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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
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 3 relations 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 | semantic priming in lexical decision 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 | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | method | the paper's words | |
| limitations | Whether the inhibition in the Unexpected conditions is due solely to a semantic-matching strategy remains unresolved because of contrary evidence at the 700-msec SOA. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The claimed asymmetry in buildup of conscious-attention facilitation versus inhibition may be only a failure to detect an effect. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The data cannot adequately answer in what sense activation is 'spreading' if high- and low-dominance exemplars are facilitated equally. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the stimulus onset asynchrony held constant at 2,000 msec for every trial in the 2,000-alone group Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the SOA varying within the group, which would confound the expectancy manipulation with the time available to form the expectancy · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | spreading activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spreading activation | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | lexical decision Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lexical decision | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | automatic spreading activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: automatic spreading activation | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | conscious attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conscious attention | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inhibition | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | facilitation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: facilitation | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | logogen Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: logogen | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | expectancy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: expectancy | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE PAPER'S MOVE IS TO MAKE THE CONFOUND INTO THE DESIGN. Earlier work could not say how much facilitation came from attention and how much from automatic spreading, because relatedness and expectancy travel together: a prime that is related to the target is also a prime that makes it expected. Neely breaks them apart - `the presence or absence of automatic spreading activation was controlled by whether the prime and the target were semantically related`, while conscious attention `was controlled by variations in the PROBABILITY that the priming cue itself would appear`. Two knobs where the field had one 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 CELL THAT PAYS FOR IT IS BODY-heart: A SIGN REVERSAL PRODUCED BY NOTHING BUT DELAY. The prime is semantically related to the target, but the subject expects a different category - so automatic activation says facilitate and conscious attention says inhibit, in the same trial. `there was an inhibition effect at the 2,000 msec SOA, which decreased as the SOA decreased until, at the 250-msec SOA, it became a facilitation effect.` Not a difference in size between conditions - the same condition changing sign as the slow mechanism is given less time to act. That is as close to a crossing double dissociation as a priming experiment gets 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 ASYMMETRY THAT MAKES THE INFERENCE WORK, STATED AS A PROPERTY RATHER THAN A RESULT: `Quotation withheld.` Both mechanisms facilitate; only one inhibits. So facilitation is evidence of nothing in particular and inhibition is evidence of attention - which is why the whole design is built to produce inhibition and why the 250-msec SOA, where inhibition vanishes, is the control rather than a null result 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 | AND IT IS THE FIFTH RECORD RUNNING WHERE THE INSTRUMENT IS PART OF THE PHENOMENON - BUT THE FIRST WHERE THE AUTHOR KNEW. Finkbeiner2011: task difficulty decides what counts as subliminal. erb2019: associative overlap decides whether a CSE is control. eckstein2007: which awareness test decides whether the prime was seen. lukatela2007: within- vs between-subjects decides whether the lexicons look separate. Here SOA decides WHICH OF TWO MECHANISMS you are measuring - and Neely makes that the independent variable instead of discovering it afterwards. The corpus now holds the 1977 paper that turned the artefact into the design, and the 2007 paper that found the same class of artefact still undetected in its own neighbouring literature. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND THE MECHANISM CLAIM IS SHARPER THAN `ATTENTION SLOWS THINGS DOWN`: `the conscious-attention mechanism does not inhibit the buildup of activation in unattended logogens but rather inhibits the readout of information from unattended logogens.` The activation still accumulates; what attention withholds is access to it. That is a falsifiable division of labour - it predicts an unattended item can be primed without being reportable, which is the exact question Finkbeiner2011, eckstein2007 and hesselmann2016 are still arguing about thirty to forty years later, and none of the three cites this sentence for it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Posner and Snyder (1975a) two-factor theory of attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Neely (1976) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Rosch (1975) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | conscious attention —causes→ expectancy 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 PHRASE THAT CARRIES THE EDGE IS A FOUR-WORD ASIDE: 'the expectancy generated…'. Not a sentence about how expectancies arise - a subordinate clause inside a sentence about semantic matching. An earlier note of ours says the sentence carrying the mechanism usually cannot carry the edge; here the edge is carried by a parenthetical inside a sentence that is about something else entirely. Weight 0.9: the relation is asserted rather than argued, and it is asserted while the author is busy with a different claim. The same sentence cites Collins & Loftus 1975, which this corpus merged four hours ago - the spreading-activation paper whose mechanism Neely is here separating from attention.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says the expectancy is generated via conscious attention; the sign 'increases' is not stated. also in: conscious attention · expectancy | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | facilitation —contrasted-with→ inhibition 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: THE DISSOCIATION IN ONE SENTENCE, AND IT IS THE PAPER'S WHOLE ARGUMENT. 'facilitation occurred automatically…'. Regardless / only - the two quantifiers are what turn a pair of effects into a pair of mechanisms. Weight 0.95: this is a result sentence, it names both endpoints, and the contrast it draws is the one the whole design was built to make. Rare on two counts - says the sentence carrying the mechanism usually cannot carry the edge, and it carried both here; and it is the first edge today whose evidence needed no trimming at all. also in: facilitation · inhibition | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | automatic spreading activation —causes→ facilitation 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: BOTH MECHANISMS FACILITATE, AND THE QUOTE IS COMPARING THEIR SIZES. That is worth keeping rather than flattening: the edge is real - automatic spreading activation produces facilitation - but the sentence exists to say that its facilitation is 'slightly greater' than the attentional kind. Weight 0.9 rather than 0.95 because the claim is made inside an 'assuming that' - Neely is deriving what would have to be true for an observed pattern, not reporting a measurement. The hedge is in the quote and I have not cut it out.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says the effect CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR by assuming this; hedged. also in: automatic spreading activation · facilitation | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a related/expected prime facilitates lexical decision on the target 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[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | an unexpected prime can inhibit target recognition (attentional cost) 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. The quote was later moved from the title block to the summary sentence that reports the inhibition effect. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ANOVA 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: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | degrees-of-freedom Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: degrees-of-freedom | content_tags.statistics[1] | 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. 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: p-value | content_tags.statistics[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | statistical-significance 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: statistical-significance | content_tags.statistics[4] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | variance 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: variance | content_tags.statistics[5] | 0.85 | 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.