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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 9 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 | whether the gradually drifting neural state present while a word is studied returns when that word is recalled, and returns with it the states of its list neighbours 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 | is there direct neurophysiological evidence for contextual reinstatement, which behavioural work has only supported indirectly 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 | finds a neural signature of temporal context reinstatement — recall-time activity resembles study-time activity for the recalled item and, in graded fashion, for its neighbours — and shows its strength predicts each patient's behavioural contiguity effect 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 | existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | temporal context reinstatement during memory search 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 | context is operationalised by a property the theory predicts — slow drift — so the features analysed are exactly those that could carry a context signal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the circularity that would create is blocked by splitting selection from test: the filter is fitted on study events only, and the hypothesis is tested on recall events 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 | the filter's cost is stated rather than hidden — removing content information also removes the forward asymmetry the behavioural effect shows, so a known feature of the phenomenon is invisible by construction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the discriminating prediction is bidirectional decay: content reinstatement alone predicts a forward boost, autocorrelated noise predicts no lag structure, and only context predicts symmetric decay 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 | rival accounts are built and run rather than argued against — three neural network simulations using the same presented and recalled items as the real analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the rehearsal alternative is tested through a consequence it would have elsewhere: if rehearsal drove the effect, neural contiguity should track the primacy effect, and it does not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | individual differences carry the inference: the same patients supply both the neural measure and the behavioural one, so the two can be correlated across people rather than compared as group means Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a gradual-drift result is treated as insufficient on its own, because ordinary autocorrelated processes would produce it too Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | only negative lags are used for the reinstatement measure, because forward lags cannot separate content from context Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the inclusion threshold is justified as an explicit trade-off between dimensionality and sample size rather than presented as a natural cutoff Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Parietal and occipital results were inconclusive because of insufficient data. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the parietal and occipital results: OUR FINDINGS IN THE PARIETAL AND OCCIPITAL LOBES WERE INCONCLUSIVE DUE TO INSUFFICIENT DATA | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Null results outside temporal lobe do not establish that other regions are uninvolved. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the extratemporal null: OUR INABILITY TO FIND NEURAL SIGNATURES OF CONTEXT REINSTATEMENT IN EXTRATEMPORAL BRAIN REGIONS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THOSE REGIONS ARE NOT INVOLVED IN CONTEXT REINSTATEMENT | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The analysis cannot resolve structures within the coarse regions of interest. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any structure-level claim: OUR ANALYSIS DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN STRUCTURES CONTAINED WITHIN THE REGIONS OF INTEREST WE EXAMINED | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | A large share of recording sessions was discarded for having too few candidate context features. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the analysed sample: WE FURTHER EXCLUDED AN ADDITIONAL 68 SESSIONS IN WHICH FEWER THAN FIVE CANDIDATE CONTEXT FEATURES WERE IDENTIFIED | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | a null in other regions is not read as evidence of absence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[1] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[1] - absence of evidence is not read as evidence of absence | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the regions of interest are too coarse to identify a structure 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] - the regions of interest are too coarse to name a structure | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | two of the four regions could not be assessed 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[0] - two of the four lobes could not be assessed | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | substantial attrition: features were found in 132 of 144 sessions, then 68 further sessions were dropped for having fewer than five Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the full attrition behind every result: FEATURES ... WERE IDENTIFIED IN 132 (OF 144) RECORDING SESSIONS, then 68 MORE WERE EXCLUDED for having fewer than five features | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | rehearsal-based and context-based accounts are conceded to be hard to tell apart in principle Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim that separates the two accounts: REHEARSAL-BASED MODELS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH FROM CONTEXT-BASED MODELS | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the primacy control rests on rehearsal being the mechanism of primacy, which the paper acknowledges is not settled Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the primacy-based control: ALTHOUGH REHEARSAL IS ONE OF THE HYPOTHESIZED MECHANISMS UNDERLYING PRIMACY, WE RECOGNIZE THAT OTHER FACTORS, SUCH AS ENHANCED ATTENTION TO EARLY LIST ITEMS, MAY ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO PRIMACY | limitations[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | electrode placement was set by clinical need, not by the hypothesis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: which regions could be sampled at all: Quotation withheld | limitations[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | principal components analysis and the Kaiser criterion, used to turn thousands of correlated frequency-electrode measurements into a small orthogonal basis in which event-to-event similarity is preserved Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | a 20-neuron simulated network, used not to model the brain but to derive what each competing account would predict for the lag profile Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the Hilbert transform on band-passed signals, with power computed across the whole session before segmentation specifically to avoid edge artifacts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the analysis checked against rehearsal during study as an alternative source of the temporal context effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: rehearsal, per se, as the explanation of the neural context-reinstatement finding - the paper reports the check came back against it · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the feature vectors given enough dimensions that a neural signature of context reinstatement could be observed at all if it were there Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a null that means the measure could not have detected the effect rather than that the effect is absent · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | feature vectors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: feature vectors | concepts[9] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | Rehearsal-based models → context-based models Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. THE TWO CANNOT BE SEPARATED IN THIS STUDY - the DESIGN form / It bounds what the paper's own results can mean, and it lives in a methods paragraph where nothing downstream will find it. TWO MODEL CLASSES THAT CANNOT BE TOLD APART BY THE DATA, with the reason given: a context-based mechanism is needed to explain the rehearsal pattern, so the two are entangled by construction. | unhoused_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | context — as external environmental conditions versus as an internal, ever-changing mental state; the paper's theory requires both 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 | context — operationalised: the principal components whose activity is positively autocorrelated during study, and nothing else 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 | reinstatement — of content (the item's own representation) versus of context (the states of its neighbours); the whole design exists to separate these 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 | contiguity effect — behavioural (transitions between neighbouring items at recall) versus neural (similarity declining with absolute lag); the paper coins the second and correlates the two 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 | contextual features — as environmental cues, as recently studied items, as internal mental states, or as a process evolving randomly; four readings the founding theories left open 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 |
