Neural correlates of learning and working memory in the primate posterior parietal cortex

Rawley, Constantinidis · Neurobiology of learning and memory · 2009 · neuroscience · 10.1016/j.nlm.2008.12.006 · record Rawley2009-neural-correlates-of-learning-and-working-me
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (xml); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim relations left empty deliberately. The paper cites prior work densely but nowhere positions its own claim against a named study; the one explicit disagreement it reports ("Contrary to the buffer concept, Miller and Cohen propose...") is between two third parties, not between this review and prior work, so recording it would violate the self-relation rule. Claim type is 'existence' rather than 'mechanism' because the review's payload is that these correlates are present in PPC at all, not a causal account of how they arise. Two of the three limitations are limits of the literature the review rests on rather than of a study design, which is the closest a review comes to self-stated limits; the first (scope restricted to LIP and 7a) is a genuine self-limitation. Substantial anatomical-atlas material (areas 5, VIP, 7b, AIP/CIP, LIP, 7a, DP, 7m) and the clinical-lesion section are not captured by any facet. 2026-08-13 and 2026-08-15 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.

This record’s own method is review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. 4 tags on this page name the author the result belongs to. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

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
working memory 4 fields · meta-analysis 4 fields · short-term memory 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 22 concept tags on this paper, 2 are 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.

posterior parietal cortex prefrontal cortex area 7a LIP intraparietal sulcus Brodmann working memory short-term memory visual-spatial sketchpad central executive delay period distracting stimuli selective attention neglect chunking set shifting attractor NMDA cortical cooling spectral power egocentric allocentric Delay-period activity is sustained because reciprocally connected pyramidal neurons re-excite each other, so discharges keep reverberating around the recurrent circuit after the stimulus is gone. Slow postsynaptic receptors (NMDA) keep the postsynaptic cell excited long enough for sparse presynaptic inputs to accumulate, which is what allows low-firing-rate cortical neurons to sustain reverberation. Damage to spatial working memory nodes destroys the record of which locations have already been searched, and that failure of book-keeping in the good hemifield compounds the failure to attend to the contralesional one. Parietal episodic-memory deficits arise because bottom-up processes no longer capture attention toward internally stored memories, so unprompted recall misses details that a top-down cue can still retrieve. Balint's syndrome memory simultanagnosia sensorimotor transformations meta-analysis review

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
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

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/10.1016/j.nlm.2008.12.006. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

alternatives 3 · claim_relations 5 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 6 · concepts 2 · content_tags 42 · contribution 1 · limitations 7 · mechanisms 9 · method 1 · object_of_study 1 · phenomenon 1 · research_question 1 · senses 5 · transfers 3

