Levels of processing during non-conscious perception: a critical review of visual masking

Kouider, Sid, Dehaene, Stanislas · Mental Processes in the Human Brain · 2008 · cognitive-psychology · 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009 · record kouider2008-levels-processing
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. cited by the priming manuscript; metadata resolved from Crossref. TEXT PROVENANCE, 2026-08-15: the tags on this record were read from the 2008 OUP chapter (doi:10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009), which has no open copy. The staged text is NOT that chapter: it is the 2007 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B review of the same title, word for word (Kouider & Dehaene, 362:857-875, doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2093), fetched from PMC2430002 on 2026-08-14. All 9 of the 9 quotes already on this record were located verbatim in it, which is why the anchors were written. THAT COMPARISON COVERED ONLY THE QUOTED PASSAGES: it shows the two texts agree where we quoted, and is not evidence that the chapter and the review are the same document - a chapter can reprint a review with revisions, and every passage we did not quote from is untested. Supersedes the earlier note on this record that no full text was held and no grounded tags were asserted; both were true when written and neither is true now. 2026-08-17, 2026-08-18 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node. Update, 16 September 2026: ANOTHER VERSION OF THIS PAPER IS STAGED ON DISK, and it is NOT a separate record. The corpus holds this review as the 2008 Oxford book chapter (DOI 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009). The SAME review was printed in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B in 2007 (DOI 10.1098/rstb.2007.2093), and that printing is staged at an internal file. THE TWO STAGED BODIES ARE BYTE-IDENTICAL - 84,755 characters, sha1 9c50ddcd8119 for both - so the difference between them is bibliographic only and every quote on this record grounds identically against either. It is kept rather than deleted because it is the only trace on disk that the journal DOI resolves to this text. No version record is created: that would require tagging a paper under the standing freeze, and there is no textual difference to tag.

This record’s own method is review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. No tag on this page names a different author. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in 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.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
masking 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 6 concept tags on this paper, all 6 are grounded in a quoted sentence. All carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

