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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 1 of 11 relations here carries 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 cortical network supporting auditory and audiovisual working memory in non-human primates, and the role of ventrolateral prefrontal cortex within 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 | |
| research_question | which cortical regions of the ventral stream are essential for non-spatial auditory working memory 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 | argues that VLPFC is necessary for auditory and audiovisual working memory but not visual, on the strength of reversible cooling inactivation that dissociates the three Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | auditory working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | 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 | a live dispute about whether an entire taxon has a cognitive capacity is settled by choosing a definition, and the paper says so in those words 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 definition is not inherited but selected from among several, and the selection is announced before any evidence is reviewed 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 | and then stipulated operationally for the rest of the review, fixing what will count as an instance 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 | inactivation is made reversible and within-subject by cooling rather than lesioning, so each animal is its own control and the manipulation can be repeated 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 | memory load is reduced one modality at a time across three experiments, converting a single impairment into a dissociation 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 | the older lesion literature is discounted on two specific grounds - the lesions spanned too much cortex, and the task had no delay so it never tested working memory at all 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 | aspiration and electrolytic lesions are noted to sever fibers of passage, so a deficit cannot distinguish damage to a region from interruption of flow through it 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 | latency ordering across regions is used to infer direction of influence, with match enhancement appearing earlier in prefrontal cortex than in temporal pole or auditory cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[10] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the anatomical explanation for the dissociation is concentration: auditory cells are clustered in one small area while visual cells are spread across the whole prefrontal cortex 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 |
| mechanisms | an alternative reading of the same dissociation is offered in terms of capacity rather than locus - cooling may bite only when the store is already burdened Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | tract tracing from acoustically characterised cortex establishes that the projections exist before any functional claim is made Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[13] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The equivalent auditory working-memory recordings have not yet been made in VLPFC itself Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim about VLPFC in auditory working memory: IDENTICAL STUDIES OF AUDITORY WORKING MEMORY HAVE YET TO BE CONDUCTED IN VLPFC | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The division of labour between the implicated cortical regions is not yet settled Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the division of labour between the regions: DELINEATING THE PRECISE ROLE THAT IS PLAYED BY EACH OF THESE CORTICAL REGIONS IN ENCODING, MAINTENANCE, AND RETRIEVAL OF AUDITORY STIMULI IS AN ONGOING ENDEAVOR | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Current techniques lack the resolution needed to trace information flow during auditory mnemonic processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim about information FLOW: TECHNIQUES WITH BETTER TEMPORAL RESOLUTION AND SPATIAL SPECIFICITY ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE PRECISE NATURE OF INFORMATION FLOW DURING AUDITORY MNEMONIC PROCESSING | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The mapping between forms of auditory memory and their circuits remains open Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the mapping from memory type to circuit: THE VARIOUS FORMS OF AUDITORY MEMORY (WORKING, SHORT-TERM, LONG-TERM) AND THE PRECISE NEURONAL CIRCUITS THAT EACH FORM OF MEMORY RELIES ON, IS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the animal model itself has been the bottleneck for the whole question Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the whole literature's pace: HISTORICALLY, PART OF THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN THE DIFFICULTY IN OBTAINING A ROBUST ANIMAL MODEL TO STUDY AUDITORY SHORT-TERM MEMORY | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the neural substrates remain poorly understood despite extensive knowledge of auditory pathways Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the gap between pathway anatomy and function: ALTHOUGH THERE IS MUCH KNOWN ABOUT AUDITORY PATHWAYS AND PROCESSING, THE UNDERLYING NEURAL SUBSTRATES OF AUDITORY WORKING MEMORY ARE POORLY UNDERSTOOD | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | which circuits serve which form of auditory memory is unresolved Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[3] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[3] - which circuit serves which form of memory | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the division of labour among temporal regions is not yet established 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] - the regional division of labour | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | current techniques lack the resolution the question needs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[2] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[2] - resolution limits on information-flow claims | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the DLPFC recordings are hard to interpret because responses there track task rather than stimulus type Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the DLPFC recordings: RESPONSES IN DLPFC APPEAR TO BE MORE TASK-RELATED AND LESS DEPENDENT ON TYPE OF STIMULI | limitations[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | training non-human primates on auditory tasks takes far longer than on matched visual tasks, which shapes which experiments exist at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: which experiments exist at all: IT TYPICALLY TAKES LONGER TO TRAIN NHPs TO LEARN AN AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION OR MEMORY TASK THAN TO LEARN A SIMILAR TASK USING VISUAL STIMULI | limitations[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the delayed match-to-sample paradigm and the match enhancement/suppression indices, carried across to audition where the tasks proved far harder to train 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 | call-sequence comprehension in the wild, used as evidence that primates possess auditory memory before any laboratory task is invoked 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 | reversible cooling deactivation, and the dorsal/ventral dissociation it produced, imported as both method and expected result pattern 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 |
