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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 | 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 | visuomotor response priming with natural images 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 paper does not claim that the rapid classification is driven by image semantics specifically. 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 | In the slow large-small task the independence criterion could not be clearly evaluated. 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 | In Experiment 1 the raw trajectories did not show the initiation criterion; the conclusion rests on the derived spatial priming functions. 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 | Meeting the rapid-chase criteria shows behavioural equivalence to a feedforward system, not that every processing substage is feedforward. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | eight sessions per participant, four in each task, with task order counterbalanced Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a difference between the two tasks is an order effect · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | rapid-chase criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: rapid-chase criteria | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | feedforward Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: feedforward | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | independence criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: independence criterion | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | priming effects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming effects | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THREE NAMED CRITERIA, EACH WITH ITS JOB STATED - THE CLEAREST `a tool must be checkable` IN THIS CORPUS: `(1) Prime rather than target signals should determine the onset and initial direction of the response (initiation criterion); (2) target signals should be able to influence the response before it is completed (takeover criterion); and, crucially, (3) response kinematics should initially depend exclusively on prime characteristics and be independent of all target characteristics (independence criterion).` Numbered, named, and separately falsifiable - a dataset can meet 1 and 2 and fail 3, which is exactly what happens in one of this paper's four tasks. Compare jitendra2016, which grades a literature against someone else's published checklist: same discipline, applied to a mechanism instead of a field Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND THE CLAIM IS EQUIVALENCE, NOT IDENTITY, STATED BY THE AUTHORS IN THEIR OWN CONCLUSION: `our data indicate a rapid-chase system ... that is behaviorally equivalent to a feedforward system with high temporal resolution.` They say elsewhere that the criteria `do not guarantee that a stimulus-response system is strictly feedforward in all its substages`. A behavioural test that names the limit of what behaviour can establish. Most records in this corpus infer a mechanism from a behavioural measure; this one declines to, and says which claim the method does support instead Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | THE PAPER CONTAINS ITS OWN BOUNDARY CONDITION - ONE OF FOUR TASKS FAILS: `Only in the large-small task, with its tardy response dynamics and small priming effects, does it become difficult to evaluate whether the independence criterion is met.` And the diagnosis is offered rather than withheld: `It rather seems that the large-small classification cannot be performed in a single feedforward sweep and requires more extensive, recurrent processing.` Same images, same participants, same apparatus - only the classification rule changed, and the account stops applying. A scope limit measured inside the paper rather than conceded to a critic later 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 |
| senses | AND THE DOSE-RESPONSE COMES WITH ITS MECHANISM ATTACHED, WHICH IS RARE: `Priming effects increase with prime-target SOA because the prime has more time to drive the response on its own when the target is further delayed.` The `because` is not decoration - it is the rapid-chase model making the prediction, and the effect size is a duration rather than a strength. dijksterhuis1998 doses by prime DURATION and gets a bigger effect; this doses by the GAP and gets a longer unopposed run - two different quantities that both look like `more priming` in a results table Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → the authors' own rapid-chase theory of response priming (Schmidt et al., 2006; Vath & Schmidt, 2007) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → rapid natural-scene categorisation studies (Bacon-Macé et al., 2007; Kirchner & Thorpe, 2006; Thorpe et al., 1996; VanRullen & Koch, 2003; VanRullen & Thorpe, 2001, 2002) 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 | contradicts → the claim that natural image classification is "ultra-rapid" (Kirchner & Thorpe, 2006; VanRullen & Thorpe, 2001) 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 | feedforward —operationalised-as→ rapid-chase criteria 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 · note: THE WHOLE PAPER IN ONE EDGE, AND 'would show in the time course of the response' IS THE OPERATIONALISATION. A claim about neuronal signal flow is turned into three tests on a pointing trajectory. Weight 0.95: the criteria are named, numbered and separately checkable, and the authors state in the same passage that meeting them establishes BEHAVIOURAL EQUIVALENCE and not strict feedforward - so the edge is exactly as strong as the paper says it is, which is why it earns 0.95 rather than being hedged down. also in: feedforward · rapid-chase criteria | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | independence criterion —part-of→ rapid-chase criteria 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 · note: THE THIRD OF THREE, and the quote carries all three in order with their names. Recorded separately because it is the one that FAILS in the large-small task - a corpus that holds only 'rapid-chase criteria' as one node cannot express that a system met two of them. Weight 0.95: the membership is explicit in the enumeration. also in: independence criterion · rapid-chase criteria | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | F-test / ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: F-test / ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | jackknife Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: jackknife | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | arcsine transformation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: arcsine transformation | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | data smoothing filter Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: data smoothing filter | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | In the animal-versus-object task, the time course of spatial priming matched the pattern the rapid-chase model predicts. 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 | Spatial priming curves for every prime-target SOA first followed one identical trajectory and branched off only later, in order of increasing SOA, in line with the independence criterion. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The large-versus-small size-judgement task was the one case where the independence criterion could not be assessed, because its responses were slow and its priming effects small. 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 | The authors attribute the slowness of the size-judgement task to its needing recurrent processing rather than a single feedforward sweep. 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 | There was no indication that natural-image categorisation is extraordinarily fast, or 'ultra-rapid'. 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 | When prime and target categories conflicted, the pointing hand physically veered into the quadrant indicated by the prime before reversing toward the correct target. 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 | Pointing errors occurred almost only on inconsistent trials and grew with prime-target SOA, showing prime influence reaches the motor level. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The authors conclude that visuomotor priming reads out the first pass of information through the visuomotor system, before recurrent processing contributes. 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 | feedforward processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: feedforward processing | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | rapid chase Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: rapid chase | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | rapid-chase criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: rapid-chase criteria | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | independence criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: independence criterion | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | spatial priming function Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spatial priming function | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime–target SOA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime–target SOA | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | pointing trajectories Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pointing trajectories | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | rates of response errors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: rates of response errors | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 380 msec — time after prime onset at which the hand began moving on consistent trials in the large-small task (versus roughly 300 msec in the animal-object task) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE QUOTE CONTINUES A SENTENCE THAT THIS COPY CUTS IN TWO - a running head and the caption of Figure 3 stand between it and the words it follows, which read 'roughly 300 msec after prime onset in the'. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 280 msec / 220 msec — movement onset times after prime onset in the toy-animal-object and ellipse-rectangle tasks of Experiment 2 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 | 160 msec — lag of priming-effect onset in the large-small task relative to the ellipse-rectangle task 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 | 33, 50, 67, 83, or 100 msec — the five prime-target stimulus onset asynchronies used, with primes shown for 33 msec 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 | Twelve — total participants, six in each of the two experiments 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 | 1.14% and 1.73% — trials discarded by the exclusion rules in Experiments 1 and 2 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 | about 80 msec — how much earlier spatial priming onset occurred in the animal-object task than in the large-small task 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 |
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.