phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | congruency sequence effect in the Stroop task— “Thus, a CSE was not observed on confound-minimized trials, but a CSE was observed on set repeat trials, which featured substantial associative-priming effects.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “Thus, by directly evaluating the influence of associative-priming confounds, the present study revealed the strongest evidence to date that decision behavior in tasks involving conflict is fundamentally structured by the functioning of two dissociable processes.” | |
| method — evidence | — “We therefore presented 45 adult participants with a reach-tracking version of the Stroop task that featured both confound-minimized and confound-laden trials.” | |
| mechanism | Coactivation of competing responses on incongruent trials raises the response threshold, lengthening motoric stopping and thus slowing initiation, with the raised threshold carrying over into the next trial— “On this view, the coactivation of competing responses on incongruent trials results in heightened response thresholds, with longer periods of motoric stopping and, consequently, slower initiation times.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Overlap between the current and previous trial's stimulus-response features either helps or hinders the formation of the appropriate stimulus-response pair, and that facilitation or interference shows up as more or less reach curvature— “According to this interpretation, associative-priming effects influence performance by either impeding or facilitating an individual’s ability to form the appropriate stimulus–response pair, resulting in reach movements that feature more or less curvature.” | mechanisms[1] |
| extends | Erb & Marcovitch (2018a, 2018b); Erb et al. (2016, 2018b)— “In contrast to previous hand-tracking studies (Erb & Marcovitch, 2018a, 2018b; Erb et al., 2016; Erb et al., 2018b), the task used in the present study allowed for a direct comparison of confound-minimized and confound-laden trials.” | claim_relations[0] |
| replicates | Schmidt & De Houwer (2011); Weissman, Jiang, & Egner (2014)— “This finding is consistent with a number of previous studies that have failed to observe a CSE in the Stroop task after controlling for alternative explanations (e.g., Schmidt & De Houwer, 2011; Weissman, Jiang, & Egner, 2014).” | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | Scherbaum, Dshemuchadse, Fischer, and Goschke (2010, Exp. 2)— “For example, Scherbaum, Dshemuchadse, Fischer, and Goschke (2010, Exp. 2) observed a significant CSE in participants’ hand movements in a mouse-tracking version of the Simon task, even after stimulus repetitions were excluded from the analysis, whereas the present study did not reveal a CSE in reach curvatures in confound-minimized… | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | PRIMING AS THE CONFOUND RATHER THAN THE PHENOMENON, WHICH THIS CORPUS HAS ALMOST NONE OF: `The CSE has been at the center of recent debates surrounding the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying cognitive control and has been attributed to a range of factors, including conflict adaptation and associative priming.` Two accounts of one effect, and the priming account needs no control process at all - if the current trial repeats the previous trial's stimulus and response, the pairing was already formed. So a CSE is not evidence for cognitive control until the overlap is removed. Every other record I have tagged treats priming as the object of study; here it is the alternative explanation— “The CSE has been at the center of recent debates surrounding the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying cognitive control and has been attributed to a range of factors, including conflict adaptation and associative priming” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE AUTHORS SAY PLAINLY THAT THE EARLIER WORK - INCLUDING THEIR OWN - LEAVES THE QUESTION OPEN: `Consequently, the extent to which the observed patterns reflected the proposed processes or associative-priming confounds remained unclear.` The preceding sentence - that earlier tasks did not control for those confounds - is fused in the staged text and cannot be quoted. This is a whole literature's results placed in doubt by the people who produced some of them, and it is what motivates the design rather than a limitation conceded at the end— “Consequently, the extent to which the observed patterns reflected the proposed processes or associative-priming confounds remained unclear” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE DISSOCIATION IS PRODUCED BY A CONTROL RATHER THAN BY A MANIPULATION, WHICH IS THE RARER AND STRONGER FORM: initiation times showed the effect `on BOTH confound-minimized and confound-laden trials`; reach curvatures showed it `on confound-laden but not on confound-minimized trials`. Nothing was added to the design - something was taken away, and one of the two measures lost its effect with it. A dissociation obtained by subtraction cannot be explained by whatever the added factor also did, which is the usual objection to the added-manipulation kind— “Conversely, reach curvatures exhibited a clear sensitivity to associative-priming effects, revealing a congruency sequence effect on confound-laden but not on confound-minimized trials” | senses[2] |
| sense | AND THE STROOP TASK APPEARS HERE AS APPARATUS, NOT AS SUBJECT: a three-response, reach-tracking version, 84 years after Stroop 1935, used to ask about trial-to-trial control rather than about interference. The corpus now holds the founding paper and a paper that treats it as equipment - and the pair is worth more than either, because it shows what happens to a paradigm when it stops being a finding and becomes a method— “We therefore presented 45 adult participants with a reach-tracking version of the Stroop task that featured both confound-minimized and confound-laden trials” | senses[3] |
