(cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 7 characters 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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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 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 | method 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 | unconscious semantic processing and information integration 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 | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 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. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The review cannot say why this task succeeds where other unconscious-integration designs are unreliable. 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 | In the word version of the task primes and targets were not cleanly separated, so part of that effect may be a conscious stimulus-response mapping. 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 | |
| concepts | subliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal priming | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | prime Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | targets Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: targets | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | primes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: primes | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: criteria | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | same-different Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: same-different | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | subliminal priming - an operational definition with a NUMBER in it: the prime is shown for 50 ms or less and immediately followed by masks, and awareness is treated as absent because of the timing. Set beside Hoewe2020, where unawareness is established by asking the participant afterwards, this is the same criterion secured by apparatus instead of by report 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 | genuine unconscious processing - a term defined by what it must be distinguished FROM. The two criteria exist so that an effect cannot be attributed to the conscious preparation of response links, and to rule out visual similarity. The definition is a list of alternative explanations that have to be closed off 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 same-different task, as a tool rather than a topic - what recommends it is a STRUCTURAL property: the judgement concerns the relation between two targets, so the primes can be drawn from an entirely different set and still bear on the response 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 |
| claim_relations | extends → the dual process model of same-different judgements and the global neuronal workspace theory of consciousness 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 | |
| concept_edges | criteria —part-of→ subliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: The first criterion, and its justification is the whole content: primes must come from a large or novel set SO THAT the effect cannot be attributed to consciously prepared response links. The rule is shaped by the alternative it excludes.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but criteria for genuine unconscious processing; part-of is loose. also in: criteria · subliminal priming | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Colour same-different judgments were faster when two preceding invisible digit primes had the same relation. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:1). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The unconscious same-different priming effect is short-lived: it appeared at a 100 ms prime-target interval and was gone at 316 ms. 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 | Because the prime set (Arabic digits) and target set (colour patches) had nothing in common, the effect cannot be attributed to visual overlap or to consciously prepared action triggers, the two standard objections to subliminal semantic priming. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | When the primes were an upper- and lower-case letter matched for visual similarity, the same-different judgment could only rest on letter identity, which the author treats as strong evidence for unconscious semantic processing. 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 | The unconscious same-different judgment is context-relative: the pair 'a A' primed a 'same' response when surrounded by dissimilar primes but a 'different' response when surrounded by very similar primes. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Unconscious multisensory integration occurred only when subjects had conscious training beforehand. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The subliminal version of the task reproduces the fast-same effect, in which 'same' responses are faster than 'different' responses. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The prediction that priming should be confined to 'same' primes is not borne out consistently: some experiments show priming only for same primes and others only for different primes. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:1). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | With pairs of emotional faces as primes the effect reversed sign, responses being slower when the prime relation matched the target relation. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | subliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal priming | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | subliminal same-different (SD) task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subliminal same-different (SD) task | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | information integration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: information integration | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | about 10 ms — size of the subliminal same-different priming effect on reaction time 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 | 100 ms / 316 ms — prime-target intervals at which the priming effect was present versus absent 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 | 50 ms or less — prime duration below which participants have no awareness of the prime 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 |
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.