Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm

Moeller, Schächinger, Frings · Journal of Visualized Experiments : JoVE · 2014 · cognitive-psychology · 10.3791/51571 · record Moeller2014-irrelevant-stimuli-and-action-control-analyz
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (html); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. This is a JoVE protocol article, so 'method' is recorded as system-or-tool-building: it packages a reusable experimental paradigm rather than reporting a single new experiment. It does describe the data-collection technique behaviourally ('Computer-based experiments are used to collect the data (reaction times and error rates).'), and its Representative Results summarise 33 previously run experiments across visual, auditory and tactile modalities, which is the basis for replication status = replicated. Prior work is cited by superscript number rather than by author name throughout; the two claim relations recorded are the two places where the paper states its own relation to a named paradigm in words. 2026-08-12, 2026-08-15 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in 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.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
episodic memory 3 fields · confidence interval 2 fields · instance 2 fields · selective attention 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 19 concept tags on this paper, none is grounded in a quoted sentence. All carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

distractor-response binding distractor inhibition response retrieval event file instance episodic memory selective attention cognitive control negative priming Stimulus Response Retrieval theory Theory of Event Coding prime probe response relation distractor relation selection task onset asynchrony do-not-respond tag Gestalt principles Re-encountering a stimulus that was bound into an event file retrieves the whole stored episode, including the response executed with it, so an ignored distractor can drive the current response. Retrieval runs in parallel with the algorithm computing the required response, so the longer the response takes, the more often retrieval finishes in time to influence it - which is why slower tasks show larger binding effects. Inhibiting the same distractor twice in a row carries after-effects that facilitate the second inhibition, producing a benefit that is independent of whether the response repeats. negative priming effect distractor repetition effect distractor relation (distractor repetition vs. distractor change) probe response time probe error rate stimulus arrangement target identity repetition ANOVA interaction effect interaction effect of response repetition × distractor repetition main effect significant main effect of distractor repetition standard error standard error of the means outlier removal confidence interval The confidence interval is indicated by broken lines explained variance mean mean response time in distractor change trials minus the mean response time in distractor repetition trials system-or-tool-building

Legend

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
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

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.3791/51571. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

alternatives 2 · claim_relations 5 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 9 · content_tags 39 · controls 2 · limitations 7 · mechanisms 8 · method 1 · object_of_study 1 · phenomenon 1 · research_question 1 · senses 6 · transfers 1

