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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | negative 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 | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: the paper's own words: may be caused by | 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 | Prime conflict is unavoidably confounded with whether the prime and probe responses alternate or repeat, which makes the key finding ambiguous in principle. 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 unexpected positive priming after nonconflict primes in the auditory-auditory condition can only be accounted for speculatively. 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 positive priming found on nonconflict prime trials in the auditory-auditory condition was not predicted. 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 | |
| controls | a MATCHED CONTROL TRIAL was built for every ignored-repetition trial by replacing the ignored prime with the stimulus that did not occur Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the effect is a property of the probe pair rather than of the ignored prime - the probe is identical across the pair, so only the prime differs · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the response CATEGORY of the ignored prime was held constant across an ignored-repetition trial and its control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the difference is a response-category effect rather than an identity effect · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | negative priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: negative priming | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | conflict Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conflict | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | distractor inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: distractor inhibition | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | episodic retrieval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: episodic retrieval | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | A PRIME THAT HURTS BECAUSE IT WAS IGNORED, WHICH IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRIME AND TARGET THAT NOTHING ELSE IN THIS CORPUS HAS. `a reaction to a stimulus can be slowed down or more likely to be in error if the stimulus has recently been ignored.` The manipulation is an INSTRUCTION TO DISREGARD, so what carries over is the act of suppression. And it is a cost, not a benefit - the second counterexample tonight to the standard `improvement` definition Minton2017 strikes out, after Huang2018's interference effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND IGNORING IS NOT ENOUGH - IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN COMPETING: `Negative priming was observed only after conflict, but not after nonconflict, primes.` The ignored item must have called for a DIFFERENT response from the attended one. So the phenomenon is not about suppression in general but about suppression under competition, and a design that ignores an irrelevant stimulus with no competing response should find nothing. Another `only when`, and the condition is a property of the RELATION between the two primes rather than of either one 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 AUTHORS MARK EXACTLY HOW MUCH OF THEIR CONCLUSION RESTS ON SOMETHING THEY CANNOT TEST: `Although this unavoidable confound renders the interpretation of the present finding ambiguous in principle, we believe that the conflict/nonconflict nature of the primes, and not the prime-probe response alternation/repetition, determined the observed pattern.` Then: `Quotation withheld within...` Four markers in three sentences - unavoidable, ambiguous in principle, we believe, if this position is accepted - and everything downstream is explicitly conditional on the belief. The confound is structural: conflict primes necessarily change the response, so the two cannot be separated by any version of this design 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 | AN UNEXPECTED RESULT ADMITTED AS UNEXPLAINED: `The positive priming on nonconflict prime trials in the auditory-auditory condition was unexpected. Quotation withheld` The effect ran the WRONG WAY in one cell - facilitation where the paper predicts none - and it gets a paragraph of candidate explanations, each marked as speculation, rather than a footnote. A record that stored only the headline `negative priming after conflict primes` would lose a cell that contradicts the framework 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 |
| senses | THREE ACCOUNTS ARE TESTED AGAINST THE SAME PATTERN AND ONE OF THEM HAS TO BE PATCHED: distractor inhibition and episodic retrieval both accommodate the conflict result, but for the temporal discrimination account `Quotation withheld.` Two alternative extensions are then offered, both hypothetical. The paper reports which theory needs extra machinery to survive its data, which is a more useful thing to record than which theory it prefers 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 |
| 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 BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.claim_type | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | method: behavioural-experiment 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: behavioural-experiment — note: A BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.method | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | phenomenon: negative priming within and across the auditory and visual modalities, and its dependence on response conflict 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: negative priming — note: A BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.phenomenon | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | replicates → Driver and Baylis (1993) 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 → Driver and Baylis (1993, Experiment 1) 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 | conflict —causes→ negative 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: 0.85 · note: THE 'only after' IS THE CLAIM AND IT IS IN THE QUOTE. Weight 0.85 rather than higher because of the confound the authors name themselves: conflict primes NECESSARILY change the response between prime and probe, so this edge and 'response alternation causes negative priming' are not separable by any version of this design. The paper says so - 'ambiguous in principle' - and the third sense carries it. also in: conflict · negative priming | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | 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[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 | effect size (Cohen's dz) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effect size (Cohen's dz) | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | significance level (alpha) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: significance level (alpha) | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Negative priming appeared only when the attended and ignored members of the prime pair called for different responses; nonconflict primes produced none. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The conflict-only pattern of negative priming held for visual stimuli, for auditory stimuli, and in both cross-modal directions (auditory-to-visual and visual-to-auditory). 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 | Auditory-to-visual and visual-to-auditory negative priming were fairly symmetrical. 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 the auditory-auditory condition, nonconflict-prime trials produced positive priming (faster responses to the previously ignored sound) instead of the null effect seen in the other three presentation conditions. 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 | Whether the probe pair itself was conflicting did not reliably change the size of negative priming. 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 | Ignoring the conflict/nonconflict prime distinction would have shown negative priming in the visual-visual condition but wrongly suggested none in the auditory-auditory condition. 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 | Probe responses were faster after visual than after auditory probes and slower after conflicting than after nonconflicting probes, while prime modality had no effect on probe speed. 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 | Differences between control and ignored-repetition trials must reflect stimulus identity, not the associated response category. 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 | negative priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: negative priming | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | conflict pair Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conflict pair | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | nonconflict pair Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: nonconflict pair | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | presentation condition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: presentation condition | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | trial type Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: trial type | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | probe reaction time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: probe reaction time | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | error percentage Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: error percentage | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | response category of the ignored prime Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | probe stimulus pair Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: probe stimulus pair | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | spatial compatibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spatial compatibility | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 284 — number of undergraduate participants tested, 198 of them female, aged 18-58 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 | 768 — number of prime-probe trials each participant completed 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 | 96 — number of prime/probe trials of each of the four trial types (NC/NC, NC/C, C/NC, C/C) 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 | 669 vs. 897 msec — mean probe reaction time after visual probes versus after auditory probes 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 | 819 vs. 747 msec — mean probe reaction time following conflict probes versus nonconflict probes 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 | 252 msec — size of the negative priming effect in the auditory-auditory condition, the largest of the four presentation conditions (the PDF extraction renders the minus sign as a leading 2, i.e. -52 msec, followed by -27, -26 and -18 msec) 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 | 2 msec — the overall auditory-auditory priming effect when conflict and nonconflict prime trials are pooled - negligible and in the positive direction, which is why pooling hides the effect 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 | 725 vs. 966 msec — mean prime reaction time after visual primes versus after auditory primes 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.