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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| 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 |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| 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 |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| 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 7 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | whether single neurons in the human medial temporal lobe are more likely to respond selectively to images that are personally relevant to the patient Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | does personal relevance make a stimulus more likely to recruit a selective excitatory response from an MTL cell Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | grades selective MTL responsiveness by personal relevance — experimenters and family highest, celebrities intermediate, unknown faces lowest — and finds the gradient differs by MTL region Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's 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 | personal relevance in human medial temporal lobe single-neuron responses 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 | |
| mechanisms | the experimenters themselves are used as a stimulus category, which manufactures personal relevance the authors control rather than having to find it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | relevance is turned into an ordered scale — unknown, famous, family, experimenter — so the prediction is a gradient rather than a single contrast Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | selectivity is defined by an exclusion rule rather than by a positive criterion: cells responding to more than five image sets are dropped so that promiscuous units cannot dominate the counts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | responsiveness requires three conditions together — a five-SD threshold, a minimum absolute spike count, and a significance test — so no single loose criterion carries a unit through Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the recency contrast is built into the stimulus set: experimenters are recent acquaintances and family remote ones, which turns the design into a test bearing on consolidation theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the counterargument to their own consolidation inference is written out by the authors rather than left to a critic Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | duplicate views of the same person or landmark are dropped so that no category can win by being represented more often Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | because image counts differ by patient and category, the metric is the proportion of images that elicited a response rather than the count Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a trivial face/non-face judgment is imposed purely to guarantee attention, not to measure anything Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the amygdala result is read against the grain of the paper's own thesis, as novelty and emotional salience rather than relevance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | single units are separated from multiunits by four spike-train criteria including an explicit refractory-period check Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Patients were never asked whether the images evoked episodic memories, so the recent-versus-remote memory question cannot be settled by the data. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the recent-versus-remote memory question: BECAUSE WE DID NOT ASK OUR PATIENTS IF THE IMAGES WE SHOWED THEM GENERATED EPISODIC MEMORIES, WE CANNOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE DIRECTLY WITH OUR CURRENT STUDY | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Response counts per MTL region were low, so the regional differences must be read cautiously. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the regional comparisons: response counts per MTL region were low | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The null result for landmarks is inconclusive because no personally familiar landmarks were included in the stimulus set. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the landmark null: THOUGH WE DID NOT FIND ANY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF FAMILIARITY WITH RESPECT TO LANDMARKS, WE DID NOT INCLUDE PERSONALLY FAMILIAR LANDMARKS SUCH AS THE PATIENT'S HOME, SCHOOL, OR WORK | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the mechanism the whole account rests on — incidental recollection — was never measured Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - incidental recollection, the mechanism the account rests on, was never measured because patients were not asked | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the faces-versus-landmarks asymmetry may be an artefact of the stimulus set, because no personally familiar landmarks were included Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[2] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[2] - the faces-versus-landmarks asymmetry may be a property of the stimulus set rather than of the regions | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the regional comparisons rest on small response counts and the authors say they must be read with caution Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the regional comparisons: THE NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT RESPONSES IN EACH AREA WAS RELATIVELY LOW, AND THEREFORE THESE REGIONAL DIFFERENCES MUST BE INTERPRETED WITH CAUTION | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | images of the patients themselves produced almost nothing, so the self category had to be merged into family Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every result reported for the family category, which silently contains the self: Quotation withheld. THEREFORE, WE DID NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN PICTURES OF THE SELF AND PICTURES OF FAMILY MEMBERS | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | whether the famous-face responses in hippocampus involve personal recollection is left for future work Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the recollection interpretation of the hippocampal responses: FUTURE STUDIES SHOULD ADDRESS THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE SPECIFIC PHOTOGRAPHS ... WERE ACCOMPANIED BY INCIDENTAL RECOLLECTION OF PERSONAL MEMORIES | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | electrode placement was set by clinical criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: which structures could be observed: PATIENTS WERE STEREOTACTICALLY IMPLANTED WITH 6-14 DEPTH ELECTRODES ... AIMING AT TARGETS SELECTED USING CLINICAL CRITERIA | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the self-reference effect, imported as the motivating prediction that personally relevant stimuli should recruit more neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the sparse-coding expectation, carried across from animal MTL recordings and used to frame what a human selective response means Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | famous faces and names as a probe of semantic memory integrity, reused here as a graded familiarity stimulus set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | anatomical electrode locations verified by post-placement MRI and by fusing implantation CT with high-resolution imaging Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: attributing a response to the wrong medial temporal structure - the verification is imaging taken after the electrodes are in, not the plan they were placed from · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the order of the pictures and their repetition randomised Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: order and repetition effects - a fixed sequence would confound picture identity with when it appeared and how often · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | personal relevance — as connection to the self versus as accumulated shared experience; the paper opens on the first and its result rests on the second 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 | familiarity — as long-standing acquaintance (family) versus as recent daily contact (experimenters); the design treats both as personal relevance and finds them equal 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 | familiarity versus recollection — in the models discussed, MTL cortex can support the first alone while the hippocampus is required for the second Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | selective — as the cell's own tuning versus as an analysis threshold; here it is