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 6 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
object_of_study	what the primate posterior parietal cortex contributes to working memory and to learning, against a tradition that assigned both to prefrontal cortex 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	whether parietal activity during memory and after training is a distinct contribution or a copy of the prefrontal signal 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	collects the evidence that parietal neurons hold stimuli after they vanish and are reshaped by training, and identifies distractor resistance as the property that separates parietal from prefrontal memory activity 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	working memory and learning in posterior parietal cortex 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. also in: Delay-period activity is sustained because reciprocally connected pyramidal neurons re-excite each other, so discharges keep reverberating around the recurrent circuit after the stimulus is gone.	`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: Slow postsynaptic receptors (NMDA) keep the postsynaptic cell excited long enough for sparse presynaptic inputs to accumulate, which is what allows low-firing-rate cortical neurons to sustain reverberation.	`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: Damage to spatial working memory nodes destroys the record of which locations have already been searched, and that failure of book-keeping in the good hemifield compounds the failure to attend to the contralesional one.	`mechanisms[2]`		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: Parietal episodic-memory deficits arise because bottom-up processes no longer capture attention toward internally stored memories, so unprompted recall misses details that a top-down cue can still retrieve.	`mechanisms[3]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	sustained activity is modelled as reverberation in recurrent excitatory loops that keeps firing after the stimulus is gone 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 slow NMDA receptor is proposed as the element that lets sparse pyramidal firing sustain itself Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[5]`	0.9	the tagger's words
mechanisms	such networks settle into attractor states, with or without oscillation depending on the instantiation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[6]`	0.9	the tagger's words
mechanisms	spiking may not be the only carrier - intracellular and synaptic mechanisms are left open Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[7]`	0.9	the tagger's words
mechanisms	training changes what parietal neurons are selective for: colour selectivity appears when colour becomes task-relevant 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
limitations	The review's physiological coverage is restricted to areas LIP and 7a rather than the whole of posterior parietal cortex. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The evidence base lacks direct multi-area comparisons in monkeys, so functional differences between parietal areas are not firmly established. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The monkey-to-human mapping of parietal subdivisions that the review relies on is unresolved. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	the correspondence between monkey and human parietal areas remains unclear, because few studies compare several areas directly Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	competing naming schemes and areas present in one species' atlas but not the other have impeded functional correspondence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the boundary of the region itself is defined loosely, by sulci Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the psychological subsystems of working memory are functional units and should not be read as brain regions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	Baddeley's four-subsystem model of working memory, imported as the framework for describing what is held and manipulated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	attractor dynamics, used to describe how a recurrent network holds a state Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[1]`	0.9	the tagger's words
transfers	the neglect syndrome, the signature deficit after parietal damage and the original evidence for parietal function Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concepts	neglect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: neglect	`concepts[13]`	0.85	the paper's words
concepts	set shifting Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: set shifting	`concepts[15]`	0.85	the paper's words
senses	working memory and short-term memory name the SAME system; the newer term marks an emphasis on manipulation rather than storage, not a different referent 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	posterior parietal cortex has no single delineation: Brodmann, von Economo-Koskinas and von Bonin-Bailey each name the same tissue differently, and areas 39 and 40 exist in the human scheme but not the monkey one 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	central executive, visual-spatial sketchpad and phonological loop are FUNCTIONAL units of a psychological model, explicitly not anatomical ones 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	egocentric and allocentric are two frames of reference, the second phylogenetically recent and late-developing in humans Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.9	the tagger's words
senses	this record is a REVIEW - every finding in it is another paper's, and the quotes are the reviewers' summary rather than a primary report 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
alternatives	claim_type: existence 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: existence — 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: narrative review of monkey single-unit recording, human imaging, lesion and stimulation studies; no new data 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: sustained neuronal discharge representing a stimulus that is no longer present 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: working memory and learning in posterior parietal cortex — 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	qualifies → the tradition assigning working memory to prefrontal cortex alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	critiques → attempts to map Baddeley's working memory subsystems onto brain regions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS FUNCTIONAL VERSUS ANATOMICAL INDIVIDUATION. 'these working memory subsystems refer to functional rather than anatomical units ... For example, the prefrontal cortex seems a logical functional neural analogue to the central executive. However, physiological evidence indicates that prefrontal neurons in area 46 represent spatial and ob[ject information].' The mapping from a model component to a brain region is denied as an identity while kept as an analogy.	`claim_relations[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	critiques → the cross-species area nomenclature inherited from the pioneering anatomists 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	supports → reverberatory recurrent-network accounts of sustained delay activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[3]`	0.9	the tagger's words
claim_relations	reconciles → prefrontal and parietal accounts of delay activity, by assigning them different roles in one network Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[4]`	0.9	the tagger's words
concept_edges	posterior parietal cortex —distinct-from→ 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: 1 · note: CRITERION: parietal memory activity is overwritten by an intervening distractor and prefrontal activity is not. The two are indistinguishable on the usual measure - see the identical-percentages finding - and separated by this one manipulation Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'parietal cortex' / 'frontal cortical neurons', not the two full names. also in: posterior parietal cortex · prefrontal cortex	`concept_edges[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	working memory —same-as→ short-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: SAME REFERENT, different emphasis - the paper says outright that the newer term does not name a different system. Neither synonymy by fiat nor a renaming across fields: a reframing also in: working memory · short-term memory	`concept_edges[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	visual-spatial sketchpad —operationalised-as→ posterior parietal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.4 — the record marks this weak · note: OFFERED IN THE CONCLUSION AND HEDGED ('could provide'). The body of the same paper denies this mapping at the level of the region pair - see the mapping-declined limitation. Weight kept low deliberately Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but PPC activity 'COULD PROVIDE a physiological correlate' to the sketchpad; operationalised-as is hedged. also in: visual-spatial sketchpad · posterior parietal cortex	`concept_edges[2]`	0.6	the tagger's words