subliminal preconscious conscious access top-down attention masking attentional blink A CHANGE OF OPERATIONAL DEFINITION RECLASSIFIES THE SAME UNCHANGED TASK FROM EVIDENCE OF UNAWARENESS TO EVIDENCE OF AWARENESS: Quotation withheld Nothing about the experiment changed; the definition moved, and the evidence changed sides with it AND THE REDEFINITION LEAVES A MEASUREMENT VACANCY, WHICH IS STATED AS A PROBLEM RATHER THAN A CONSEQUENCE: such a NEW DEFINITION OF AWARENESS LEFT RESEARCHERS WITH THE DIFFICULT PROBLEM OF INVENTING NEW INDIRECT MEASURES of subliminal processing. Redefining the term did not merely reinterpret the old results, it removed the instruments, and new ones had to be invented to fill the place the definition had emptied A THRESHOLD FOR A MENTAL STATE IS DEFINED AS A PERFORMANCE LEVEL ON A TASK, AND THE DEFINITION IS ARGUED FOR RATHER THAN ASSUMED: Quotation withheld The word `objective` in the term names the kind of evidence the definition admits, and what it denotes is a number produced by a procedure AND THAT DEFINITION IS THEN JUDGED TOO CONSERVATIVE BY THE PEOPLE WHO DECLINED IT, WITH THE REASON GIVEN AS CONTAMINATION OF THE MEASURE: Quotation withheld The measure meant to detect awareness is said to respond to the very thing it is supposed to exclude A CRITERION FOR A SUBJECTIVE REPORT IS SHOWN TO DEPEND ON THE EXPERIMENTER RATHER THAN ON THE SUBJECT: Quotation withheld What the measurement records is partly a property of the person taking it, which is stated flatly and in one sentence A THRESHOLD ESTIMATE IN WIDE USE IS DECLARED STATISTICALLY UNRELIABLE, WITH THE SAMPLE SIZE NAMED: Merikle used signal detection theory to show that the SMALL SAMPLE OF ITEMS FREQUENTLY USED TO EVALUATE THE THRESHOLD for conscious perception - NOT MORE THAN 20 TRIALS - IS NOT STATISTICALLY RELIABLE. The number that defines the term is shown to be unmeasurable at the sample size the field was using A MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE'S OMISSION IS SHOWN TO BIAS THE TERM IT DEFINES, AND THE DIRECTION OF THE BIAS IS GIVEN: since semantically related target stimuli can INCREASE, RETROSPECTIVELY, THE IDENTIFICATION OF MASKED PRIMES, the ABSENCE OF ANY TARGET STIMULI DURING THRESHOLD DEFINITION PROCEDURES in the earlier experiments PROBABLY UNDERESTIMATED PRIME VISIBILITY. The calibration omitted stimuli that are known to change the quantity being calibrated AN INFERENCE PATTERN THE FIELD RELIED ON IS REFUTED IN GENERAL, NOT CASE BY CASE: the problem with this logic is that QUALITATIVE DISSOCIATIONS NEED NOT REFLECT A DISSOCIATION BETWEEN CONSCIOUS AND SUBLIMINAL PROCESSING. What is denied is not a result but the licence to read results of that shape in that way AND AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE SAME DATA IS OFFERED IN TERMS OF RESOURCES RATHER THAN CONSCIOUSNESS: rather than being due to visibility, these qualitative dissociations COULD BE DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN THE TIME OR RESOURCES NEEDED TO STRATEGICALLY PROCESS THE PRIME. The contrast that was taken to mark a boundary between two kinds of mind is re-described as a difference of degree A TERM IS GIVEN A NUMERIC CRITERION, WITH THE WORD `GENUINELY` DOING THE DEFINITIONAL WORK: Kouider and Dupoux assessed prime awareness across several prime durations and showed that a prime CAN BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINELY INVISIBLE ONLY IF ITS DURATION IS BELOW 50 MS. Membership in the category is decided by a measured quantity crossing a stated value A QUANTITY IS ESTIMATED AT A POINT THAT WAS NEVER OBSERVED, BY EXTRAPOLATION, AND THE PROCEDURE IS DESCRIBED PLAINLY: instead of demonstrating chance performance for all subjects, they proposed a REGRESSION METHOD THAT USES THE VISIBILITY MEASURE AS A PREDICTOR OF THE PRIMING EFFECT - and THE INTERCEPT OF THE REGRESSION WAS THEN USED TO EVALUATE THE AMOUNT OF PRIMING FOR NULL PERFORMANCE ON PRIME VISIBILITY. The effect at zero visibility is computed rather than measured, because zero visibility was never achieved THE PARADIGM'S WHOLE LOGIC RESTS ON A NULL RESULT, AND THE REVIEW SAYS SO IN ITS OWN TERMS: Quotation withheld The evidence that the stimulus was not seen is the failure of a test, which is what makes every later dispute about the test's power rather than about the phenomenon TWO FAMILIES OF MEASURE FOR ONE CONSTRUCT ARE NAMED, AND A PREFERENCE BETWEEN THEM IS RECORDED AS A HISTORICAL FACT: while all the above studies used OBJECTIVE MEASURES OF AWARENESS, in accord with Eriksen's criticism, Cheesman and Merikle PRIVILEGED SUBJECTIVE MEASURES, as in the earliest research on subliminal perception. The same word is measured two incompatible ways, and which way is used is a school rather than a finding AN ASSUMPTION IS NAMED AND TRACED TO THE HYPOTHESIS THAT LICENSES IT: this assumption is based on the DIRECT MOTOR SPECIFICATION HYPOTHESIS, according to which an adequate response is UNCONSCIOUSLY ASSOCIATED WITH A STIMULUS WITHOUT HAVING TO BE MEDIATED BY THE SEMANTIC LEVEL. The assumption is not defended here; it is given a name and a citation, which is how a premise becomes inheritable AND THE FIELD'S PRESENT STATE IS SPLIT INTO A SETTLED PART AND A DISPUTED PART, IN ONE SENTENCE: Quotation withheld What is agreed is that something happens; what is disputed is what to call the level at which it happens review

Legend

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
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

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 2 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 2 · concepts 6 · controls 1 · limitations 4 · mechanisms 15 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 4

