(cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 1 character in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no mechanisms. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | null-result 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 suppression in inferotemporal cortex 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 | electrophysiology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electrophysiology | method | the paper's words | |
| limitations | The correlation analysis had limited power, so a very weak cross-trial correlation between suppression and priming cannot be excluded. 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 | Independent noise in firing rates and reaction times could in principle have masked an underlying weak correlation. 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 design confounds elapsed time with the number of intervening trials, so the effect of time interval per se was not tested. 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 standard Gaussian tuning-curve method for assessing selectivity change could not be applied to IT neurons, forcing an alternative rank-based analysis. 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 | |
| transfers | the inferential logic of behavioural priming - infer the properties of a representation from how much repeating a stimulus changes the response to it - carried into fMRI as MR adaptation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the first twelve trials of every session were discarded Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that an early, transient, NON-STIMULUS-SPECIFIC drop in both reaction time and firing rate is counted as a priming effect · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | responses to stimuli classified as subthreshold by a signal-detection thresholding filter were excluded Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that suppression is measured on responses too weak to be distinguished from noise · 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[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition priming | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | inferotemporal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inferotemporal cortex | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | stimulus selectivity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stimulus selectivity | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE CONCLUSION IS A NEGATIVE AND IT FITS IN ONE LINE: `Quotation withheld` The neural correlate everyone reaches for is a passenger. Carlesimo2004, merged into this corpus forty minutes ago, reads its rCBF decreases as `the reduced neural activity needed to reprocess recently seen words` - suppression explaining priming, taken as read; and Desimone1996 calls suppression `an intrinsic property of visual cortical areas`. Three records, three positions on whether a reduced response is the mechanism or the companion, and none of them assembled on purpose 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 ARGUMENT IS TURNED FROM A STATISTICAL QUESTION INTO A MECHANICAL ONE, WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY TO RULE OUT A CO-OCCURRING SIGNAL: `Quotation withheld` Correlation is granted, not contested. The test is whether suppression has the PROPERTIES a cause would need - because a uniform reduction across all neurons degrades the representation, while priming requires it sharpened. A correlate can only be dismissed by asking what it would have to be like 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 | THE DEFINITION IS PURELY PHYSIOLOGICAL AND THAT IS WHY THE PAPER IS POSSIBLE: `Quotation withheld` No meaning, no memory, no behaviour in it. A construct defined without reference to the thing it is supposed to explain can be tested against that thing; one defined as `the neural basis of priming` could not be. Compare Carlesimo2004's repetition priming, defined by what the test INSTRUCTIONS do not mention - also an operational definition, and also load-bearing 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 | replicates → Li et al. 1993; Ringo 1996 (late onset of repetition suppression in IT) 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 | replicates → Maccotta and Buckner 2004; Sayres and Grill-Spector 2006; Wig et al. 2005 (no priming-BOLD correlation in ventral stream) 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 → the sharpening model of repetition suppression (Desimone 1996; Wiggs and Martin 1998) 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 | builds-on → Maljkovic and Nakayama (1994) memory kernel analysis 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 | repetition suppression —distinct-from→ repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'distinct-from' IS THE CLOSEST THE VOCABULARY GETS AND IT LOSES HALF THE SENTENCE. The paper says two things at once: they ACCOMPANY each other, and one is NOT the cause of the other. The enforced types offer causes / operationalised-as / distinct-from / contrasted-with / part-of / is-a / same-as / renamed-across-fields, and none of them expresses 'co-occurs with but does not cause'. 'distinct-from' carries the negative half - they are not one thing, and the neural measure is not the behavioural mechanism - and drops the positive half, which is that the correlation is real and granted. Weight 0.95 because the sentence is the paper's stated conclusion and both endpoints are named. The missing type belongs on Shir's schema list: a relation for a correlate that has been tested and ruled out as a cause is exactly what a corpus about definitions should be able to record, and it is the second-commonest finding in this literature after the effect itself.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says suppression ACCOMPANIES priming but is unlikely to be its cause; distinct-from is loose. also in: repetition suppression · repetition priming | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | false-discovery-rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: false-discovery-rate | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | hypothesis-testing 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: hypothesis-testing | content_tags.statistics[4] | 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[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regression | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[8] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
content_tags.statistics[0] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allowscontent_tags.statistics[1] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allowscontent_tags.statistics[9] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allowsWhat was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.