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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 1 relation 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 | critique 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 | serial order in behavior 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 | |
| limitations | the paper formulates the problem but offers no worked-out physiological solution Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the paper as a source of mechanism: A CLEARER FORMULATION OF THE PHYSIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS WHICH THEY RAISE SHOULD BE OF VALUE, EVEN THOUGH A SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS IS NOT YET IN SIGHT | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The author states he has no answer to the central question of how particular acts are selected during scanning. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the central question the paper poses: THE REAL PROBLEM ... IS THE NATURE OF THE SELECTIVE MECHANISM BY WHICH THE PARTICULAR ACTS ARE PICKED OUT IN THIS SCANNING PROCESS, AND TO THIS PROBLEM I HAVE NO ANSWER | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | No hypothesis about the selective mechanism of grammatical form proved consistent with any large set of sentence structures. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any account of grammatical form: I HAVE TRIED A NUMBER OF ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING THE SELECTIVE MECHANISM OF GRAMMATICAL FORM ... BUT I HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO MAKE AN HYPOTHESIS WHICH [held across sentences] | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | No explicit explanation of temporal structure is yet available. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the explanatory status of the whole treatment: WE ARE STILL VERY FAR FROM BEING ABLE TO FORM AN EXPLICIT EXPLANATION OF TEMPORAL STRUCTURE | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | THE STAGED SOURCE IS A DAMAGED 1951 SCAN, AND UNTIL NOW THE RECORD DID NOT SAY SO. The OCR fails at the LETTER level, not merely at diacritics: `The! CXISTL·NCC o( K. S. LA~HLEY` is `existence` with `c` substituted for `e` twice and a stray interpunct, inside a sentence that also carries `11cr\'ous systl•m` for `nervous system`. 67 tokens of 16,563 whitespace-delimited words carry a stray symbol between two letters (the tagger's predicate, one or more letters either side); 34 on the stricter two-letter form. [CORRECTED 2026-08-23: this sentence continued `a second count gives 99 of 12,271 on a stricter pattern and a different tokenisation`, kept here, with the counter's name dropped, because it was published. Wrong twice over - that audit WITHDREW the 99 as a LOOSE pattern counting one-letter fragments, so it was not the stricter one, and I repeated its number without running its predicate. Its corrected figure is 27 of 12,271, 0.22%, against my 34 of 16,523 alphabetic tokens, 0.21%.] Both describe the same paper. No accent table or render-time map reaches this class - the characters are wrong, not misplaced Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | AND THE 22 QUOTES ON THIS RECORD ALL LAND IN CLEAN STRETCHES, WHICH IS NOT LUCK: Quotation withheld shows the damage sitting in the middle of one of the paper's most quotable passages. 25 live quotes, 0 ungrounded, against 34 damage sites - and THAT IS WHAT CHANCE PREDICTS, NOT EVIDENCE OF CARE. [RETRACTED 2026-08-23. The superseded claim, kept verbatim: 22 live quotes, 0 ungrounded, against 67 damage sites - somebody read the text and cut around them. It is wrong three ways. The quotes cover 3.9% of the body, so blind quoting would hit 1.31 damage sites; 2 were hit. The observed rate is at or above chance. The count was 22 and is 25. And the two quotes that DO carry damage are the two cut for this very note, to exhibit it - so the record's evidence for the quotes avoid the damage is itself a quote that does not. The audit withdrew its general claim at 16:41: I observed an absence, attributed it to care, and never asked what absence would have looked like if nobody had tried. I had merged it as fact twenty minutes earlier.] The audit's finding, 2026-08-23 16:18: A TAGGER ROUTING AROUND DAMAGE LEAVES NO RECORD OF HAVING DONE SO. The record looks the same as one from a clean scan ... The care is invisible precisely because it worked. It is on the record now Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | using the hierarchical structure of language (syntax and grammar) as evidence and model for how the brain organizes serial behavior, against associative-chain theories 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 | |
| concepts | serial order Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: serial order | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | schemata of action Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: schemata of action | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | associative chain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: associative chain | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | syntax Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: syntax | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE ARGUMENT IN ONE SENTENCE, AND IT TURNS ON A PROPERTY OF THE ELEMENTS: `Quotation withheld` If an element carries no information about what follows it, then no amount of association between elements can produce an order. The refutation is not empirical, it is about what associations are able to encode - which is why it has survived seventy-five years of contrary data 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 STRONGEST FORM OF IT IS THE SYNTAX CLAIM: `Quotation withheld` Not in the words - so it is not associative. Not in the idea - so it is not simply read off the meaning either. Both of the obvious places to put it are refused in one sentence, which leaves ordering as a separate mechanism and is the move that made this paper foundational for everything that came after it 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 | WHAT THIS RECORD DOES AND DOES NOT SAY ABOUT THE REST OF THE CORPUS. Lashley's target is the associative chain - `Watson (26) sought to identify thought with inaudible movements of the vocal organs, linked together in associative chains` - and this corpus is largely built on measuring association between elements: meyer1971's free-association norms, collins1975's spreading activation, hutchison2003's association strength. They are not the same claim. Lashley is about the ORDER of action and speech; spreading activation is about retrieval, and retrieval has no ordering problem to solve. The honest statement is narrower and still worth holding: the corpus contains, from 1951, a sustained argument that association cannot by itself produce order - and from 1971 onward, a literature that measures association and rarely asks what orders anything 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 |
| claim_relations | contradicts → the associative-chain / chain-reflex theory of serial behavior 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 peripheral (motor) chain theories of language of Watson and Washburn, and the attempts by Thorsen and Max to confirm them 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 | builds-on → Dr. McCulloch's account of the individual neuron's transmission of excitation as the basic principle of nervous organization 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 | |
| concept_edges | schemata of action —causes→ serial order Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: THE SENTENCE STATES THIS AS THE PROBLEM, NOT AS A DEMONSTRATED MECHANISM, AND THE WEIGHT HAS TO CARRY THAT. 'the essential PROBLEM…' - Lashley is naming what has to exist for serial order to be possible, and the rest of the paper is an argument that nothing simpler will do. He does not show a schema; he shows that the alternatives fail. 0.85 rather than 0.95 for exactly that reason: this is an inference to the best available explanation in 1951, presented as one, and an edge at 0.95 would read as a finding. Both endpoints are named as words and 'determine' is unambiguous about direction.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says generalized schemata of action determine the sequence of acts, which it calls the problem of serial order; causes is loose. also in: schemata of action · serial order | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Syntax is not inherent in the words employed or in the idea expressed; it is a generalized pattern imposed upon them. 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 | Temporal integration is not found exclusively in language: it appears in the leg coordination of insects, the song of birds, the trotting and pacing of a gaited horse, and the rat running the maze. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: 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. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | associative chain theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: associative chain theory | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | schema of order Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: 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. also in: schema of order | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean | content_tags.statistics[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.