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 2 relations 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	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	subliminal perception under visual masking 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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: A CHANGE OF OPERATIONAL DEFINITION RECLASSIFIES THE SAME UNCHANGED TASK FROM EVIDENCE OF UNAWARENESS TO EVIDENCE OF AWARENESS: Quotation withheld Nothing about the experiment changed; the definition moved, and the evidence changed sides with it	`mechanisms[0]`	0.95	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: AND THE REDEFINITION LEAVES A MEASUREMENT VACANCY, WHICH IS STATED AS A PROBLEM RATHER THAN A CONSEQUENCE: such a NEW DEFINITION OF AWARENESS LEFT RESEARCHERS WITH THE DIFFICULT PROBLEM OF INVENTING NEW INDIRECT MEASURES of subliminal processing. Redefining the term did not merely reinterpret the old results, it removed the instruments, and new ones had to be invented to fill the place the definition had emptied	`mechanisms[1]`	0.95	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: A THRESHOLD FOR A MENTAL STATE IS DEFINED AS A PERFORMANCE LEVEL ON A TASK, AND THE DEFINITION IS ARGUED FOR RATHER THAN ASSUMED: Quotation withheld The word `objective` in the term names the kind of evidence the definition admits, and what it denotes is a number produced by a procedure	`mechanisms[2]`	0.95	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: AND THAT DEFINITION IS THEN JUDGED TOO CONSERVATIVE BY THE PEOPLE WHO DECLINED IT, WITH THE REASON GIVEN AS CONTAMINATION OF THE MEASURE: Quotation withheld The measure meant to detect awareness is said to respond to the very thing it is supposed to exclude	`mechanisms[3]`	0.85	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: A CRITERION FOR A SUBJECTIVE REPORT IS SHOWN TO DEPEND ON THE EXPERIMENTER RATHER THAN ON THE SUBJECT: Quotation withheld What the measurement records is partly a property of the person taking it, which is stated flatly and in one sentence	`mechanisms[4]`	0.95	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: A THRESHOLD ESTIMATE IN WIDE USE IS DECLARED STATISTICALLY UNRELIABLE, WITH THE SAMPLE SIZE NAMED: Merikle used signal detection theory to show that the SMALL SAMPLE OF ITEMS FREQUENTLY USED TO EVALUATE THE THRESHOLD for conscious perception - NOT MORE THAN 20 TRIALS - IS NOT STATISTICALLY RELIABLE. The number that defines the term is shown to be unmeasurable at the sample size the field was using	`mechanisms[5]`	0.95	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: A MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE'S OMISSION IS SHOWN TO BIAS THE TERM IT DEFINES, AND THE DIRECTION OF THE BIAS IS GIVEN: since semantically related target stimuli can INCREASE, RETROSPECTIVELY, THE IDENTIFICATION OF MASKED PRIMES, the ABSENCE OF ANY TARGET STIMULI DURING THRESHOLD DEFINITION PROCEDURES in the earlier experiments PROBABLY UNDERESTIMATED PRIME VISIBILITY. The calibration omitted stimuli that are known to change the quantity being calibrated	`mechanisms[6]`	0.85	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: AN INFERENCE PATTERN THE FIELD RELIED ON IS REFUTED IN GENERAL, NOT CASE BY CASE: the problem with this logic is that QUALITATIVE DISSOCIATIONS NEED NOT REFLECT A DISSOCIATION BETWEEN CONSCIOUS AND SUBLIMINAL PROCESSING. What is denied is not a result but the licence to read results of that shape in that way	`mechanisms[7]`	0.95	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: AND AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE SAME DATA IS OFFERED IN TERMS OF RESOURCES RATHER THAN CONSCIOUSNESS: rather than being due to visibility, these qualitative dissociations COULD BE DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN THE TIME OR RESOURCES NEEDED TO STRATEGICALLY PROCESS THE PRIME. The contrast that was taken to mark a boundary between two kinds of mind is re-described as a difference of degree	`mechanisms[8]`	0.95	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: A TERM IS GIVEN A NUMERIC CRITERION, WITH THE WORD `GENUINELY` DOING THE DEFINITIONAL WORK: Kouider and Dupoux assessed prime awareness across several prime durations and showed that a prime CAN BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINELY INVISIBLE ONLY IF ITS DURATION IS BELOW 50 MS. Membership in the category is decided by a measured quantity crossing a stated value	`mechanisms[9]`	0.95	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: A QUANTITY IS ESTIMATED AT A POINT THAT WAS NEVER OBSERVED, BY EXTRAPOLATION, AND THE PROCEDURE IS DESCRIBED PLAINLY: instead of demonstrating chance performance for all subjects, they proposed a REGRESSION METHOD THAT USES THE VISIBILITY MEASURE AS A PREDICTOR OF THE PRIMING EFFECT - and THE INTERCEPT OF THE REGRESSION WAS THEN USED TO EVALUATE THE AMOUNT OF PRIMING FOR NULL PERFORMANCE ON PRIME VISIBILITY. The effect at zero visibility is computed rather than measured, because zero visibility was never achieved	`mechanisms[10]`	0.95	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: THE PARADIGM'S WHOLE LOGIC RESTS ON A NULL RESULT, AND THE REVIEW SAYS SO IN ITS OWN TERMS: Quotation withheld The evidence that the stimulus was not seen is the failure of a test, which is what makes every later dispute about the test's power rather than about the phenomenon	`mechanisms[11]`	0.95	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: TWO FAMILIES OF MEASURE FOR ONE CONSTRUCT ARE NAMED, AND A PREFERENCE BETWEEN THEM IS RECORDED AS A HISTORICAL FACT: while all the above studies used OBJECTIVE MEASURES OF AWARENESS, in accord with Eriksen's criticism, Cheesman and Merikle PRIVILEGED SUBJECTIVE MEASURES, as in the earliest research on subliminal perception. The same word is measured two incompatible ways, and which way is used is a school rather than a finding	`mechanisms[12]`	0.95	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: AN ASSUMPTION IS NAMED AND TRACED TO THE HYPOTHESIS THAT LICENSES IT: this assumption is based on the DIRECT MOTOR SPECIFICATION HYPOTHESIS, according to which an adequate response is UNCONSCIOUSLY ASSOCIATED WITH A STIMULUS WITHOUT HAVING TO BE MEDIATED BY THE SEMANTIC LEVEL. The assumption is not defended here; it is given a name and a citation, which is how a premise becomes inheritable	`mechanisms[13]`	0.95	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. about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. also in: AND THE FIELD'S PRESENT STATE IS SPLIT INTO A SETTLED PART AND A DISPUTED PART, IN ONE SENTENCE: Quotation withheld What is agreed is that something happens; what is disputed is what to call the level at which it happens	`mechanisms[14]`	0.95	the tagger's words