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	The distractor-response binding paradigm itself - a prime-probe protocol for separating distractor-based response retrieval from distractor inhibition. 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 can distractor-based response retrieval and distractor inhibition be measured separately when studying how ignored stimuli influence human action control? 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	method 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	distractor-response binding 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	system-or-tool-building Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: system-or-tool-building	`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. also in: Re-encountering a stimulus that was bound into an event file retrieves the whole stored episode, including the response executed with it, so an ignored distractor can drive the current response.	`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. also in: Retrieval runs in parallel with the algorithm computing the required response, so the longer the response takes, the more often retrieval finishes in time to influence it - which is why slower tasks show larger binding effects.	`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. also in: Inhibiting the same distractor twice in a row carries after-effects that facilitate the second inhibition, producing a benefit that is independent of whether the response repeats.	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	A stimulus and a response executed close together in time are stored as one episodic trace, so re-encountering the stimulus retrieves the whole episode including the response 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	Because the distractor is bound into the same trace as the target and response, the distractor alone can trigger retrieval of the target's response 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	Retrieval therefore helps when the response repeats and hurts when it changes, which is why the signature is an interaction rather than a main effect 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	Inhibition predicts a benefit from distractor repetition that does not depend on response repetition, which is what makes the two mechanisms separable in one design 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	Retrieval runs in parallel with computing the required response, so slower tasks give retrieval more time to finish and produce larger effects 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 factors that modulate the distractor-response binding effect are not yet fully specified. 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 paradigm has been validated in only one clinical sample (unpublished), so the trial numbers needed for individual-difference work are unknown. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[4]	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The effect fails if the gap between prime response and probe onset is too long 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	Grouping of target and distractor appears to be required, and the full set of modulating conditions is not yet known 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	Only one clinical sample has been looked at, and that data is unpublished, so trial numbers for individual-difference work are unknown 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	Error rates usually yield nothing, so the paradigm effectively rests on response times alone 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	Trials repeating the target identity must be dropped from analysis to keep target-based bindings out, yet kept in the procedure to stop participants responding strategically 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
transfers	The paradigm is modality-independent: the same binding effect and the same response-time modulation appear in visual, auditory and tactile versions, which the paper reads as evidence that the mechanism is central rather than perceptual 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
controls	varying response relation (repetition vs change) and distractor relation (repetition vs change) orthogonally in a 2x2 design Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a distractor-repetition effect is confounded with response repetition, and that distractor inhibition cannot be told apart from response retrieval · outcome: held	`controls[0]`	0.9	the tagger's words
controls	random assignment of stimuli from the stimulus set to the roles of prime target, prime distractor, probe target and probe distractor within each trial type Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the effect is driven by particular stimuli rather than by the repetition relations between them · outcome: held	`controls[1]`	0.8	the tagger's words
senses	distractor repetition effect - as an INTERACTION with response relation: the signature of retrieval, i.e. of distractor-response binding 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	distractor repetition effect - as a MAIN EFFECT: the signature of inhibition, read off the same design and the same data 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	response repetition - with the same target identity (RRi): excluded from analysis because target repetition would confound it 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	response repetition - with a different target from the same response category (RR): the condition actually analysed 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	negative priming - under the inhibition account: residual inhibition of the former distractor makes responding to it harder 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	negative priming - under the retrieval account: a do-not-respond tag encoded with the distractor is retrieved and conflicts with responding 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: method 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: method — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.claim_type`		the tagger's words
alternatives	phenomenon: distractor-response binding 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: distractor-response binding — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.phenomenon`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → the negative priming paradigm (review by Fox) 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	extends → the negative priming paradigm 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	extends → the negative priming paradigm, from which this paradigm originates 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 → the Stimulus Response Retrieval theory and the Theory of Event Coding 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 pure inhibition account of negative priming, which cannot be separated from retrieval in that paradigm 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 PARADIGM CAN SEPARATE TWO MECHANISMS. 'Quotation withheld' The effect is not disputed; what is disputed is that observing it tells you which mechanism produced it - so every result in that paradigm is evidence for a disjunction.	`claim_relations[4]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	instance —same-as→ event file 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: instance · event file	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	event file —part-of→ episodic memory 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: event file · episodic memory	`concept_edges[1]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	distractor inhibition —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: 1 also in: distractor inhibition · cognitive control	`concept_edges[2]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	distractor-response binding —contrasted-with→ negative priming 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: distractor-response binding · negative priming	`concept_edges[4]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	distractor inhibition —contrasted-with→ response retrieval 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 full span and kept, but the span writes 'distractor based retrieval of responses', not 'response retrieval'. also in: distractor inhibition · response retrieval	`concept_edges[6]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	distractor-response binding —operationalised-as→ response relation 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 full span and kept, but a significant interaction of response relation and distractor relation INDICATES distractor-response binding; operationalised-as is loose. also in: distractor-response binding · response relation	`concept_edges[7]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	distractor inhibition —operationalised-as→ distractor relation 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 full span and kept, but the span writes 'the main effect of distractor repetition', not 'distractor relation'. also in: distractor inhibition · distractor relation	`concept_edges[8]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	do-not-respond tag —causes→ negative priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.7 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: the example follows 'negative priming can be the result of retrieval mechanisms' (previous sentence). also in: do-not-respond tag · negative priming	`concept_edges[13]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	Gestalt principles —causes→ distractor-response binding 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 'another prerequisite SEEMS to be' grouped presentation; 'Gestalt principles' is not in the span and causes is hedged. also in: Gestalt principles · distractor-response binding	`concept_edges[14]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	interaction effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: interaction effect	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	main effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: main effect	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	standard error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	outlier removal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: outlier removal	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	confidence interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: confidence interval	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	explained variance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explained variance	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean	`content_tags.statistics[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Repeating a distractor speeds responding when the same response must be repeated, because the distractor retrieves a compatible response. 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	Repeating a distractor slows responding when the response must change, because the distractor retrieves the now-incompatible response. 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	The paradigm's central advantage is that response retrieval shows up as the response-by-distractor interaction while distractor inhibition shows up as the distractor main effect, so the two mechanisms can be read off separately from the same design. 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	Distractor-response binding effects become larger with more difficult tasks and thus with longer response times. 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	The modulation of the binding effect by response time can be represented by one function for all modalities. 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	No distractor-response binding effect was found at an onset asynchrony of 1,500 msec. 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	Presenting target and distractor grouped together appears to be a precondition for the 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	Error rates usually carry no significant effects because participants commit too few errors. 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	Imposing an 800 msec response window, or varying the prime-probe gap between 150 and 350 msec, leaves the result pattern intact. 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	Unpublished data from participants with autism spectrum disorder suggest the effect is obtainable in a clinical sample with the same number of trials. 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	distractor-response binding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: distractor-response binding	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	negative priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: negative priming effect	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	event file Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: event file	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	instance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: instance	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	selective attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: selective attention	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Stimulus Response Retrieval theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Stimulus Response Retrieval theory	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	distractor inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: distractor inhibition	`content_tags.definitions[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	event file Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: event file	`content_tags.definitions[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	distractor repetition effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: distractor repetition effect	`content_tags.definitions[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	response relation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response relation	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	distractor relation (distractor repetition vs. distractor change) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: distractor relation (distractor repetition vs. distractor change)	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	probe response time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: probe response time	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	probe error rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: probe error rate	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	stimulus arrangement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stimulus arrangement	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	target identity repetition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: target identity repetition	`content_tags.variables[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	180 trials — Total number of experimental trials produced by repeating each of the six trial types 30 times 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	60 trials — Size of the practice block drawn at random before the main experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	33 experiments (27 visual, five auditory, one tactile) — Number and modality breakdown of the published experiments whose binding effects are summarised against mean response time 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	50% — Share of the between-experiment variance in binding effects explained by the fitted function of mean response time 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	1,500 msec — Prime-probe onset asynchrony at which no distractor-response binding effect was obtained 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	300 msec — Fixed stimulus presentation duration that still reproduced the binding pattern 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

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located 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.