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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
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.
| 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 | repetition priming of motor programs 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 | electrophysiology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electrophysiology | 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 | Somatic recordings used to rule out indirect recruitment of the CPG inputs may not reflect activity at those inputs' terminals. 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 | An additional contribution from modulation of the motor neuron B8 itself is not excluded. 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 | six to ten control measurements taken first, then B40 current injections interleaved with the CBI-2 stimulation trains Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: drift in the preparation over the course of a long intracellular recording - the baseline is established first and the two conditions then alternate rather than running in sequence · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition priming | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | central pattern generator Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: central pattern generator | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | B63 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: B63 | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | CBI-2 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: CBI-2 | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | B40 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: B40 | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | B20 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: B20 | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | chemical coding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chemical coding | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | task switching Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task switching | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | negative biasing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: negative biasing | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | repetition priming as defined here - increased performance as a behaviour is repeated, measured in a dissected Aplysia ganglion, with no reference to memory, awareness or a subject → media priming as defined in Hoewe2020 (in this corpus), which REQUIRES that the person be unable to mentally trace the source of the influence, and is restricted to System 1 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. THE SAME WORD AT BOTH ENDS OF ITS POSSIBLE EXTENSION, IN ONE CORPUS. One paper applies 'priming' to a preparation with no subject at all - a buccal ganglion on a dish, where the criterion is that a motor pattern becomes better articulated on repetition. Another makes the ABSENCE OF A SUBJECT'S AWARENESS the defining criterion, and proposes an operational test built entirely on asking the person what they noticed. A definition requiring unawareness and a definition with nobody to be unaware cannot be the same definition, yet neither paper marks the word as belonging to another field. Both are ordinary uses in their own literatures. This is not a disagreement and not an error by either: it is the extension of a term stretched past the point where one definition can cover it, which is the object this project was assembled to document. The schema has no relation type for 'these records use one term at incompatible scopes'; 'renamed-across-fields' is the closest and it is wrong, because the name did not change - only what it can be true of., and for the missing types. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | repetition priming, in an invertebrate preparation - INCREASED PERFORMANCE AS A BEHAVIOUR IS REPEATED, and nothing else. No memory, no awareness, no subject. Set beside Hoewe2020, where the same word requires that a person be unable to trace an influence, this is the widest extension of the term in the corpus 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 | how priming MANIFESTS here - not faster or stronger but better ARTICULATED: the first cycle of a program is neither ingestive nor egestive, and repetition makes it become one. The measured quantity is the definiteness of a pattern, not the size of a response 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 | `prime` in the authors' own scare quotes - used for the derived case, where a program triggered from inside the CPG shows priming only because extrinsic inputs were stimulated first. They mark the word when the thing does not meet their own paradigm case 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 negative result read carefully - the authors decline the strong reading of their own null: nothing PRECLUDES priming of B63-induced programs, the modulators are simply not released when only B63 is stimulated. An absence of an effect is read as an absence of a cause, not as an impossibility 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 → the chemical coding model of repetition priming developed from the radula opener circuitry (Friedman et al. 2015; Friedman and Weiss 2010) 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 | replicates → previous demonstrations that unprimed CBI-2- and EN-induced buccal motor programs have intermediate rather than ingestive or egestive characteristics (Dacks et al. 2012; Friedman et al. 2009; Proekt et al. 2004) 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 | |
| concept_edges | B63 —causes→ repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: no-change · strength of the relation: 0.1 — the record marks this weak · note: THE LOAD-BEARING NEGATIVE. Repetition alone does not prime; the priming belongs to the extrinsic inputs. The paper predicted this before testing it - 'if priming is…' - which is what makes the null a result rather than a gap. also in: B63 · repetition priming | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | CBI-2 —causes→ repetition 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: 0.9 · note: And the KIND of priming follows the input, not the repetition - which is the chemical coding model's whole content. also in: CBI-2 · repetition priming | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | CBI-2 —causes→ B40 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: 0.9 · note: THE LOCALISATION, and the reason it is convincing: the same effect is produced by stimulating the input OR by applying its peptides directly, so the route is chemical rather than synaptic. | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | repetition priming —causes→ negative biasing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: The consequence for task switching, and it follows from persistence: B20 is left more excitable by egestive priming and is active during ingestive programs too, so the modification carries into the next behaviour.