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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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 |
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.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | existence 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 | color-word interference 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 | |
| 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 | in one condition (reading incongruently-colored color names) the observed difference was not statistically reliable Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the reading-incongruent condition specifically: THIS DIFFERENCE IS NOT RELIABLE, WHICH IS IN AGREEMENT WITH PETERSON'S PREDICTION MADE WHEN THE TEST WAS FIRST PROPOSED | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The scheme used to penalise uncorrected errors was chosen arbitrarily rather than derived from an objective measure. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every reported time: THIS PLAN OF CORRECTION WAS ARBITRARY BUT SEEMED TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE SITUATION | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | No accurate objective correction for uncorrected errors was available. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[1], with the reason: SINCE NO ACCURATE OBJECTIVE MEASURE WAS OBTAINABLE AND THE NUMBER OF ERRORS WAS SMALL THE ARBITRARY PLAN WAS ADOPTED | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Only the first two college-year groups had enough cases to support comparison. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison across college years: ONLY COLLEGE YEARS ONE AND TWO CONTAIN A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF CASES FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | the colour order constructed so that no colour repeats consecutively in a row or column, and each appears TWICE in every row and column Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: regularity of occurrence - a predictable sequence lets the reader anticipate the next colour, so a naming-speed difference would measure prediction rather than interference. Balancing across rows and columns also equalises how often each colour is named · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | interference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: interference | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | word stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: word stimuli | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | color stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: color stimuli | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | training Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: training | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | practice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: practice | concepts[10] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE ASYMMETRY WITH BOTH HALVES, WHICH IS THE FINDING - NOT THE HALF THAT GETS QUOTED: `The interference of conflicting color stimuli upon the time for reading 100 words ... caused an increase of only 2.3 seconds or 5.6 percent over the normal time for reading the same words printed in black. This increase is not reliable. But the interference of conflicting word stimuli upon the time for naming 100 colors ... caused an increase of 47.0 seconds or 74.3 percent.` One direction is a null and the other is enormous. A record that holds only `colour-word interference` has half of this paper; the whole of it is that interference runs one way and not the other, and that fact is what needs explaining 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 STROOP'S EXPLANATION IS A TRAINING HISTORY, NOT AN ARCHITECTURE: `Quotation withheld.` One-to-one against one-to-many. Not automaticity, not a module, not a race between pathways - a difference in how many responses each stimulus class has been attached to over a lifetime. It is in the paper's own SUMMARY, not buried in a discussion - and because it is a claim about learning rather than about structure, it is testable by training, which is exactly what Stroop then does in Experiment 3. (An earlier version of this note said the training account is 'the part later citation usually loses'. I had not measured that and cannot from one record: the corpus holds 7 records mentioning Stroop, which is no base for 'usually', and counting how often those records say 'automatic' measures their own topics rather than what they attribute to him. Retracted 2026-08-19) 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 HE TESTED IT THE ONLY WAY THAT COULD SETTLE IT - BY TRAINING THE NULL DIRECTION UNTIL IT STOPPED BEING NULL. Eight days, 200 reactions a day, naming the colours of conflicting words: `1. It DECREASED the interference of conflicting word stimuli to naming colors but did not eliminate it. ... 5. It increased the interference of conflicting color stimuli upon reading words.` The direction that was `not reliable` became reliable once it was trained, and the direction that was enormous shrank. That is the training account making a prediction and collecting it, and it is stronger evidence than the headline asymmetry it explains 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 THE INTERFERENCE HE BUILT DECAYED FASTER THAN THE ONE HE FOUND, WHICH IS A SEPARATE CLAIM: `Quotation withheld.` A trained interference is real but shallow; the lifetime one is not. Age of an association, not just its strength - and it is measured here in 1935 with a stopwatch 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 → prior experimental research on interference and inhibition 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 → Woodworth-Wells (1911), Brown (1915) and Ligon (1932) on the sex difference in colour naming 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 → Peterson and Barlow's (1928) hypothesis about practice and individual differences 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 → Peterson's prediction about the reading of colour names printed in conflicting colours 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 | word stimuli —causes→ interference 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: 0.95 · note: THE EFFECT THE PAPER IS REMEMBERED FOR, at 4.35 standard deviation units. Weight 0.95: the number, the comparison condition and the reliability are all in the paper's own summary. The edge that matters is the OTHER one - this one alone is the half-quoted version. also in: word stimuli · interference | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | color stimuli —causes→ interference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: no-change · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'no-change' ON A 5.6 PERCENT INCREASE, BECAUSE STROOP SAYS 'This increase is not reliable' AND THAT SENTENCE IS INSIDE THE QUOTE. The point estimate is positive; the paper declines to treat it as an effect. Recording it as 'increases' because the number is above zero would contradict the author, and dropping the edge would lose the half of the finding that needs explaining. Read with the edge above, this pair IS the Stroop asymmetry - and the third sense shows the null becoming reliable after eight days of training, which is what makes it a fact about learning rather than about colour. also in: color stimuli · interference | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | practice —causes→ interference 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: THIS IS THE TRAINING ACCOUNT BEING COLLECTED RATHER THAN ASSERTED. Eight days of naming the colours of conflicting words INCREASED the interference running the other way - the direction Experiment 1 had found 'not reliable'. 'due to' is Stroop's own attribution and it is in the quote. Weight 0.9: a measured within-subject change with the manipulation named, against 0.85 for the interpretive sentence where he says it 'seems reasonable to conclude' that differential training explains the asymmetry. The explanation is the 'training' concept; this edge is the test of it. also in: practice · interference | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 70 — subjects in Experiment I (14 male, 56 female) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 200 — reactions each subject made per test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 2.3 — extra time to read 100 color names in conflicting ink Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 638 — Ligon's genetic-study sample across grades 1-9 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the difference was not reliable, in agreement with Peterson's prediction 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 | naming colors takes more time than reading color names Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the color naming vs word reading speed gap does not depend on practice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE QUOTE IS BROWN'S (1915) CONCLUSION, WHICH THIS PAPER CITES - it is not a finding of this paper's own experiments, and the paper's own conclusion accounts for the difference in speed by the difference in training in reading and in naming. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | a prior association can interfere with forming an opposite one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | interference of color stimuli upon reading words Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | increase in time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: increase in time | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | recall power 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: recall power | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | conflicting stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conflicting stimuli | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | associative inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: associative inhibition | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | RCNd Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: RCNd | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | RCNb Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: RCNb | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | interference or inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: interference or inhibition | content_tags.definitions[3] | 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 | |
| content_tags | median Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: median | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard-deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard-deviation | content_tags.statistics[2] | 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.