| concepts | ventrolateral PFC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ventrolateral PFC | concepts[25] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | dorsolateral PFC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dorsolateral PFC | concepts[26] | the paper's words | |
| senses | working memory - as the Baddeley multi-component system versus as Goldman-Rakic hold-and-update; the review names both and picks the second 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 | working memory - the chosen definition stated in full, which is what makes the rest of the review's evidence admissible 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 | auditory working memory in monkeys - as a genuine capacity versus as passive short-term memory; a disagreement about a taxon that turns on which term applies 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 | auditory working memory - stipulated operationally for this review, fixing what counts as an instance of it 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 | auditory memory - recognising the TYPE of a sound (intact) versus recalling the specific sound heard (impaired); one task splitting into two capacities 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 | forgetting - by decay with time versus by interference from other items; both argued to operate once rehearsal is controlled Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | match response - enhancement in prefrontal cortex versus suppression in temporal regions, one recognition event with opposite signs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: mechanism — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | method: review of lesion, neurophysiological and neuroimaging work, culminating in the authors' own reversible cortical cooling of VLPFC during an audiovisual delayed nonmatch-to-sample task 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: review — 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: auditory working memory - holding and updating recently heard sounds over seconds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: auditory working memory — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Scott et al., 2012; Scott et al., 2013 (claim that non-human primates lack auditory working memory) 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 → Hwang and Romanski (2015) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Plakke et al. (2015) VLPFC cooling inactivation experiments Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Scott et al. (2012, 2013), that non-human primates lack auditory working memory and have only passive short-term memory 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 DEMONSTRATED ABILITY MEETS THE DEFINITION. 'Although NHP's auditory memory abilities may be less than their capacities for remembering visual information they have demonstrated the ability to DISCRIMINATE AND REMEMBER AUDITORY SOUNDS OVER SEVERAL SECONDS, WHICH IS, BY DEFINITION, AUDITORY WORKING ME[MORY].' The weaker performance is conceded and the categorical claim is refused on definitional grounds - so the disagreement is about whether a smaller capacity is still the same faculty. | claim_relations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the early prefrontal lesion studies, for lesions spanning too much cortex and for a task with no delay Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → aspiration and electrolytic lesion methods generally, which cannot separate damage to a region from interruption of fibers passing through it 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 FIBRES OF PASSAGE ARE DAMAGED. 'Since Quotation withheld, we must look to additional lesion studies.' A whole generation of results cannot distinguish removing a region from cutting what runs through it - and the critique applies to the technique, so it lands on every study that used it regardless of what each found. | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Hwang and Romanski (2015), from correlational single-unit responses to a necessity claim via inactivation 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 → Romanski and Goldman-Rakic, that VLPFC neurons respond to complex sounds and species-specific vocalizations but not to simple stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS STIMULUS COMPLEXITY. 'Quotation withheld.' A region characterised by what it does NOT respond to as much as by what it does - so a study using tones would find VLPFC silent and conclude it is not auditory. | claim_relations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → the body of single-unit and neuroimaging work implicating ventral PFC in auditory working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | auditory working memory —contrasted-with→ passive short-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: auditory working memory · passive short-term memory | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | auditory working memory —operationalised-as→ delayed match-to-sample 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 describes recognizing 'matching or nonmatching auditory stimuli, over a period of several seconds', not 'delayed match-to-sample'. also in: auditory working memory · delayed match-to-sample | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | central executive —part-of→ working 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: central executive · working memory | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | ventrolateral prefrontal cortex —causes→ auditory working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | ventrolateral prefrontal