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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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 |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 1 relation 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | response priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The recommendations are deliberately not to be followed dogmatically; deliberately violating them can be theoretically informative. 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 dos-and-don'ts list is explicitly incomplete. 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 recommendation to separate direct and indirect tasks into blocks rests on evidence that is missing for direct measures. 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 | Guidance on three-stimulus (prime-mask-target) designs is limited by unresolved knowledge about motor activation in that situation. 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 | |
| transfers | the argument against discarding subjects who fail an awareness check is made by analogy with a clinical trial: excluding those subjects is like removing from the analysis the patients the drug killed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | zero sensitivity criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: zero sensitivity criterion | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | double dissociation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: double dissociation | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | prime visibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime visibility | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper'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[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | visual awareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: visual awareness | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | evidence as a SHAPE rather than a LEVEL - the double dissociation replaces `awareness must be zero` with `awareness and priming must move in opposite directions across SOAs`. If a range of prime-mask SOAs shows visibility DECREASING while priming INCREASES, then the two cannot both be driven by one source of conscious information. The criterion needs a time-course, not a threshold - the sixth time this sitting that a time course is the load-bearing variable 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 | A DESIGN FLAW THAT MANUFACTURES THE CORRELATION IT IS USED TO SHOW: `varying the prime's duration while leaving the prime-target ISI constant` confounds prime duration with SOA and `creates a spurious correlation between priming and prime visibility by two mechanisms` - a stronger prime gives stronger priming, and a longer SOA gives stronger priming. The fix is to leave the prime intact and control visibility by varying the MASK. A confound that produces apparent evidence for a link between priming and awareness out of the timing alone 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 paradigm's power located in PARAMETRIC VARIATION rather than in a single contrast: response priming effects are `numerically large ... and pretty stable across individuals`, so the recommendation is to trace them across a range of SOAs. `the paradigm unfolds its true power only in parametric experiments` - a methods paper telling its field that one comparison is not the way to use its own tool 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 | THE ZERO SENSITIVITY CRITERION, AND WHY IT IS UNMEETABLE - not `too strict`, but resting on an instrument that does not exist: it `requires an exhaustive measure of visual awareness which is guaranteed to never miss a change in visual awareness, however tiny`. A standard whose satisfaction cannot be established, which is a different failing from a standard that is hard to reach. Second record in a row retiring a criterion on this ground (see Kiefer2012) 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 → existing theories of response priming: direct parameter specification (Neumann, 1990), the action trigger account (Kunde, Kiesel, & Hoffmann, 2003) and rapid-chase theory (Schmidt et al., 2006) 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 → the direct/indirect task-matching recommendations of Schmidt and Vorberg (2006) 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 zero sensitivity criterion for masked priming research Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → the feedforward sweep account of Lamme and Roelfsema (2000) 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 | response priming —distinct-from→ visual awareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER ONE CAN BE READ OFF THE OTHER - masked stimuli 'can influence…', so the motor effect does not track what was seen. That independence is what the paper calls the paradigm's useful feature rather than a nuisance · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: Re-grounded off the zero-sensitivity passage, which never names 'response priming'. This sentence pair names both endpoints, is free of brackets, and states the separation as the paradigm's defining property. Weighted 0.9: the paper is a methods review reporting an established feature, not an experiment establishing it here. also in: response priming · visual awareness | concept_edges[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Response priming effects are among the numerically largest in reaction-time research, accounting for 25% or more of the total response time. 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 | Priming effects grow the longer the interval between prime and target onset, because the prime has more time to drive the response before the target takes over motor control. 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 | Priming effects can keep increasing while the prime becomes less visible. 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 | In any design that modifies visibility by varying the prime, the direct and indirect measures are always confounded. 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 | Computing d' separately for consistent and inconsistent trials confounds sensitivity with response bias. 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 | Excluding participants whose prime identification is above chance is a sampling fallacy, since dropping observations does not alter the population the sample came from. 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 | Prime identification performance carries an SOA-dependent bias: participants lean toward the target's direction at short SOAs and away from it at long SOAs. 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 recommend varying prime-target SOA in at least three steps across the whole range of interest, roughly 0 to 100 ms, rather than testing a single SOA. 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 | About 60 trials per condition per participant has proved a reasonable number for reliable data patterns with small standard errors. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The authors strongly recommend matching direct and indirect tasks on the stimuli, the features judged, and how those features map onto motor responses. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Priming effects in error rates matter as much as those in response times and should be analysed just as carefully. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The earliest phase of response activation is determined by prime information alone and is independent of all target information. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 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 | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming effect | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | priming function Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming function | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | interstimulus interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: interstimulus interval | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | feedforward sweep Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: feedforward sweep | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | metacontrast masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: metacontrast masking | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | type-A masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: type-A masking | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | type-B masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: type-B masking | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime identification task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime identification task | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | zero sensitivity criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: zero sensitivity criterion | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | SOA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SOA | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming effect | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime visibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime visibility | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime energy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime energy | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 25% — Share of overall response time that response priming effects can account for 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 | 60 — Recommended number of trials per condition per participant 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 | three steps — Minimum number of SOA levels the authors recommend sampling, over a 0-100 ms range 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 | 100 ms — SOA below which the prototypical, approximately linear priming function is obtained 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 | 12 ms — Fixed prime presentation duration in the typical experiment illustrated 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 | 50 ms — Approximate prime-mask SOA at which prime visibility is lowest under type-B masking 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.