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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 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 | mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | repetition priming and repetition suppression 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 | |
| limitations | The favoured synchrony account rests on very little direct empirical evaluation. 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 | Neither of the two surviving models has been subjected to a decisive set of tests, and the competing Bayesian account also has support. 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 proposed MEG/ECoG evidence cannot be tied to repetition suppression, because field-activity measures have no established relation to overall activity level. 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 | In the reply the authors concede that the Discussion Paper failed to make clear that the four models are not mutually exclusive. 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 | |
| controls | a CONTROL CONDITION against which spike-LFP coherence in the gamma range (30-80 Hz) was measured after adaptation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the change in synchronisation is a general property of the recording rather than an effect of stimulus repetition · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the extreme form of the Explaining Away account was tested against the observed pattern of repetition suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that ALL repetition suppression is high-level repetition expectation - the extreme version makes a prediction the data do not bear out · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | repetition suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition suppression | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | neural synchronization Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: neural synchronization | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | efficiency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: efficiency | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | sharpening Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sharpening | concepts[5] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Explaining Away Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Explaining Away | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Predictive Coding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Predictive Coding | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | Explaining Away → Predictive Coding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. A NAMING DISPUTE BETWEEN AUTHORS IN ONE EXCHANGE, AND NO TYPE HOLDS IT. 'Ewbank and Henson appear…' Two labels, one model, and the disagreement is printed rather than reconstructed. 'renamed-across-fields' is the nearest type and it is wrong twice over: this is not across FIELDS and not a RENAME - both names are in current use by different authors in the same journal exchange, and neither replaced the other. 'same-as' asserts an equivalence the disputants would both reject as missing the point, since the whole argument is about what the name must EXCLUDE ('from the variety…'). THE GATE REFUSED IT FOR A DIFFERENT REASON AND THE REFUSAL WAS STILL RIGHT: 'RENAMING' has 'called / known as / termed / referred to as / the term / nomenclature' and not 'label'. I measured 'label' as a candidate cue before proposing it - 2 occurrences in renamed-across-fields edges against 65 in other edges, a 1.28% base rate, against the ~0.00% the list's existing extensions were held to. Adding it would admit 65 edges that are not renamings. Fifth missing relation type of the session, after is-an-aspect-of, a-claim-about-a-usage, is-a-defining-condition-of and prerequisite-for. the project, 2026-08-27. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | THE PUZZLE, STATED AS A PUZZLE, WHICH IS WHY THIS RECORD IS WORTH HAVING: `How is it that reductions in neural activity can mediate better behavioral performance?` The corpus now holds four positions on that question, all merged today and none of them citing another in this set: Desimone1996 calls suppression `an intrinsic property of visual cortical areas`; Carlesimo2004 reads an rCBF decrease as `the reduced neural activity needed to reprocess recently seen words`; mcmahon-olson2007 concludes suppression `ACCOMPANIES repetition priming but is UNLIKELY TO BE ITS CAUSE`; and this paper says the puzzle is real and rate is the wrong variable 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 ANSWER IS A REPLY TO McMAHON AND OLSON RATHER THAN A CONTRADICTION OF THEM. `as cells are firing at lower overall rates, they are firing more synchronously with one another, leading to more efficient neural processing` - and in simulation, `as the model's firing rates decreased with repetition, the synchronization of the spike times simultaneously increased.` Both papers agree the rate drop is not the mechanism. They differ on whether anything else in the same signal is: McMahon and Olson tested rate and selectivity and found neither sufficient; Gotts proposes a variable neither of them measured 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 | IT NAMES THE GAP IN ITS OWN EVIDENCE, WHICH A PROPOSAL PAPER USUALLY DOES NOT: `despite exciting recent work on the role of neural synchronization in cognitive processes such as attention and perception, similar studies in the domain of learning and memory - and priming, in particular - have been LACKING.` The mechanism is offered together with the statement that the direct evidence for it has not been collected in this domain. Compare meyer1971's `At present we do not have ways to test all the possible explanations of these effects` - forty-one years apart, the same willingness to write the limitation flat Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `sharpening` - A NAMED ACCOUNT WHOSE NAME ENCODES ITS MECHANISM: `A second idea, often referred to as “sharpening” (Desimone, 1996; Wiggs & Martin, 1998), holds that while neural activity is decreasing on the average, the decreases are carried mainly by the cells that are poorly tuned and/or weakly responsive ... with the “best” cells ... instead retaining their activity levels.` THE WORD IS THE HYPOTHESIS: a population response gets NARROWER, not smaller, and the mean decrease that `repetition suppression` names is a side effect of that narrowing. Two names for one measurement, differing in what they say caused it. 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 | `priming` NARROWED BY STIPULATION - BUT NOT BY THIS PAPER'S AUTHORS: `the complex relationship between repetition suppression (RS) and behavioral priming (henceforth referred to as priming)`. VOICE: this sentence is from a PEER COMMENTARY printed with the article, not from Gotts, Chow and Martin - it opens `Gotts et al. present four neural models` and continues `I strongly support Gotts et al.'s call`. So the stipulation binds the COMMENTATOR's text, and a reader who takes it as the target article's own definition has attributed a narrowing to the wrong authors. 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 |
| senses | `Explaining Away` / `Predictive Coding` - THE SAME MODEL, TWO LABELS, AND THE DISAGREEMENT IS PRINTED. `Ewbank and Henson appear to take issue with our use of the label “Explaining Away” when referring to Friston's Bayesian model, preferring instead “Predictive Coding”.` This is a naming dispute conducted in the literature rather than reconstructed from it - commentators object, authors answer, and both names go on being used. The authors' stated rationale is DISCRIMINATION: a label that separates the anti-symmetrical property from `the variety of models that utilize prediction in very different ways`. Neither party thinks the model is in doubt; they disagree about what the name must exclude. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `priming` / `repetition suppression` - TWO CORE TERMS WHOSE REFERENTS DIFFER BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE IN TIME. `Quotation withheld` The words are stable and what they denote is not. A corpus joining two papers on `priming` may be joining a 200-millisecond effect to one lasting a year, and nothing in either paper's use of the word records which. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Gotts (2003) neocortical circuit model 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 | contradicts → the Facilitation model (Henson, 2003; James & Gauthier, 2006; James et al., 2000) 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 | contradicts → Friston's Bayesian 'explaining away' / predictive coding account (Friston, 2005) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → Gilbert et al. (2010) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | neural synchronization —causes→ efficiency 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 · direction on the measure (stated by the tagger, no quotation): increases · note: THE ACCOUNT'S LOAD-BEARING STEP, AND 'efficiency' IS A BRIDGE TERM RATHER THAN A MEASUREMENT. 'firing MORE SYNCHRONOUSLY…' - the verb is explicit and both endpoints are named. Weight 0.9 because the span opens 'A very different…': the hedge is the authors' and it is inside the quote. The edge is real and the thing it connects to behaviour is a word, not a number - nothing in this paper measures efficiency directly, and the same sentence is where the account stops being physiological and starts being functional.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but enhanced synchronization is one of 'four different theoretical proposals' reviewed; not asserted. also in: neural synchronization · efficiency | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | repeating a stimulus in identification tasks improves behavioral performance 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 authors review four proposals linking repetition suppression and priming, focusing on one in which repetition improves efficiency through enhanced neural synchronization 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 | the brain-behavior relationship reflects improved processing efficiency 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 | stimulus repetition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stimulus repetition | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | neural responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: neural responses | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | repetition suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition suppression | content_tags.definitions[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.