cortex —part-of→ auditory ventral stream Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the inactivation evidence 'SUGGESTS' the VLPFC is a major end point of the ventral stream; part-of is hedged. | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | match enhancement —contrasted-with→ match suppression 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: match enhancement · match suppression | concept_edges[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | delay suppression —operationalised-as→ working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but delay suppression is 'THOUGHT TO represent' a form of active maintenance; operationalised-as is loose. also in: delay suppression · working memory | concept_edges[6] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | RETRACTED (THE 'from' ENDPOINT IS OVER-SPECIFIED AND UNATTESTED) · decay —contrasted-with→ proactive interference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. RETRACTED: THE 'from' ENDPOINT IS OVER-SPECIFIED AND UNATTESTED. The edge is 'decay --contrasted-with--> proactive interference'. The span: 'MEMORY PERFORMANCE THAN…' The contrast is real and well drawn - interference against decay, with a citation on each side - AND THE SPAN SAYS 'INTERFERENCE', NOT 'PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE'. Proactive interference is a specific kind, distinguished in this literature from retroactive; the qualifier was supplied. TRUE OF THE FIELD, NOT IN THE SPAN, and the endpoint test caught it where reading past it would not have. — strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span weighs interference against decay in memory loss; contrasted-with names only one side. also in: decay · proactive interference | concept_edges[7] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | ventrolateral prefrontal cortex —contrasted-with→ dorsolateral prefrontal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 | concept_edges[9] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | species-specific vocalizations —causes→ ventrolateral prefrontal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but VLPFC neurons RESPOND to species-specific vocalizations; causes is loose. | concept_edges[10] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | ventrolateral PFC —contrasted-with→ dorsolateral PFC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: RE-GROUNDS the record's ventrolateral/dorsolateral edge, whose span named neither endpoint. The paper states the contrast using ABBREVIATIONS; 'normalised' maps them onto the full names the record already carries. · the relation stated: the two subregions are given DIFFERENT roles: dorsolateral similar across modalities, ventrolateral the locus for auditory and audiovisual working memory also in: ventrolateral PFC · dorsolateral PFC | concept_edges[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Cooling the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex significantly impaired detection of both auditory and visual mismatches when monkeys had to hold a face-voice pair in memory. 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 only the face had to be remembered, VLPFC cooling left performance intact. 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 | When only the vocalization had to be remembered, VLPFC cooling significantly reduced accuracy. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Across the three cooling experiments VLPFC proved necessary for auditory and audiovisual working memory but dispensable for visual working memory. 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 inactivation results place VLPFC as a necessary endpoint of the auditory ventral stream for auditory cognition rather than merely a correlated node. 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 | Visually responsive prefrontal neurons are distributed across both dorsal and ventral prefrontal cortex, whereas auditory-responsive cells are confined to VLPFC. 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 | Anterior auditory belt regions project to the frontal pole, to ventrolateral prefrontal areas 12vl, 12 orbital and 45, and to the rostral principal sulcus. 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 | Caudal auditory cortex, which codes sound location, targets a different frontal set: the caudal principal sulcus, frontal eye fields and dorsal premotor cortex. 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 | Auditory memory is more susceptible to interference and less robust than visual memory. 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 | During auditory memory, distraction in the delay may matter more than the length of the delay itself. 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 | cooling VLPFC impaired both auditory and visual mismatch detection when both components had to be held 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 | with only the face to remember, cooling VLPFC did nothing; with only the vocalization, it impaired performance 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 | the auditory deficit appeared at a delay as short as 1.25 seconds 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 | monkeys remember fewer auditory than visual items 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 | auditory memory is more susceptible to interference and less robust than visual memory 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 | humans show steeper forgetting curves for auditory than visual material, as monkeys do Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: studies of typical human subjects have demonstrated - THE SUBJECT OF THIS RESULT IS AN INDEFINITE STUDY, NOT THIS PAPER. 'Previous studies reported', 'studies in guinea pig showed', 'recent studies have reported' - somebody else's work under a common noun rather than a name, with a citation in the sentence and no first-person marker. The quote is verbatim and the claim is true; only the attribution is wrong. FOUND BY MEASURING MY OWN CUE'S RECALL: the first sweep required a NAMED author as the subject ('Sperling (1960) demonstrated') and found 17. Reading eleven citation-bearing findings on 'Plakke2016' by hand showed four the cue could not see - 'A study examining…', 'studies of typical…', 'A follow up study found' - so the named cue's 17 was a floor and not a count. A CUE'S FALSE POSITIVES TELL YOU NOTHING ABOUT ITS FALSE NEGATIVES, and the only way to find these was to read a record's whole layer. | content_tags.findings[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | people recognised recently heard sounds significantly worse than recently seen pictures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: A study examining recognition found - THE SUBJECT OF THIS RESULT IS AN INDEFINITE STUDY, NOT THIS PAPER. 