standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 4 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | 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 | conscious access Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| 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 | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 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: can explain why | mechanisms[5] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The review deliberately covers only conscious access, not higher-order concepts of consciousness 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 | Higher-order concepts such as metacognition and self-representation are excluded because the authors judge them insufficiently defined empirically 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 supporting simulations implement only a small fragment of the proposed architecture Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Lesion and TMS evidence does not establish that prefrontal contribution is causally necessary for conscious perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The field's strict operational criterion is stated to OVERESTIMATE the thing it measures: subjects perform above chance while denying they perceived anything. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a chance-level performance criterion as the test of non-conscious processing: the review states it tends to overestimate conscious perception, because subjects can perform above chance and still deny perceiving the stimulus | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Which task counts as evidence is unresolved, because performance can be at chance on one task and not another. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a null result on one task as evidence of non-conscious processing: the review states performance can be at chance for some tasks but not others, leaving which tasks count unresolved | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The verdict rests on accepting a null hypothesis, and the review states the significance often depends on an analyst's choice of how many trials to run. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any published claim that a stimulus was processed non-consciously: the review states performance never really falls to zero and that significance often depends on arbitrary choices such as the number of trials used to measure it | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the concept of a stochastic phase transition, used to describe the sudden switch of the network into the ignited conscious state Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | the blackboard architecture - a shared data structure updated by many specialised modules - taken over as the global workspace of consciousness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concepts | conscious access Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conscious access | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: attention | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | post-decision wagering Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: post-decision wagering | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | state of consciousness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: state of consciousness | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | wakefulness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: wakefulness | concepts[4] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | vigilance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: vigilance | concepts[5] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | selective attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: selective attention | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | conscious content Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conscious content | concepts[7] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| senses | conscious access - BY THE OBJECTIVE CRITERION: a stimulus counts as non-conscious only if subjects cannot perform above chance on a direct task, a tradition grounded in signal-detection theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | conscious access - BY SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA: visibility ratings, or second-order commentaries such as post-decision wagering, adopted BECAUSE the objective criterion fails 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 | attention - James's classic definition, which the review says CONFLATES two processes that are now clearly separable 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 | `conscious` - ONE WORD SPLIT BY GRAMMAR, NOT BY FIELD OR BY DATE. `“Conscious” is an ambiguous word. In its intransitive use (e.g. "the patient was still conscious"), it refers to the state of consciousness ... In its transitive use (e.g. "I was not conscious of the red light"), it refers to conscious access.` The disambiguating test is whether the word takes an object. Every other split in this corpus runs across disciplines, across decades, or across languages; this one runs across a syntactic frame, and the paper hands the reader a grammatical test rather than a definition. 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 | `selection` / `selective attention` - AN ALIAS INTRODUCED IN PASSING AND THEN USED TO BREAK A FOLK IDENTITY. `Selection, also called selective attention, refers to the separation of relevant versus irrelevant information`, and the paper immediately reports that `selection can occur without conscious processing`. The naming matters because the everyday word `attention` carries the implication that attending is being aware, and the paper is dismantling exactly that. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Crick and Koch (1990) programme on the neural correlates of consciousness 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 → Dehaene et al. (1998a) global neuronal workspace architecture 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 | conscious access —distinct-from→ attention 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: conscious access · attention | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | state of consciousness —same-as→ wakefulness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: 'also called' - an explicit alias, both names in the one span. also in: state of consciousness · wakefulness | concept_edges[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | state of consciousness —same-as→ vigilance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: Same 'also called' list. Confidence 0.85 rather than 0.9 because the paper then uses 'vigilance' as a POINT ON the scale ('full vigilance') as well as a name FOR the scale. also in: state of consciousness · vigilance | concept_edges[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | selective attention —distinct-from→ conscious access Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: A DISSOCIATION, and the strongest form of distinctness the paper offers: 'selection can occur without conscious processing'. This is an empirical claim, not a definitional stipulation, which is why it is evidenced by the dissociation sentence and not by the definition.