the latter, five image sets Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | MTL selectivity — as coding a person versus as coding the associations that person carries; the paper argues for the second Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | amygdala responsiveness — as personal relevance versus as novelty and emotional salience, which order the same stimuli differently Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: existence — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | method: single- and multi-unit recording from depth microwires in four MTL regions while patients viewed images graded by personal relevance, with responsiveness defined by a three-part criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: electrophysiology — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.method | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | phenomenon: sparse selective coding of familiar people by human medial temporal lobe neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: personal relevance in human medial temporal lobe single-neuron responses — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Quian Quiroga, Reddy, Kreiman, Koch and Fried (2005), Nature 435(7045):1102-1107, on selective invariant MTL responses to famous people 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 | extends → multiple trace theory (MTT) of medial temporal lobe memory function 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 | extends → Quian Quiroga et al. 2005, that individual MTL neurons respond selectively and invariantly to famous people Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → the self-reference effect literature on encoding enhancement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → multiple trace theory over the standard consolidation model, on the reading that recent and remote acquaintances alike drive hippocampal cells Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → models in which MTL cortex supports familiarity while the hippocampus supports recollection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → evidence that hippocampal cells code relative familiarity after a single presentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the state of the MTL regional division of labour, as unresolved despite extensive study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | personal relevance —causes→ selective responsiveness 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 also in: personal relevance · selective responsiveness | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | familiarity —distinct-from→ recollection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHICH STRUCTURE IS NECESSARY FOR WHICH KIND OF RETRIEVAL. 'Several current theoretical models suggest that MTL CORTEX ALONE CAN SUPPORT FAMILIARITY-BASED MEMORY, WHEREAS THE HIPPOCAMPUS IS NECESSARY FOR THE RETRIEVAL OF EPISODIC INFORMATION, OR RECOLLECTION.' The two processes are not distinguished behaviourally here but by a NECESSITY claim about different tissue - so a lesion that spares MTL cortex is the test, and a task that does not separate the two processes cannot run it. · strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but 'Several current theoretical models suggest' the split; attributed. also in: familiarity · recollection | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | multiple trace theory —contrasted-with→ standard model of consolidation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHETHER HIPPOCAMPAL INVOLVEMENT DEPENDS ON THE AGE OF THE MEMORY. 'Whereas the standard model of consolidation (MCT) PREDICTS that over long periods of time, memories eventually become independent of the hippocampus, the idea that this structure is involved in episodic memory retrieval without regard to the age of the memory [is the alternative].' Both models agree the hippocampus retrieves episodic memories; they differ on whether that stops. A bare 'contrasted-with' loses the variable - memory age - that any experiment would have to manipulate to tell them apart. · strength of the relation: 1 | concept_edges[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | hippocampus —part-of→ medial temporal lobe Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: hippocampus · medial temporal lobe | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · experimenters —contrasted-with→ famous faces Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span was about familiarity in general. This sentence names both and carries the contrast WITH ITS STATISTICS AND ITS DIRECTION - family members and experimenters 'DID NOT DIFFER (P > 0.5), though together they were more…'. It states a non-difference and a difference in one sentence, and the edge records the second. — strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but familiar individuals versus famous faces; contrasted-with is loose. also in: experimenters · famous faces | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | single units —distinct-from→ multiunits Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: single units · multiunits | concept_edges[6] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | landmarks —contrasted-with→ famous faces Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHETHER FAME MODULATES THE RESPONSE, AND ONE SIDE IS A NULL. 'In contrast to cellular responses to faces, WHICH SHOWED A significant preference for famous faces, as compared with unknown faces, there was no difference in the proportion of cells responding to famous versus unknown landmarks (P = 0.27).' Both categories are represented; only one is sensitive to familiarity, and the evidence for the difference is a significant test on one side and a null on the other. · strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span contrasts cell responses to famous landmarks and famous faces; contrasted-with is loose. also in: landmarks · famous faces | concept_edges[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | chi-squared test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-squared test | content_tags.statistics[0] | 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[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | median Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: median | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | planned comparisons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: planned comparisons | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | post-hoc tests Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: post-hoc tests | content_tags.statistics[5] | 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[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | χ 2 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: χ 2 | content_tags.statistics[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | planned comparisons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: planned comparisons | content_tags.statistics[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | post-hoc tests Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: post-hoc tests | content_tags.statistics[9] | 1.0 | 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[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | median number of spikes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: median number of spikes | content_tags.statistics[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 4(region) × 4(category) χ 2 analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: 4(region) × 4(category) χ 2 analysis | content_tags.statistics[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Photographs of the experimenters were the most likely to elicit a response (22%), followed by photographs of the patients and their families (17%). 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 | Family members and experimenters were statistically indistinguishable from each other but together beat celebrities, and celebrities in turn beat unknown faces, giving a graded ladder of personal relevance. 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 | Familiarity produced no such effect for places: famous landmarks (14%) and unknown landmarks (11%) elicited statistically indistinguishable proportions of responses. 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 | Selective excitatory responses were not spread evenly over the MTL: entorhinal cortex yielded fewer responses than either the hippocampus or the parahippocampal cortex. 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 four MTL regions differed significantly from one another in how they distributed responses across the four face categories. 