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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no mechanisms. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | 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 | masked semantic priming of number comparison 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 | fmri Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fmri | method | the paper's words | |
| limitations | ERP localisation of the covert priming effect is spatially imprecise, which is why fMRI was added 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 haemodynamic measure is too coarse to resolve the small activation delays produced by masked priming 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 | |
| transfers | the lateralized readiness potential, an ERP measure of covert motor preparation, rebuilt in the haemodynamic signal and renamed the lateralized BOLD response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the number-comparison task performed twice by every subject, in counterbalanced order Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: an order effect between the two runs, and between-subject differences, at once - each subject does both and the order is balanced across them · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | prime Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | motor cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: motor cortex | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | awareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: awareness | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE INVISIBLE PRIME APPLIES THE TASK INSTRUCTIONS, WHICH IS A STRONGER CLAIM THAN SEMANTIC ACTIVATION. `the interference between prime and target can be attributed to a covert, prime-induced activation of motor cortex, a response bias that must be overcome in incongruent trials. This indicates that the prime was unconsciously processed according to task instructions, all the way down to the motor system.` The unseen numeral was compared to 5 and a hand was prepared. Most masked-priming records in this corpus argue about whether MEANING was reached; this one argues that a RULE was executed on something nobody saw Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND THE CONTROL ANSWERS THE OBJECTION THAT WEAKENED AN EARLIER RESULT IN THIS SAME CORPUS: `the entire response time distribution was shifted by ~24 ms in incongruent trials compared with congruent trials. Thus, there was no evidence that the effect was found in only A small proportion of subjects or A small number of trials with a distinct distribution of response times.` buchner2003 - tagged three records ago - reports that Driver & Baylis's cross-modal effect `was observed only for a small subgroup of 14 (out of 24) participants`, which `leaves some uncertainty as to the reality` of it. This paper pre-empts exactly that, with a distributional argument rather than an average, and reports that all 12 subjects showed the effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: the staged text carries a COMPARISON/APPROXIMATION OPERATOR REPLACED BY PUNCTUATION: the paper's “~24 ms” is staged as “,24 ms”. Not a spurious space and not a reversal - the character is REPLACED and the result is still grammatical, so it reads as a stray comma rather than as damage. Settled from the paper's own preceding sentence, which gives “average 24 ms, s.d. 13.5 ms”, and the same paragraph carries “(P , 0:0001)” for “P < 0.0001”. The tag's own label already reads “~24 ms”, so the reading was right and only the evidence is damaged; the quote is verbatim against the staged text and no re-slice avoids the character. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | THE WHOLE PROCESSING CHAIN IS PLACED OUTSIDE AWARENESS IN ONE SENTENCE: `Quotation withheld.` Three stages, named in order, and the claim is that none of them requires consciousness. That is the sentence the rest of this corpus's masked-priming records are arguing with - Holcomb2005 asks whether the N400 stage is automatic, Huang2018 restricts affective primacy to face stimuli, Kouider2008 asks about levels of processing. Here all three levels are claimed at once, from a single 43 ms numeral 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 |
| claim_relations | builds-on → studies of masked-face modulation of amygdala activity (refs 11, 12: Whalen et al. 1998; Morris, Öhman & Dolan 1998) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → prior imaging of unconscious cerebral processing (refs 13, 14: Berns, Cohen & Mintun 1997; Sahraie et al. 1997) 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 | prime —causes→ motor cortex 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 PAPER'S CENTRAL CLAIM AND ITS MOST SURPRISING ONE: an unreportable stimulus produces measurable motor activation. 'covert' and 'can be attributed to' are both in the quote - the motor activation is measured, and its attribution to the prime is the inference. Weight 0.9 rather than 0.95 for that second half. also in: prime · motor cortex | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the unseen prime modulates brain activation and congruent responses 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 | effect-size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. Correction, 18 September 2026: only '=' and '+' were repaired. In this quote the ':' in 'P = 0:0027' is a decimal point (P = 0.0027) and still prints wrongly. also in: effect-size | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | false-discovery-rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE REPAIRED: the extractor split a unicode and the quote was recorded faithfully with the damage in it, which made it unanchorable. The repaired string is an EXACT SUBSTRING of the staged text - that is why it was accepted, not because a rule produced it. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: false-discovery-rate | content_tags.statistics[1] | 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. about this quote: QUOTE REPAIRED: the extractor split a all and the quote was recorded faithfully with the damage in it, which made it unanchorable. The repaired string is an EXACT SUBSTRING of the staged text - that is why it was accepted, not because a rule produced it. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
content_tags.statistics[2] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allowsWhat 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.