| senses | gradual change — as evidence for context versus as the signature of any autocorrelated process; the paper insists the first requires more than the second 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 | method: electrocorticography in epilepsy patients during delayed free recall; oscillatory power in five bands per electrode, reduced by PCA, with components selected for slow autocorrelation during study and tested for similarity to recall-time activity as a function of lag 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: electrophysiology — 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: temporal context reinstatement during episodic memory search 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: temporal context reinstatement during memory search — 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 | builds-on → retrieved context theories of episodic memory (refs 1, 5, 6, 24) 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 → Tulving (ref 2) - episodic retrieval as mental time travel 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 | supports → retrieved context theories of episodic memory (refs 1, 5, 6, 24), by supplying the neurophysiological evidence they lacked Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → prior demonstrations that an item's own representation is reinstated at recall (refs 25, 26), by showing the neighbours' representations return too Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → theories deriving contiguity from direct item-to-item associations formed within seconds (refs 11–14) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → rehearsal-based accounts of the neural contiguity effect, via the absent primacy correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → Tulving's characterisation of episodic retrieval as mental time travel Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → the hypothesis that medial temporal lobe and prefrontal cortex maintain and update temporal context Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | context reinstatement —causes→ contiguity effect 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 models 'SUGGEST' that contextual reinstatement underlies the contiguity effect; causes is hedged. also in: context reinstatement · contiguity effect | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | contiguity effect —is-a→ temporal clustering Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 also in: contiguity effect · temporal clustering | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | episodic memory —contrasted-with→ semantic memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 also in: episodic memory · semantic memory | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | content reinstatement —distinct-from→ context reinstatement 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: content reinstatement · context reinstatement | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | temporal context —operationalised-as→ autocorrelation 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: temporal context · autocorrelation | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | temporal context —operationalised-as→ feature vectors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: autocorrelation is named 'a defining feature of temporal context' (previous sentence); operationalised-as is loose. also in: temporal context · feature vectors | concept_edges[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | context reinstatement —operationalised-as→ neural similarity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but only the context-reinstatement model PREDICTS the observed neural-similarity pattern; operationalised-as is loose. also in: context reinstatement · neural similarity | concept_edges[6] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | free recall —contrasted-with→ cued recall 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: free recall · cued recall | concept_edges[9] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | medial temporal lobe —part-of→ temporal lobe Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 also in: medial temporal lobe · temporal lobe | concept_edges[10] | 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[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 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 | correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | principal components analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: principal components analysis | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Kaiser criterion for component retention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | autocorrelation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: autocorrelation | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | z-score standardisation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: z-score standardisation | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 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: standard error of the mean | content_tags.statistics[8] | 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[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | paired-sample t test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: paired-sample t test | content_tags.statistics[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | β coefficient Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: β coefficient | content_tags.statistics[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | principal components analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: principal components analysis | content_tags.statistics[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Kaiser criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Kaiser criterion | content_tags.statistics[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | z -transformed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: z -transformed | content_tags.statistics[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | SEM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SEM | content_tags.statistics[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | normalized dot product Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: normalized dot product | content_tags.statistics[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Neural similarity between pairs of studied words fell off as the distance between their serial positions grew, showing that the ECoG signal drifts gradually across a list. 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 | Brain activity recorded just before a word was recalled was more similar to activity during study of that same word than to activity during study of any other list word. 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 | Similarity between recall activity and study activity declined with absolute lag in both the forward and backward directions, the pattern predicted by context reinstatement rather than item-content reinstatement. 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 | Participants whose neural reinstatement effect was stronger also recalled neighbouring list items successively more often, linking the neural signature to the behavioural contiguity effect. 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 | Restricting the analysis to temporal lobe electrodes still produced the graded decrease of similarity with lag in both directions. 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 frontal-lobe reinstatement signature showed no relationship to how strongly participants clustered their recalls in time, unlike the temporal-lobe signature. 