concept_edges	RETRACTED (NEITHER ENDPOINT IS ATTESTED AS WRITTEN) · area 7a —part-of→ posterior parietal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. RETRACTED: NEITHER ENDPOINT IS ATTESTED AS WRITTEN. The edge is 'area 7a --part-of--> posterior parietal cortex'. The span: 'PARIETAL AREAS 7A…' The paper writes 'parietal areas 7a and LIP'; the edge writes 'area 7a' and 'posterior…'. THE CONTAINMENT IS TRUE OF THE FIELD - 7a is a posterior parietal area - AND THE SPAN NEVER SAYS IT, which is the commonest fault in this corpus and one this edge shares with the 66 expanded-endpoint rows measured this hour. Predates the endpoint check and would be refused today. Found by the neighbour query. — strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'parietal areas 7a and LIP', not 'posterior parietal cortex'. also in: area 7a · posterior parietal cortex	`concept_edges[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · LIP —part-of→ posterior parietal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span compared prefrontal and parietal neurons without naming LIP's container. This sentence names both: working memory activity 'in the posterior parietal…' described as 'discharges in monkey AREA LIP'. — strength of the relation: 1 also in: LIP · posterior parietal cortex	`concept_edges[5]`	0.85	the tagger's words
concept_edges	spectral power —operationalised-as→ selective attention 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 · note: a decrease at 5-10 Hz distinguishes attending from remembering, in trained animals Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but attention and maintenance were CHARACTERIZED BY decreased 5-10 Hz power; operationalised-as is loose. also in: spectral power · selective attention	`concept_edges[10]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	Parietal memory-related activity is disrupted by intervening distractors and represents whichever stimulus appeared most recently, relevant or not. 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	The proportion of neurons showing working-memory activity is essentially the same in parietal areas 7a and LIP as in prefrontal areas 46 and FEF. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: LIP and prefrontal areas 46 and FEF ( Chafee & Goldman-Rakic, 1998 ). - 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 the dorsal temporal pole demonstrated match suppression ... ( Ng et al., 2014 )'. 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[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Area 7a neurons hold the remembered location of a visual stimulus even when no motor response to it is planned, so the signal is mnemonic rather than motor-preparatory. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: studies in area 7a 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 recognition found', 'studies of typical human subjects have demonstrated', '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[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Attending to and holding a stimulus in working memory was marked by distinct firing patterns, notably lower spectral power at 5-10 Hz. 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	Colour selectivity in posterior parietal neurons, normally low, increases once colour becomes the cue that signifies which eye movement to make. 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	TMS during the delay period slows responses whether applied over prefrontal or parietal cortex, but TMS during the decision period impairs performance only over prefrontal cortex. 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	Monkeys trained on a salience-detection task signal the target faster and with more discriminable activity than untrained monkeys, although the overall response pattern is unchanged. 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	Imaging meta-analysis places area 7 in every executive component of working memory tested - ordering, updating and manipulating items - as well as in spatial content. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: studies involving working memory tasks revealed - 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 recognition found', 'studies of typical human subjects have demonstrated', '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[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	parietal and prefrontal cortex show virtually identical proportions of neurons with working memory responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	parietal delay activity is overwritten by an intervening distractor; prefrontal activity is not 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	TMS over prefrontal cortex disrupted the decision phase of a memory task while TMS over parietal cortex did not 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	cooling either PPC or PFC profoundly affects the output of neurons in the other 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	parietal neurons acquire colour selectivity when colour becomes task-relevant, having had little before 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	trained animals' parietal neurons signalled the target faster and more discriminably than naive animals' Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: studies revealed - 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 recognition found', 'studies of typical human subjects have demonstrated', '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[13]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	attention and memory maintenance were characterized by a fall in 5-10 Hz spectral power 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	two patients with frontal lesions and no neglect still failed spatial working memory, dissociating the two deficits 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 Corsi task was modified to put all items on the vertical midline, removing the attentional bias from the memory measure 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	MAPPING DECLINED: the parietal-prefrontal specialisation does not correspond to Baddeley's subsystems, since both regions do visual-spatial and executive work 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	MAPPING OFFERED, HEDGED: the conclusion nonetheless proposes parietal activity as a possible correlate of the visual-spatial sketchpad 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	alternative accounts of what sustained prefrontal activity represents are listed without adjudication 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	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	chunking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chunking	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	set shifting Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: set shifting	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Balint's syndrome Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Balint's syndrome	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	memory simultanagnosia Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: memory simultanagnosia	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	sensorimotor transformations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sensorimotor transformations	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		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[6]`		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	short-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: short-term memory	`content_tags.definitions[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	chunking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chunking	`content_tags.definitions[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	set shifting Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: set shifting	`content_tags.definitions[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	neglect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: neglect	`content_tags.definitions[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	attractor Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: attractor	`content_tags.definitions[12]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	5 cm — the distance from the face within which "ultranear" VIP neurons encode a visual stimulus 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	5–10 Hz — the frequency band in which spectral power of parietal spike trains drops during attention and working-memory maintenance after training 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	5-10 Hz — the band whose power falls during attention and memory maintenance after training Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	areas 5, 7, 40 and 39 — the human Brodmann areas making up posterior parietal cortex, two of which have no monkey counterpart Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	four — subsystems in the current Baddeley model, all functional rather than anatomical Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	meta-analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: meta-analysis	`content_tags.statistics[0]`	0.6	the tagger's words
content_tags	distracting stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: distracting stimuli	`content_tags.variables[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	delay period Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: delay period	`content_tags.variables[1]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	spectral power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spectral power	`content_tags.variables[2]`	1.0	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.