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but negative biasing is 'observed when' CBI-2 follows repetition priming; causes is loose. also in: repetition priming · negative biasing | concept_edges[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | chemical coding —causes→ repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: Stated as what the data SUGGEST rather than as established here - the supporting work is cited to Friedman et al. - and weighted for that. The content is that WHICH modulator is released decides which kind of priming occurs, so the identity of the input is the identity of the effect.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the data 'suggest' chemical coding 'plays a role in the context of' repetition priming; hedged. also in: chemical coding · repetition priming | concept_edges[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | B20 —causes→ negative biasing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.75 · note: Hedged by the authors - 'likely to be at least partially responsible' - and weighted for it. The mechanism is specific even where the claim is cautious: B20 receives input during BOTH program types, so a modification made during egestive priming is still in place when an ingestive program is triggered.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the B20 modifications 'are likely to be at least partially responsible'; hedged. also in: B20 · negative biasing | concept_edges[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | paired t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: paired 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 | 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[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation | content_tags.statistics[4] | 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[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Stimulating the CPG interneuron B63 to trigger feeding programs produced no significant improvement in response articulation. 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 | Repetition priming did occur when programs were induced through the esophageal nerve or CBI-2. 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 | Unprimed programs were mostly intermediate: 80% of those induced by CBI-2 and 75% of those induced by the esophageal nerve. 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 | CBI-2-induced repetition priming appears to modify properties of the core feeding network postsynaptic to CBI-2. 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 | Repeated esophageal-nerve stimulation also appears to induce priming by modifying properties of the core feeding network. 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 | Bath application of the CBI-2 peptides FCAP and CP-2 partially mimicked CBI-2 stimulation, raising retraction-phase B8 firing to over 250% of baseline. 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 | Bath application of the esophageal-nerve peptide SCPb reproduced the egestive signature, raising protraction-phase B8 firing to over 250% of baseline. 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 | Ingestive priming increased the excitability of the interneuron B40 and its firing frequency during B63-induced programs. 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 | Egestive priming instead recruited the egestive interneuron B20, whose protraction firing frequency more than doubled after esophageal-nerve stimulation. 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 suggest this partly accounts for the asymmetry of task switching in the feeding network: negative biasing egestive-to-ingestive, positive biasing ingestive-to-egestive. 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 | repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition priming | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ingestion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ingestion | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | egestion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: egestion | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | protraction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: protraction | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | chemical coding model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chemical coding model | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | negative biasing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: negative biasing | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | task switching Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task switching | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | exogenous peptide application Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: exogenous peptide application | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | B8 firing frequency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: B8 firing frequency | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | B40 excitability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: B40 excitability | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | latency to spike initiation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: latency to spike initiation | content_tags.variables[4] | 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.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | injected current Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: injected current | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | high-divalent cation solution Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: high-divalent cation solution | content_tags.variables[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 94% — Share of unprimed buccal motor programs triggered from inside the CPG (B63) that were classified as intermediate 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 | 1.2 ± 0.4 Hz to 6.1 ± 0.8 Hz — Fivefold increase in B8 retraction-phase firing in B63-triggered programs caused by prior CBI-2 (ingestive) priming 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 | 1.0 ± 0.2 Hz to 3.1 ± 0.5 Hz — Threefold increase in B8 protraction-phase firing in B63-triggered programs caused by prior esophageal-nerve (egestive) priming, recovering within 15 min 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 | 9.8 ± 5.7% to 87.5 ± 4.2% — Fraction of the protraction phase during which B40 was active, before versus after CBI-2-induced priming 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 | 8.7 ± 0.9 to 19.2 ± 2.3 spikes — Spikes evoked in B40 by a fixed 3-s current pulse before and after three trains of CBI-2 stimulation, i.e. the excitability increase 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 | r = 0.7665, P < 0.0001, n = 103 BMPs — Correlation between B40 firing and B8 retraction-phase activity pooled across time points and preparations 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 | r = 0.8296, P < 0.0001, n = 56 BMPs — Correlation between B20 firing and B8 firing during protraction 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 | |
| content_tags | 1.0 ± 0.2 Hz vs 1.4 ± 0.2 Hz, P = 0.18 — B8 protraction and retraction firing in unprimed B63-triggered programs, statistically indistinguishable between phases Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | 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.