limitations	The review's primary scope is masking paradigms; inattention paradigms are treated only by comparison. 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 review cannot resolve why ERP studies disagree over whether the N400 is modulated by genuinely subliminal semantic 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
limitations	Whether attention modulates subliminal priming at the lowest sensory levels is left unresolved. 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	The workspace model's central prediction about which processes are exclusive to consciousness remains untested. 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	orthographic and phonological priming compared within one semantic decision task while the prime duration was held constant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a difference between the two priming types that is really a difference in how long the prime was available · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
concepts	subliminal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal	`concepts[0]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	preconscious Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: preconscious	`concepts[1]`	0.95	the paper'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[2]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	top-down attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: top-down attention	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: masking	`concepts[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	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	`concepts[5]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	THE TWO-FACTOR ACCOUNT, and the whole taxonomy falls out of it: to reach consciousness a stimulus needs ENOUGH STRENGTH (preventable by masking) AND TOP-DOWN ATTENTION (preventable by pointing attention elsewhere). Two requirements means two ways to fail, and the paper names each failure separately instead of calling both `unconscious` 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	SUBLIMINAL versus PRECONSCIOUS - a distinction between two states that can look identical in a behavioural report and differ in WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. Subliminal information `cannot be brought into consciousness, in spite of all efforts of focused attention`; preconscious information `potentially carries enough activation for conscious access` and is merely buffered for want of attention. A counterfactual criterion, which this corpus has very few of - the two are told apart by what a different allocation of attention would have done 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	AND THE REVIEW GUARDS ITS OWN DISTINCTION AGAINST THE EASY READING: `This does not mean, of course, that subliminal processing is independent of the subject's attention and strategies ... whichever task and attentional sets are prepared consciously can orient and amplify the processing of a subliminal stimulus, even if its bottom-up strength remains insufficient.` Subliminal does not mean beyond attention's reach - it means beyond attention's reach INTO CONSCIOUSNESS. The taxonomy would be tidier without this sentence and less true 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	THE NEGATIVE THAT MAKES THE SECOND FACTOR NECESSARY: subliminal activation is usually attenuated relative to conscious conditions, BUT `there are sufficiently many exceptions, in paradigms such as the attentional blink, to indicate that HIGH ACTIVATION, PER SE, IS NOT A SUFFICIENT CONDITION for conscious access to occur`. The obvious neural correlate - more activation means consciousness - is ruled out by the review that reports the activation data 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
claim_relations	builds-on → the tripartite subliminal/preconscious/conscious distinction of Dehaene et al. (2006) 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 → Baars' (1988) cognitive theory of consciousness 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	subliminal —distinct-from→ preconscious Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHICH OF THE TWO REQUIREMENTS FAILED - subliminal is a failure of bottom-up strength and cannot be rescued by attention; preconscious is a failure of top-down attention on information that already carries enough activation. The states can produce the same behavioural report and differ in what attention WOULD have done · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE PAPER'S CENTRAL DISTINCTION and its stated reason for insisting on it: 'maintaining this distinction is essential in order to make…'. Confidence 0.95 - the taxonomy is the review's own, following Dehaene et al. 2006. also in: subliminal · preconscious	`concept_edges[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
concept_edges	masking —causes→ subliminal 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 operational link between a technique and a state: masking is what makes the bottom-up strength insufficient, which is what makes the resulting non-conscious perception SUBLIMINAL rather than preconscious. It is why almost every masked-priming record in this corpus is about the subliminal half of the taxonomy. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says stimuli are made subliminal by brief presentation and masking; causes[increases] is loose. also in: masking · subliminal	`concept_edges[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located 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.