'Previous studies reported', 'studies in guinea pig showed', 'recent studies have reported' - somebody else's work under a common noun rather than a name, with a citation in the sentence and no first-person marker. The quote is verbatim and the claim is true; only the attribution is wrong. FOUND BY MEASURING MY OWN CUE'S RECALL: the first sweep required a NAMED author as the subject ('Sperling (1960) demonstrated') and found 17. Reading eleven citation-bearing findings on 'Plakke2016' by hand showed four the cue could not see - 'A study examining…', 'studies of typical…', 'A follow up study found' - so the named cue's 17 was a floor and not a count. A CUE'S FALSE POSITIVES TELL YOU NOTHING ABOUT ITS FALSE NEGATIVES, and the only way to find these was to read a record's whole layer. | content_tags.findings[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | they could still name the sound type, so long-term recognition was intact while memory for the specific token was 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 | musicians have better auditory memory than non-musicians and still recognise pictures better than sounds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: A follow up study found - THE SUBJECT OF THIS RESULT IS AN INDEFINITE STUDY, NOT THIS PAPER. 'Previous studies reported', 'studies in guinea pig showed', 'recent studies have reported' - somebody else's work under a common noun rather than a name, with a citation in the sentence and no first-person marker. The quote is verbatim and the claim is true; only the attribution is wrong. FOUND BY MEASURING MY OWN CUE'S RECALL: the first sweep required a NAMED author as the subject ('Sperling (1960) demonstrated') and found 17. Reading eleven citation-bearing findings on 'Plakke2016' by hand showed four the cue could not see - 'A study examining…', 'studies of typical…', 'A follow up study found' - so the named cue's 17 was a floor and not a count. A CUE'S FALSE POSITIVES TELL YOU NOTHING ABOUT ITS FALSE NEGATIVES, and the only way to find these was to read a record's whole layer. | content_tags.findings[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | nonverbal auditory recall starts to decline around 30 seconds 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 | tone memory fell to near chance when distractor tones filled the interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[20] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | superior temporal lesions impaired performance at every delay tested and survived extensive retraining Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[21] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | rostral STG lesions spared performance below 10 seconds and impaired it beyond Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[22] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | about 35% of rostral superior temporal neurons modulated firing during the delay, half of them by suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[23] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | dorsal temporal pole neurons showed match suppression as early as 31-60 ms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: match suppression at an early latency of 31-60 ms ( Ng et al., 2014 ). - THE RESULT IS THE CITED WORK'S AND THE CITATION TRAILS THE SENTENCE. A plain noun phrase is the subject of the result verb and the attribution is a bracket at the end - 'Neurons within…'. Neither of my two cues could see this shape, so THESE WERE READ RATHER THAN SWEPT: 36 candidates of the shape, 20 read, 11 marked, 9 refused. THE REFUSALS ARE WHY IT IS NOT A CUE: 'Aru2012 findings[16]' is the paper's OWN result with a citation supporting the localisation, 'Natan2015 findings[3]' ends 'consistent with previous findings ( Szymanski et al., 2009 )' where the main clause is the paper's, and 'Drieu2019' x3 are 'One cannot entirely rule out...' - a limitation, not an attribution. About 55% precise, which is a list to read and not a sweep to run. | content_tags.findings[24] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | auditory-responsive cells are confined to VLPFC while visual cells spread across dorsal and ventral prefrontal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[25] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | VLPFC single cells track which component of a face-voice pair changed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[26] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | cooling VLPFC hit a large proportion of auditory and multisensory cells while sparing visual ones Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[27] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: working memory | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | proactive interference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: proactive interference | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | delay suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: participants were remembering auditory stimuli ( Linke et al., 2011 ). - THE RESULT IS THE CITED WORK'S AND THE CITATION TRAILS THE SENTENCE. A plain noun phrase is the subject of the result verb and the attribution is a bracket at the end - 'Neurons within…'. Neither of my two cues could see this shape, so THESE WERE READ RATHER THAN SWEPT: 36 candidates of the shape, 20 read, 11 marked, 9 refused. THE REFUSALS ARE WHY IT IS NOT A CUE: 'Aru2012 findings[16]' is the paper's OWN result with a citation supporting the localisation, 'Natan2015 findings[3]' ends 'consistent with previous findings ( Szymanski et al., 2009 )' where the main clause is the paper's, and 'Drieu2019' x3 are 'One cannot entirely rule out...' - a limitation, not an attribution. About 55% precise, which is a list to read and not a sweep to run. also in: delay suppression | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | passive short-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: passive short-term memory | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Working memory | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: working memory | content_tags.definitions[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | auditory working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: auditory working memory | content_tags.definitions[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | central executive Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: central executive | content_tags.definitions[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Delay suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: participants were remembering auditory stimuli ( Linke et al., 2011 ). - THE RESULT IS THE CITED WORK'S AND THE CITATION TRAILS THE SENTENCE. A plain noun phrase is the subject of the result verb and the attribution is a bracket at the end - 'Neurons within…'. Neither of my two cues could see this shape, so THESE WERE READ RATHER THAN SWEPT: 36 candidates of the shape, 20 read, 11 marked, 9 refused. THE REFUSALS ARE WHY IT IS NOT A CUE: 'Aru2012 findings[16]' is the paper's OWN result with a citation supporting the localisation, 'Natan2015 findings[3]' ends 'consistent with previous findings ( Szymanski et al., 2009 )' where the main clause is the paper's, and 'Drieu2019' x3 are 'One cannot entirely rule out...' - a limitation, not an attribution. About 55% precise, which is a list to read and not a sweep to run. also in: Delay suppression | content_tags.definitions[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | proactive interference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: proactive interference | content_tags.definitions[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | cortical cooling Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cortical cooling | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | delay Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: delay | content_tags.variables[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | memory load Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: memory load | content_tags.variables[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | performance accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: performance accuracy | content_tags.variables[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 35% — share of rostral superior temporal cortex neurons that modulated firing rate during the delay period, half of them showing delay suppression 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 | 31-60 ms — latency at which dorsal temporal pole neurons showed match suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: match suppression at an early latency of 31-60 ms ( Ng et al., 2014 ). - THE RESULT IS THE CITED WORK'S AND THE CITATION TRAILS THE SENTENCE. A plain noun phrase is the subject of the result verb and the attribution is a bracket at the end - 'Neurons within…'. Neither of my two cues could see this shape, so THESE WERE READ RATHER THAN SWEPT: 36 candidates of the shape, 20 read, 11 marked, 9 refused. THE REFUSALS ARE WHY IT IS NOT A CUE: 'Aru2012 findings[16]' is the paper's OWN result with a citation supporting the localisation, 'Natan2015 findings[3]' ends 'consistent with previous findings ( Szymanski et al., 2009 )' where the main clause is the paper's, and 'Drieu2019' x3 are 'One cannot entirely rule out...' - a limitation, not an attribution. About 55% precise, which is a list to read and not a sweep to run. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 100 — trials performed per WARM or COLD block in the cooling experiments 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 | 1.25 second — delay at which the auditory working memory deficit from VLPFC cooling already appeared in both monkeys 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 | .5, 4 and 32 seconds — cue-to-test delays used in the superior temporal gyrus lesion study of auditory same-different discrimination 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 | 10 seconds — delay below which rostral STG lesions left auditory memory performance unimpaired 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 | 30 seconds — point at which human recall of nonverbal auditory stimuli begins to decline 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 | 1.25 second — the short delay at which VLPFC cooling still impaired auditory memory 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 | approximately 35% — rostral superior temporal neurons modulating firing during the delay 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 | 31-60 ms — latency of match suppression in dorsal temporal pole Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: match suppression at an early latency of 31-60 ms ( Ng et al., 2014 ). - THE RESULT IS THE CITED WORK'S AND THE CITATION TRAILS THE SENTENCE. A plain noun phrase is the subject of the result verb and the attribution is a bracket at the end - 'Neurons within…'. Neither of my two cues could see this shape, so THESE WERE READ RATHER THAN SWEPT: 36 candidates of the shape, 20 read, 11 marked, 9 refused. THE REFUSALS ARE WHY IT IS NOT A CUE: 'Aru2012 findings[16]' is the paper's OWN result with a citation supporting the localisation, 'Natan2015 findings[3]' ends 'consistent with previous findings ( Szymanski et al., 2009 )' where the main clause is the paper's, and 'Drieu2019' x3 are 'One cannot entirely rule out...' - a limitation, not an attribution. About 55% precise, which is a list to read and not a sweep to run. | content_tags.quantities[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 10 seconds — the delay beyond which rostral STG lesions impaired performance 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 | around 30 seconds — when human nonverbal auditory recall begins to decline 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 | forgetting curves Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: studies of typical human subjects have demonstrated - THE SUBJECT OF THIS RESULT IS AN INDEFINITE STUDY, NOT THIS PAPER. 'Previous studies reported', 'studies in guinea pig showed', 'recent studies have reported' - somebody else's work under a common noun rather than a name, with a citation in the sentence and no first-person marker. The quote is verbatim and the claim is true; only the attribution is wrong. FOUND BY MEASURING MY OWN CUE'S RECALL: the first sweep required a NAMED author as the subject ('Sperling (1960) demonstrated') and found 17. Reading eleven citation-bearing findings on 'Plakke2016' by hand showed four the cue could not see - 'A study examining…', 'studies of typical…', 'A follow up study found' - so the named cue's 17 was a floor and not a count. A CUE'S FALSE POSITIVES TELL YOU NOTHING ABOUT ITS FALSE NEGATIVES, and the only way to find these was to read a record's whole layer. also in: forgetting curves | content_tags.statistics[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | near chance levels Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: near chance levels | content_tags.statistics[1] | 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.