phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | negative visuospatial priming— “Negative visuospatial priming (NP) represents a quantifiable measure of inhibitory information processing that is disrupted in several neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia.” | |
| claim-type | null-result— “In contrast with our hypothesis, however, isolation rearing did not disrupt negative visuospatial priming in rats, despite inducing PPI deficits consistent with various developmental and psychiatric disorders characterized by impaired information processing, including schizophrenia.” | |
| method — evidence | — “We also further explored the role of monoaminergic signaling in NP and the effects of isolation rearing by challenging both socially reared and isolation-reared rats with D-amphetamine during the NP task.” | |
| mechanism | Isolation rearing lowers dopamine responsivity in the prefrontal cortex, so amphetamine no longer pushes PFC dopamine past the level that disrupts negative priming— “The above considerations suggest that isolation rearing-induced reductions in DA responsivity in the PFC might account for the observation of the attenuated AMPH effects on NP in isolates compared with socials.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Negative priming depends on an optimal (inverted-U) level of prefrontal dopamine transmission, which amphetamine shifts away from optimum— “Optimal DA transmission levels in the PFC may therefore be required for maximum levels of PFC-controlled functions” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Rats inhibit responding at the distractor location during the prime, and must overcome that inhibition when the target later appears there, which lowers accuracy on negative trials— “Having to overcome that inhibition in order to correctly respond when, during a negative trial, this location then goes on to display the target stimulus, is what presumably leads to the decreased accuracy in negative trials as compared to baseline trials and thus NP.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | Blunted prefrontal serotonin release after amphetamine in isolates removes the drug-driven rise in premature responding— “it is plausible that reduced 5-HT responsivity in the PFC may also contribute to the attenuation of AMPH effects on premature responses observed in this study.” | mechanisms[3] |
| replicates | Amitai et al., 2013 (the rat negative-priming task and its disruption by amphetamine)— “In conclusion, the present findings replicate and expand our previous report that NP can be measured in rats and is sensitive to disruption by AMPH.” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Amitai et al., 2013— “We recently developed and validated a rodent NP task ( Amitai et al., 2013 ).” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | A NULL AGAINST THE AUTHORS' OWN HYPOTHESIS, WITH A POSITIVE CONTROL IN THE SAME ANIMALS: `In contrast with our hypothesis, however, isolation rearing did not disrupt negative visuospatial priming in rats, despite inducing PPI deficits consistent with various developmental and psychiatric disorders.` The manipulation demonstrably worked - prepulse inhibition was disrupted - and the measure demonstrably did not move. A null with an internal manipulation check is a different object from a null on its own, and this corpus should be able to tell them apart— “In contrast with our hypothesis, however, isolation rearing did not disrupt negative visuospatial priming in rats, despite inducing PPI deficits consistent with various developmental and psychiatric disorders characterized by impaired information processing” | senses[0] |
| sense | THE SELECTION PROBLEM STATED IN THE SENTENCE THAT REPORTS THE RESULT: `Although fewer isolation-reared animals learned the complex NP task, those that learned exhibited unaffected NP compared with socially reared rats.` The comparison runs on survivors - the isolates who got far enough to be measured - so the null holds on a sample the manipulation has already filtered. The authors put that in the abstract rather than leaving it to a reader, which is the shape this corpus wants from a limitation— “Although fewer isolation-reared animals learned the complex NP task, those that learned exhibited unaffected NP compared with socially reared rats” | senses[1] |
| sense | PRIMING AS AN INSTRUMENT, DECLARED IN THE FIRST SENTENCE: negative visuospatial priming `represents a quantifiable measure of inhibitory information processing that is disrupted in several neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia`. The clinical claim attaches to the PROCESS, not to the priming effect - priming is the dial, inhibition is the quantity, and the disorder is a property of the quantity. Second Amitai record where priming is a measuring device rather than a phenomenon— “Negative visuospatial priming (NP) represents a quantifiable measure of inhibitory information processing that is disrupted in several neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia” | senses[2] |
| sense | THE TITLE'S FINDING, AND IT IS A NULL INSIDE A NULL: `In contrast, D-amphetamine did not affect NP or motor impulsivity in isolation-reared rats.` The drug disrupts negative priming in socially reared animals and does not in isolates - so the rearing that failed to disrupt the measure directly nonetheless changed how the measure responds to a drug. The discussion offers reduced prefrontal dopamine responsivity as the reason, hedged twice: `suggest that` and `might account for`— “In contrast, D-amphetamine did not affect NP or motor impulsivity in isolation-reared rats. These data confirm a monoaminergic influence on NP behavior and indicate that rats reared in isolation have altered dopaminergic sensitivity.” | senses[3] |
| control | target and non-target locations varied pseudorandomly so each location held the stimuli an equal number of times per session while remaining unpredictable trial to trial — held — rules out a location bias and an anticipation strategy at once - equal frequency removes the first, unpredictability removes the second, and the paper states both— “The location of the target and non-target stimuli varied pseudorandomly between trials, so that each location contained the stimuli an equal number of times per session, but their location was not predictable on any given trial.” | controls[0] |
| control | baseline and negative trials alternated pseudorandomly, each type equally often per session and not predictable in advance — held — rules out the animal preparing for the trial type it expects next, which would make the priming effect a preparation effect— “Baseline and negative trials alternated pseudorandomly, so that that each trial type was presented equally often during each session, but the trial type was not predictable on any given trial.” | controls[1] |
