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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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.| 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 |
| 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 |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose 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 | perception without awareness 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 | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | 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 | |
| limitations | The empirical conclusion may not generalise beyond the specific display and stimulus parameters used. 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 | Because the indirect measure was the less sensitive one, the experiments themselves settle nothing about unconscious perception. 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 paper cannot explain why its familiarity/duration correlation runs opposite to Avant's, and leaves that to future work. 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 field's results are stated to be inconclusive because it has no agreed measure of its central term, not because the experiments are poor. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the accumulated literature on perception without awareness: the paper states definitive results have been elusive in the absence of consensus on what constitutes an adequate measure of awareness | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Whether the available measures are even comparable to one another is stated to be unknowable without a framework that does not exist. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: comparing results across studies that used different awareness measures: the paper states it is impossible to know whether those measures are adequate or comparable | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The opposing position is rejected on the ground that the thing it depends on cannot be observed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim that a direct discrimination reflects intentional responding: the paper states an observer's intentions cannot be directly observed or measured | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The paper's own diagnosis is that decades of experimental work could not settle the question because the field had no agreed measure of the thing being denied. An empirical programme is stalled by a definitional gap, and the remedy offered is not a better definition but a weaker assumption - an ordering between two sensitivities rather than a claim that either instrument is complete. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[6] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| controls | presentation order and word length completely counterbalanced within each block of 24 trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: order effects and word-length effects, either of which could produce a difference between the direct and indirect measures the paper is comparing · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | dissociation paradigm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dissociation paradigm | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | measure of awareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: measure of awareness | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | direct measures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: direct measures | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | exhaustiveness assumption Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: exhaustiveness assumption | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | null sensitivity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: null sensitivity | concepts[4] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | indirect measure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: indirect measure | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | measure of perception - DIRECT: subjects are explicitly instructed to perform the discriminations of interest, which is what makes the measure direct 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 | measure of perception - INDIRECT: one index assumed to indicate availability to awareness, the other assumed to indicate availability of the information regardless of awareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | perception without awareness - A LITERATURE BLOCKED BY A DEFINITIONAL GAP RATHER THAN BY DATA: 'definitive results have been elusive IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY GENERAL CONSENSUS AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ADEQUATE MEASURE OF AWARENESS.' The proposed fix does not settle the definition but MINIMISES what must be assumed - 'THE ONLY ASSUMPTION required by the proposed approach is that the sensitivity of direct discriminations to relevant conscious information is greater than or equal to' that of comparable indirect ones Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Avant and Thieman (1985) 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 | contradicts → Avant & Lyman (1975); Avant et al. (1975); Avant & Thieman (1985) 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 | replicates → the filled-duration illusion (Allan, 1979; Craig, 1973; Goldfarb & Goldstone, 1963) 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 | |
| concept_edges | direct measures —operationalised-as→ measure of awareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER THE EXHAUSTIVENESS ASSUMPTION IS MADE. Reading a null on a direct measure as an absence of awareness 'can be true ONLY IF it is also assumed that direct measures provide AN EXHAUSTIVE MEASURE of conscious perceptual experience. Quotation withheld, given conscious perceptual experience' · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: A NULL MEASUREMENT MEANS ABSENCE ONLY IF THE INSTRUMENT IS EXHAUSTIVE, and the assumption is usually implicit - the paper calls it 'another IMPLICIT assumption underlying many recent…'. This is the 1988 psychology statement of the problem that a verifier cannot report absence.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span discusses the ASSUMPTION that direct measures are exhaustive measures of awareness; operationalised-as is loose. also in: direct measures · measure of awareness | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | indirect measure —distinct-from→ direct measures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER THE TWO ARE MEASURED UNDER COMPARABLE CONDITIONS. Avant and Thieman (1985) claimed an indirect measure was MORE sensitive than a direct one; 'CONTRARY TO THIS CLAIM, WHEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT INDEXES ARE MEASURED UNDER COMPARABLE CONDITIONS', the indirect measure is LESS sensitive. The ordering of the two instruments reverses on the comparability of the conditions, not on the instruments · strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: THE PUBLISHED CLAIM AND ITS REVERSAL USE THE SAME TWO MEASURES. What changed is that they were put on comparable footing - the same lesson as measuring candidates within one run rather than across runs. also in: indirect measure · direct measures | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[0] | 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[1] | 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[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[3] | 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[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The paper's central deduction is that unconscious perception is established as soon as an indirect measure is absolutely more sensitive to a stimulus dimension than a comparable direct measure. 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 | To demonstrate unconscious perception it suffices that the indirect measure be more sensitive than a comparable direct one, even when the direct measure's sensitivity is above zero. 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 | Experiment 1 replicated the filled-duration illusion: displays containing a word or a nonword were judged longer than blank displays of identical physical duration. 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 | Words were in general judged longer than nonwords, a positive relation between familiarity and perceived duration. 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 duration-judgment measure is blind to lexical status at 33 ms exposure, showing no word/nonword difference at all. 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 | Lengthening exposure only strengthens the positive familiarity effect rather than reversing its direction. 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 | Performance on the direct lexical decision task was significantly better than on the indirect duration judgment task. 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 | Detection in Experiment 4 gave the same ordering: a direct measure indexed perception more sensitively than a comparable indirect duration measure. 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 | indirect measure of perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: indirect measure of perception | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | dissociation paradigm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dissociation paradigm | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | exclusiveness assumption Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: exclusiveness assumption | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | exhaustiveness assumption Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: exhaustiveness assumption | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | filled-duration illusion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: filled-duration illusion | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | exposure duration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: exposure duration | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | stimulus familiarity (word vs. nonword) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | proportion of "longer" responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: proportion of "longer" responses | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t(19) = 12.0, p < .0001 — size of the filled-duration effect for word-blank pairs in Experiment 1 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 | F(l,38) = 5.10, P < .05 — the Experiment 3 main effect of task showing lexical decision outperformed duration judgment 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 | F(1,18) = 48.32, P < .001 — the Experiment 4 main effect of task, detection versus duration judgment 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 | t(39) = 3.23, p < .01 — Experiment 3 direct lexical decision accuracy above chance at 33 ms exposure 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 | 60% — accuracy of the indirect preference measure in Kunst-Wilson and Zajonc, against 48% for the direct recognition test 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 | Twenty — number of undergraduate subjects run in Experiment 1 (and again in Experiments 2 and 4) 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 |
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.