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 | Primacy strength was unrelated to neural contiguity, arguing against rehearsal during study as the source of the reinstatement effect. 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 | The forward asymmetry that characterises behavioural contiguity was absent from the neural similarity data and from the context-reinstatement simulation. 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 | Among the autocorrelated-noise, content-reinstatement and context-reinstatement simulations, only the context-reinstatement network reproduced the observed symmetric decline of similarity with lag. 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 | neural similarity between two study events fell with the positional distance between them, so the recording drifts gradually across a list 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 | recall-time activity was most similar to study of the same word, at lag zero 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 | similarity also declined with absolute lag in both directions — the signature that separates context from content 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 | patients with a stronger neural reinstatement signature showed a stronger behavioural contiguity effect 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 | the temporal-lobe signature of context reinstatement correlated with the temporal clustering of recalls (r = 0.48) 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 | the frontal lobe signature did not track behavioural clustering 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 | neural contiguity did not correlate with the primacy effect, arguing against a rehearsal account 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 | the forward asymmetry of the behavioural contiguity effect was absent from the neural data and from the context simulation alike 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 | only the context reinstatement simulation reproduced bidirectional decay; noise and content models did not 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 | participants recalled 22.7% of studied words, with about a third of all responses being repetitions or intrusions 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 | of temporal lobe electrodes, 13.9% were in hippocampus and 27.0% in other medial temporal structures 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 | contiguity effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contiguity effect | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | feature vectors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: feature vectors | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | lag Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lag | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | temporal clustering score Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: temporal clustering score | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | context Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: context | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | contiguity effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contiguity effect | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | lag Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lag | content_tags.definitions[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | similarity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: similarity | content_tags.definitions[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | feature vectors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: feature vectors | content_tags.definitions[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | temporal clustering score Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: temporal clustering score | content_tags.definitions[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | context representation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: context representation | content_tags.definitions[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | oscillatory power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: oscillatory power | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | single-digit addition problem Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: single-digit addition problem | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | lag Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lag | content_tags.variables[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | neural similarity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: neural similarity | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | temporal clustering score Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: temporal clustering score | content_tags.variables[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | mean oscillatory power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean oscillatory power | content_tags.variables[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | serial position Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: serial position | content_tags.variables[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | regions of interest Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regions of interest | content_tags.variables[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 69 — number of neurosurgical epilepsy patients whose intracranial recordings were analysed 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 | 22.7 ± 1.0% — proportion of studied words that participants recalled, mean ± SEM 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 | r = 0.42, P = 0.007 — across-participant correlation between the whole-brain neural reinstatement measure and behavioural temporal clustering 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 | r = 0.48, P = 0.03 — correlation between the temporal-lobe reinstatement signature and behavioural temporal clustering 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 | 1,815 / 1,737 / 512 / 138 — electrodes assigned to the temporal, frontal, parietal and occipital regions of interest 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 | 132 (of 144) — recording sessions in which gradually changing candidate context features could be identified 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 | 13.9% / 27.0% / 59.1% — share of temporal-lobe electrodes in hippocampus, in other medial temporal lobe structures, and elsewhere in temporal lobe 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 | 69 patients — neurosurgical patients recorded 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 | 39 participants — those with at least five autocorrelated features, on whom the main tests were run 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 | 132 of 144 sessions — recording sessions in which context features were found at all 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 | 68 sessions — further sessions excluded for having fewer than five candidate features 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 | δ: 2–4 Hz, θ: 4–8 Hz, α: 8–12 Hz, β: 12–30 Hz, and γ: 30–99 Hz — the five frequency bands in which power was measured 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 |
| content_tags | 200–1,600 ms — the study-event window relative to word onset Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | −600 to 200 ms — the recall-event window relative to vocalization — mostly before the word is spoken Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 22.7 ± 1.0% — proportion of studied words recalled Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 32.4 ± 2.6% — share of all responses that were repetitions or incorrect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | r = 0.42, P = 0.007 — correlation between neural reinstatement and behavioural contiguity across patients Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | r = 0.48, P = 0.03 — the same correlation restricted to temporal lobe electrodes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 1,815 / 1,737 / 512 / 138 electrodes — electrode counts in temporal, frontal, parietal and occipital regions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 15 or 20 nouns — list length in the free recall task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 1,600 ms / 800- to 1,200-ms — word presentation duration and interstimulus interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[20] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 18 s / 45 s — arithmetic distractor duration and the recall period Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[21] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 1 to 4 wk — duration electrodes remained implanted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[22] | 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.