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'selection can occur without conscious processing', not 'selective attention' vs 'conscious access'. also in: selective attention · conscious access | concept_edges[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Granger causality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Granger causality | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | correlation (coefficient of determination) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | sensitivity and specificity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sensitivity and specificity | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | independent component analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: independent component analysis | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Across many paradigms, conscious access is marked by three convergent physiological signatures: late amplification of the relevant sensory activity, long-distance cortico-cortical synchronisation in the beta and gamma bands, and ignition of a large-scale prefronto-parietal network. 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 | Subliminal influence shrinks as processing depth increases, leaving only small effects at high-level cognitive and decision stages. 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 | Subliminal priming decays with time and is typically undetectable beyond about 500 ms. 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 | Subliminal stimuli do not produce durable or flexible changes in executive control. 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 first 200 ms of visual processing can be fully preserved on trials where subjects deny seeing the stimulus. 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 most consistent ERP correlate of visibility is a late (~300-500 ms), broadly distributed positive component, the P3 or P3b. 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 | The proportion of neurons following the reported percept rose from about 20% in V1/V2 to 40% in V4/MT/MST and up to 90% in IT and STS. 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 | Conscious words modulated late activity at 68.8% of intracranial electrode sites versus 24.4% for non-conscious words, showing that conscious access has a brain-wide impact. 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 | Transcranial magnetic stimulation over parietal or prefrontal cortex, far from visual areas, can block conscious perception and even make a fixated stimulus subjectively disappear. 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 | Patients with focal prefrontal lesions needed stronger stimuli to see a masked target, in proportion to how far the lesion extended into left anterior prefrontal cortex, while their subliminal performance stayed normal. 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 | MS patients needed a longer target-mask delay before a masked stimulus became conscious. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The GNW model predicts, and simulations reproduce, strict seriality of conscious access. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Only conscious no-go signals triggered broad anterior activation into anterior cingulate, inferior and middle frontal gyrus, dorsolateral prefrontal and inferior parietal cortex. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[12] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Schizophrenic patients show impaired neural signatures of conscious access while their subliminal processing remains normal. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[13] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The review's inventory of empirical markers of conscious access is: all-or-none prefronto-parietal ignition, all-or-none amplification of sensory activation, a late global P3b, late broad-band gamma power increase, enhanced long-distance beta-band phase synchronisation, and enhanced causal coupling between distant areas including a top-down component. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[14] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | conscious access Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conscious access | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | subliminal stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal stimulus | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | preconscious stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: preconscious stimulus | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: masking | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | subliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal priming | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | attentional blink Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: attentional blink | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | selective attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: selective attention | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Global Neuronal Workspace Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Global Neuronal Workspace | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ignition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ignition | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | information integration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: information integration | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | MMN Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: MMN | content_tags.definitions[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: attention | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | response requirements Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response requirements | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 68.8% / 24.4% — share of intracranial electrode sites whose late activity was modulated by conscious words versus by non-conscious words 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 | 20% / 40% / 90% — proportion of recorded neurons whose firing followed the consciously perceived image during binocular rivalry, in V1-V2, in V4/MT/MST, and in IT/STS respectively 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 | r²=0.96 — agreement across subjects between conscious perception thresholds estimated from objective performance and from subjective report in visual masking 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 | 86% sensitivity and 97% specificity — accuracy of predicting non-recovery one year after traumatic coma from diffusion tensor and spectroscopic measures of white-matter integrity 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 | 16 times — how many more dendritic spines layer-III pyramidal neurons carry in prefrontal cortex than in V1, cited as morphological support for long-distance integration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ~50% — the level to which global cerebral metabolic activity typically falls in coma and vegetative state relative to normal 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 | 500 ms — elapsed time after which subliminal priming typically ceases to be detectable 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 | ~300-500 ms — latency of the P3/P3b component identified as the most consistent ERP correlate of stimulus visibility 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.