(cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 10 characters in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 | 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 | response priming by luminance flankers 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 | |
| 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 | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Experiments 1 and 2 leave open the alternative that participants judged targets by local contrast sign rather than brightness (addressed only by Experiment 3). 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 dissociation licenses only the weaker conclusion that some aspects of lightness constancy are missing from response activation, not that constancy is wholly absent. 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 | |
| controls | a whole experiment (Experiment 3) built to test the local-contrast-sign account Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that responses are driven by the local contrast sign of the target rather than by the primed response · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | response priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response priming | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | subjective brightness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subjective brightness | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | local luminance contrast Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: local luminance contrast | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | lightness constancy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lightness constancy | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | A QUALITATIVE DISSOCIATION, AND IT IS A REVERSAL RATHER THAN AN ATTENUATION: `Quotation withheld.` Not a smaller effect in one condition - the sign flips, while the observer's own brightness match goes the other way. A quantitative dissociation can be argued about with a power analysis; a reversal cannot 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 CONTROL THAT MAKES THIS DIFFERENT IN KIND FROM EVERY OTHER DISSOCIATION IN THIS CORPUS: `Quotation withheld, and it relies solely on characteristic differences in processing dynamics between the priming and matching tasks.` dehaene1998 flashes a numeral for 43 ms between masks; marcel1983, holcomb2005 and Finkbeiner2011 all argue about whether the prime was seen. This paper lets the observer look straight at it. So the gap is not between seen and unseen but between two live representations of one visible stimulus - which is a different claim, needing none of the machinery the awareness literature spends its credibility on 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 CLAIM IS A TRIPLE NEGATIVE THAT NAMES ITS WINNER: `Quotation withheld` The two excluded candidates are the physical variable and the perceptual variable - between them, everything anyone would have guessed - and each was excluded by a measurement rather than by an argument. The third is named, and it is a property of the stimulus's relation to its own neighbourhood 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 INFERENCE IS CAREFULLY PARTIAL: `If priming effects are in systematic disagreement with the flankers' perceived brightness values, this suggests that at least some aspects of lightness constancy are absent from the response activation process.` `at least some aspects` and `suggests` are both in the quote, and they are the difference between this and a claim that the motor pathway is pre-constancy. The illusion used here IS a consequence of lightness constancy - the authors say so - so its failure to reach the response is evidence about one pathway, not a map of the visual system 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 | builds-on → Moore and Brown (2001), visual search under a dark transparent filter 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 → physiological studies reporting that subjective lightness is signalled early in the hierarchy (MacEvoy & Paradiso, 2001; Rossi & Paradiso, 1999; Rossi, Rittenhouse, & Paradiso, 1996) 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 → Breitmeyer, Ro, and Singhal (2004), the proposal that response priming is based on raw physical stimulus characteristics rather than perceived color; the authors explicitly adopt a "less radical view" in the next sentence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: 2026-08-16: FAILED GLYPH INSIDE THIS QUOTE. Two failed glyphs inside a surname: the staged text reads "Breitmeyer, Ö(cid:120)(cid:129) men, & Chen, 2004". The author is Haluk Ogmen (O-with-diaeresis, g-with-breve), and the extraction lost both diacritic characters and left the raw font codes with a stray space. This affects only the CITED NAME, not the claim: the sentence's assertion about response priming and raw physical stimulus characteristics is intact. The quote is an exact substring of the staged file; the file is incomplete here, not the tag. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → the rapid-chase model of response priming (Schmidt et al., 2006; Schmidt & Schmidt, 2009) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | local luminance contrast —causes→ response priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'EXCLUSIVELY' IS IN THE QUOTE AND IT IS THE WHOLE CLAIM. Two rival causes are named and excluded in the same sentence - physical luminance and subjective brightness - so this is not 'X is associated with Y' but 'X and not the two things you would have guessed'. Weight 0.95: the general discussion's opening sentence, resting on a systematic variation of the illusion rather than on one contrast. 'increases' means more local contrast in the priming direction yields more priming, and the reversal condition is the same relation with the contrast sign flipped.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but priming 'seems to depend exclusively on' local contrast; hedged, and no direction is stated. also in: local luminance contrast · response priming | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | response priming —distinct-from→ subjective brightness 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: A REVERSAL, NOT AN ATTENUATION, AND THAT IS WHY THIS EARNS 0.95. 'distinct-from' usually records that two concepts are not the same thing; here the quote shows them moving in OPPOSITE directions on the same stimulus - one flanker appears brighter and primes as if darker. And the second sense is what makes it valuable: no masking, no brief presentation, the stimuli in plain view. Every other dissociation in this corpus separates a seen thing from an unseen thing; this separates two representations of a thing the observer is looking at. also in: response priming · subjective brightness | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | repeated-measures ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repeated-measures ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Greenhouse-Geisser correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Greenhouse-Geisser correction | 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 | standard error of the mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error of the mean | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | When the illusion made the two flankers look similar in brightness, the priming effect reversed sign: consistent flankers slowed responses and inconsistent flankers speeded them. 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 same flanker could look brighter than its partner while priming the response assigned to the darker stimulus. 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 | Brightness matching never reversed: the physically more luminant flanker was always judged the brighter one in every illusion condition. 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 | Varying the light-to-shadow ratio showed that priming flipped sign in exactly the conditions where each flanker's contrast against its own background flipped from increment to decrement. 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 | Experiment 3 replicated the pattern with changed targets: priming strongly positive in enhancement conditions and reversed in attenuation conditions. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE QUOTE STOPS WHERE THE EXTRACTED TEXT IS INTERRUPTED: after its last word the text runs into the page's running head and number, garbled in the extraction ('1566 SSCHMI 1566 CHMIDT ET AL…'), and then a figure's labels ('Attenuation Enhancement…'), so the words that completed the sentence are not continuous with it and are not quoted. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Overall, response priming tracked neither the flankers' physical luminance nor their perceived brightness, but only their local luminance contrast against the immediately surrounding background. 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 | The priming-perception dissociation was obtained with all stimuli fully visible, without masking or brief presentation. 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 | lightness constancy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lightness constancy | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | rapid-chase theory of response priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 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 | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | lightness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lightness | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | brightness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: brightness | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | light–shadow contrast Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: light–shadow contrast | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | RT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: RT | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | luminance levels Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: luminance levels | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Eight — participants 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 | 1.0, 34.2, and 11.1 cd/m2 — luminances of the shadowed, lighted and neutrally illuminated segments of the folded plane 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[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 17, 33, 50, 67, or 83 msec — the flanker-target SOAs used 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[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 0.19% — share of Experiment 1 trials discarded as RT outliers 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 | seven steps (light–shadow contrast between 1.6 and 336.3) — range over which the light-to-shadow luminance ratio was varied in Experiment 2 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 | about 30 msec — how much faster responses were to mixed target pairs than to all-decrement or all-increment pairs in Experiment 3 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.