| effect direction | isolation rearing —causes→ negative visuospatial priming — no-change— “In contrast with our hypothesis, however, isolation rearing did not disrupt negative visuospatial priming in rats, despite inducing PPI deficits consistent with various developmental and psychiatric disorders characterized by impaired information processing”— “isolation rearing did not disrupt negative visuospatial priming” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | isolation rearing —causes→ negative visuospatial priming — A NULL RECORDED AS A DIRECTION, and this one is safe to record that way - unlike Takarada2018, the authors state the null as their finding and contrast it with their own hypothesis rather than hedging it later. The 'despite inducing PPI deficits' clause is inside the quote because without it the null is uninterpretable.— “In contrast with our hypothesis, however, isolation rearing did not disrupt negative visuospatial priming in rats, despite inducing PPI deficits consistent with various developmental and psychiatric disorders characterized by impaired information processing” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | isolation rearing —causes→ negative visuospatial priming — 0.9— “In contrast with our hypothesis, however, isolation rearing did not disrupt negative visuospatial priming in rats, despite inducing PPI deficits consistent with various developmental and psychiatric disorders characterized by impaired information processing” | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | Only one amphetamine dose was tested, so hypo- versus hypersensitivity in isolates cannot be decided.— “It must be noted, however, that no definitive conclusions regarding hypo-versus hypersensitivity to the effects of AMPH in isolates can be drawn based on the present study, since only one dose of AMPH was used.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Because many more isolates failed to reach criterion and were excluded, a priming deficit in the excluded animals could have been missed.— “It is possible that the exclusion of a larger number of isolates due to their inability to reach criterion task performance could have masked a NP deficit in isolates (if the rats excluded due to their inability to learn the tasks were specifically ones that would have exhibited lower levels of NP).” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The task may have a ceiling that hides group differences or drug-induced increases in priming.— “It remains possible that this NP task, in its current form, cannot detect increases in NP beyond a certain point, and thus may not be able to detect greater NP in socials… | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The proposed prefrontal monoaminergic explanation is not measured in this study. | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Fewer isolation-reared rats learned the task, but those that did showed negative priming no different from socially reared rats. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | D-amphetamine impaired negative priming and raised motor impulsivity in socially reared rats. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | D-amphetamine left negative priming and motor impulsivity unaffected in isolation-reared rats. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Significantly fewer isolation-reared than socially reared rats reached criterion performance in Experiment 1, showing a learning deficit for this complex task. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Amphetamine abolished negative priming by selectively lowering accuracy on baseline trials rather than by changing accuracy on negative trials. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Because the same isolates showed prepulse-inhibition deficits but intact negative priming, the two inhibitory-processing measures are dissociable. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| quantity | n = 23 socials and n = 14 isolates — Final animal numbers analysed in Experiment 1 after exclusions Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | n = 19 socials and n = 18 isolates — Final animal numbers analysed in the amphetamine experiment Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 0.25 mg/kg — Subcutaneous D-amphetamine dose used in the drug challenge Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | Fifty-five — Total number of male Long-Evans rats weaned into the study Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 33.3 % — Chance accuracy level in the three-aperture task, which drugged animals still exceeded Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | F (1, 35) = 24.4, p < 0.001 — Main effect of amphetamine on the number of premature responses Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| variable | drug treatment (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | trial type (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[2] |
| variable | prime stimulus duration (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| variable | accuracy priming value (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[4] |
| variable | premature responses (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[5] |
| variable | ISI responses (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[6] |
| definition | negative priming Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | inhibitory information processing Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | accuracy priming value Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | negative trials Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | baseline trials Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| concept | negative visuospatial priming — not defined in this paper's own words; the measure, and the paper opens by describing it as a QUANTIFIABLE MEASURE of inhibitory information processing rather than as a phenomenon - priming as an instrument for detecting a deficit Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | inhibitory information processing — not defined in this paper's own words; what the measure is a measure OF - and the clinical claim is attached to it rather than to the priming effect: it is this that is disrupted in the disorders named Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | isolation rearing — not defined in this paper's own words; the developmental manipulation, chosen because it is known to reproduce a range of schizophrenia-like abnormalities - and here it produced its usual PPI deficit while leaving negative priming alone Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | amphetamine — not defined in this paper's own words; the pharmacological challenge, and the title's finding: isolates RESISTED its disruptive effect, which the discussion attributes to reduced prefrontal dopamine responsivity Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| ANOVA F | as written: mixed-factor two-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| chi-squared χ 2 | as written: Pearson Chi square (χ 2 ) analysis Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| t-test t | as written: one-sample t-tests Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| t-test t | as written: two-tailed t-tests Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons | as written: Bonferroni-corrected post hoc analyses Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| statistical-significance | as written: The level of significance was set at 0.05. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| claim type | mechanism — a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value; recorded: null-result Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.claim_type |
| method | behavioural-experiment — a second reading reaching the same value; recorded: behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.method |
| phenomenon | negative visuospatial priming as a measure of inhibitory information processing, and its resistance to amphetamine in isolation-reared rats — a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value; recorded: negative visuospatial priming Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.phenomenon |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824