| control | every individual trial was VISUALLY INSPECTED and those where the automatic threshold missed part of the movement were identified — held — rules out that the movement measures are corrupted by an automatic threshold that mis-segments the reaching trajectory— “Each individual trial was visually inspected, as in previous work (e.g., Song & Nakayama, 2007); for trials in which the default threshold clearly missed part of the movement or included substantial movement back to the starting point, the thresholds were adjusted manually to ensure that the movement ended at the selected target.” | controls[0] |
| control | a practice block of 24 Stroop trials preceded the experiment — held — rules out that early Stroop performance reflects unfamiliarity rather than conflict— “practice block of 24 trials of the Stroop task before beginning the experiment.” | controls[1] |
| differs in | Scherbaum, Dshemuchadse, Fischer, and Goschke (2010, Exp. 2) — THE AXIS IS WHETHER STIMULUS REPETITIONS ARE EXCLUDED. 'Scherbaum, Dshemuchadse, Fischer, and Goschke (2010, Exp. 2) OBSERVED A SIGNIFICANT CSE in participants' hand movements in a mouse-tracking version of the Simon task, EVEN AFTER STIMULUS REPETITIONS WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE ANALYSIS, whereas th[is study]...' The disagreement is between two analyses of the same confound, not between two claims about the effect.— “For example, Scherbaum, Dshemuchadse, Fischer, and Goschke (2010, Exp. 2) observed a significant CSE in participants’ hand movements in a mouse-tracking version of the Simon task, even after stimulus repetitions were excluded from the analysis, whereas the present study did not reveal a CSE in reach curvatures in confound-minimized…— “even after stimulus repetitions were excluded from the analysis” | claim_relations[2] |
| audit | associative priming —causes→ CSE — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the CSE 'HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED' to associative priming among other factors, in a debate; causes is hedged.— “The CSE has been at the center of recent debates surrounding the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying cognitive control and has been attributed to a range of factors, including conflict adaptation and associative priming” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | associative priming —causes→ CSE — ONE OF TWO RIVAL ACCOUNTS, AND 'has been attributed to' IS THE HEDGE, INSIDE THE QUOTE. This edge is not the paper's finding - it is the position the paper tests. Weight 0.7 because the sentence reports an attribution in the literature rather than a result here, and because this paper's own data cut both ways: the curvature CSE disappears when the priming confound is removed (so priming was carrying it) while the initiation-time CSE does not (so priming was not). A corpus that recorded only the surviving effect would lose the reason anyone doubted it.— “The CSE has been at the center of recent debates surrounding the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying cognitive control and has been attributed to a range of factors, including conflict adaptation and associative priming” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | associative priming —causes→ CSE — 0.7— “The CSE has been at the center of recent debates surrounding the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying cognitive control and has been attributed to a range of factors, including conflict adaptation and associative priming” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | conflict adaptation —causes→ CSE — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the CSE 'HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED' to conflict adaptation among other factors, in a debate; causes is hedged.— “The CSE has been at the center of recent debates surrounding the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying cognitive control and has been attributed to a range of factors, including conflict adaptation and… | concept_edges[1] |
| note | conflict adaptation —causes→ CSE — THE OTHER RIVAL, on the same sentence and at the same weight, deliberately. The two edges are symmetrical because the quote is symmetrical - it lists both without choosing. Recording one and not the other would make the corpus take a side the sentence does not take, and the paper's contribution is precisely that it separates them empirically rather than arguing for one. The separation lives in the third sense. | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | conflict adaptation —causes→ CSE — 0.7 | concept_edges[1] |
| audit | associative priming —contrasted-with→ conflict adaptation — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but associative priming and conflict adaptation are two of the factors the CSE has been attributed to; contrasted-with is loose. 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. | concept_edges[2] |
| note | associative priming —contrasted-with→ conflict adaptation — THIS IS THE EDGE THE PAPER IS ABOUT, and it is the only one of the three that carries the paper's own claim rather than the literature's. The two accounts predict the same effect and differ in whether a control process is needed at all - one is top-down regulation, the other is feature repetition requiring nothing. Weight 0.9: the contrast is explicit in the quote and the whole design exists to resolve it. 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. | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | associative priming —contrasted-with→ conflict adaptation — 0.9 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. | concept_edges[2] |