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 | The hippocampus was the one region where celebrities behaved like personally known people, responding more to famous than to unknown faces while family, experimenters and celebrities did not differ from each other. 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 | In entorhinal cortex no unit at all responded to unknown faces. 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 | In the amygdala the ordering reversed at the top end: experimenters elicited responses more often than family members. 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 | Only 3 units responded to images of the patients themselves. 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 | Overall, personally relevant photographs are more likely to elicit selective MTL responses than photographs of people the patient has never met. 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 | response likelihood was ordered by personal relevance: experimenters 22%, family 17%, celebrities 9%, unknown faces 5% Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | family and experimenters were indistinguishable, but together beat celebrities, which in turn beat unknown faces Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the familiarity effect held for faces but not for landmarks — 14% famous against 11% unknown Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | only 3 units responded to images of the patients themselves, so self and family were merged Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the four MTL regions differed in their category response patterns Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the hippocampus was the only region where famous faces beat unknown faces, with family, experimenters and celebrities not differing from each other Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | entorhinal cortex produced no responses at all to unknown faces Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | in parahippocampal cortex family and experimenters together beat famous faces strongly, and famous did not beat unknown Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | in the amygdala experimenters beat family, and neither the celebrity nor the unknown contrast held — the familiarity ordering broke down Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | selective responses were unevenly distributed across MTL, with entorhinal cortex responding less than hippocampus and parahippocampal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | an amygdala unit responded to one researcher's photograph and to none of 100+ perceptually similar images Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[20] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the selectivity exclusion removed only 7% of responsive units Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[21] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | self-reference effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: self-reference effect | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | criterion of selective responsiveness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | response to a picture Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response to a picture | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | responsive unit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: responsive unit | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | multiple trace theory (MTT) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multiple trace theory (MTT) | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | sparse code Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sparse code | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The self-reference effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: The self-reference effect | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | selective responsiveness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: selective responsiveness | content_tags.definitions[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response | content_tags.definitions[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | baseline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: baseline | content_tags.definitions[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | multiple trace theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multiple trace theory | content_tags.definitions[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | standard model of consolidation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard model of consolidation | content_tags.definitions[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | categories of images Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: categories of images | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | category of stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: category of stimuli | content_tags.variables[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | proportions of images eliciting responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | MTL region Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: MTL region | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | median number of spikes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: median number of spikes | content_tags.variables[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | baseline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: baseline | content_tags.variables[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 2,330 — total units recorded from 16 patients over 34 sessions across four MTL regions 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 | 153 units — units meeting the selective-responsiveness criterion and entering the category comparisons 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 | 7% — share of the 165 responsive units discarded by the selectivity criterion (12 units responding to more than 5 pictures) 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 | 22% — proportion of experimenter photographs that generated a selective response, the highest of any category 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 | 9% — proportion of famous-face images generating responses, versus 5% for unknown faces 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 | 14% — proportion of famous landmarks generating responses, statistically indistinguishable from the 11% for unknown landmarks 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 | χ 2 (9) = 32.3, P < 0.0001 — test statistic for the region-by-category interaction showing regions differ in their response patterns 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 | 28 kHz — digital sampling rate of the microwire signals, bandpass filtered between 1 and 9 kHz 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 | |
| content_tags | 2,330 units — total recorded, 874 single and 1,456 multiunits Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 153 units — selective responsive units after the five-set exclusion, from 165 responsive Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 22% / 17% / 9% / 5% — response rates for experimenters, family, celebrities, unknown faces Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 14% vs 11% — famous against unknown landmark response rates, not significantly different Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 3 units — responses to images of the patients themselves Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | sixteen patients, 34 sessions — the sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 6–14 depth electrodes — electrodes implanted per patient, sited by clinical criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | nine 40-μm microwires — microwires per electrode tip, the ninth serving as reference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 28 kHz, 1 to 9 kHz — sampling rate and bandpass filter Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 5 standard deviations — the responsiveness threshold above baseline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 6 times for 1 s — repetitions and duration per image Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 1.5° — visual angle subtended by each image Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | <1% spikes within less than 3 ms ISI — the refractory-period criterion for classifying a cluster as a single unit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[20] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 1 and 2 weeks — how long patients remained implanted on the ward Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[21] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 100+ — perceptually similar stimuli the example amygdala unit did not respond to Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[22] | 1.0 | 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.