 ms — size of the congruency effect with visible primes in the low-interference versus high-interference context, showing context-specific adaptation 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 | 80% — proportion of congruent trials in the low-interference colour context and of incongruent trials in the high-interference colour context 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 | 80% ... 20% — proportions of congruent trials in the two conditions across which masked priming effects declined 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 |
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.