| 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 | The study used only a reach-tracking task, so it cannot say whether button-press response times would show the same pattern. 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. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The task did not separate stimulus-level from response-level conflict and did not control contingency-learning effects; the authors call for tasks that do. 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. | limitations[1] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Initiation times showed the same pattern of effects (cC < iC < cI < iI) regardless of associative-priming effects. 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[0] |
| finding | A curvature CSE appeared on set-repeat trials, which carried substantial associative priming, but not on confound-minimized 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[1] |
| finding | The size of the curvature CSE was itself reliably larger on set repeat than on confound-minimized 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[2] |
| finding | On confound-minimized trials reach curvature responded only to current congruency, with no carry-over from the previous trial and no interaction. 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 | Error rates on confound-minimized trials tracked current congruency alone, mirroring the curvature pattern. 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] |
| quantity | 45 — number of adult participants tested in the reach-tracking Stroop 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.quantities[0] |
| quantity | M = 19.7 years, SD = 3.0 — mean and standard deviation of participant age in the final sample 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 | F(1, 44) = 4.18, p = .047, ηp 2 = .09 — test of whether the curvature CSE was larger on set repeat than on confound-minimized 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.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 6% — share of experimental trials discarded (errors plus post-error trials) before analysing the timing and curvature measures 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 | 3.4% (SD = 3.0%) — average per-participant share of trials whose movement-onset threshold had to be adjusted by hand 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 | approximately 160 Hz — sampling rate of the electromagnetic motion-tracking system recording the reach 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 | current congruency (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[0] |
| variable | previous congruency (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 | associative-priming confounds (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 | initiation time (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[3] |
| variable | reach curvature (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 | error rate (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 | visual acuity (control) 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[7] |
| definition | congruency sequence effect (CSE) 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 | curvature 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 | confound-minimized 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 | initiation time 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] |
| definition | movement time 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[5] |
| concept | associative priming — not defined in this paper's own words; THE RIVAL ACCOUNT, AND THE CONFOUND THIS PAPER EXISTS TO REMOVE. The congruency sequence effect may need no control process at all: if the current trial repeats the previous trial's stimulus and response, the pairing was already formed. Priming here is the thing to be ruled out, not the thing being studied 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 | conflict adaptation — not defined in this paper's own words; the control account: after a control-demanding trial, top-down control is up-regulated, so attention to the relevant dimension increases on the next trial. It is the reading that makes the CSE evidence FOR cognitive control, and it only survives once the priming confound is gone 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 | CSE — not defined in this paper's own words; the congruency effect is SMALLER on trials preceded by an incongruent trial than on trials preceded by a congruent one. A trial-to-trial signature, which is what makes it attributable either to a control process or to mere feature overlap 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 | initiation times — not defined in this paper's own words; when the hand starts moving - and the measure whose CSE SURVIVES the removal of the priming confound, which is what licenses reading it as a threshold-adjustment process rather than as feature repetition 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] |
| concept | reach curvatures — not defined in this paper's own words; how far the hand bends toward the wrong option - and the measure whose CSE appears ONLY on confound-laden trials. The authors read that as sensitivity of the controlled selection process to associative priming rather than as an artefact 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[4] |
| ANOVA | as written: repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) 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] |
| F-test F | as written: F(1, 44) = 4.18 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] |
| p-value p | as written: p = .047 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] |
| effect size (partial eta squared) ηp 2 | as written: ηp 2 = .09 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] |
| standard deviation SD | as written: SD = 3.0 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] |
| mean M | as written: M = 19.7 years 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] |
| standard error | as written: Error bars display standard errors 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[6] |
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