phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | response conflict monitoring in anterior cingulate cortex— “Specifically, we have hypothesized that the function of the ACC is to provide an on-line index of the degree of response conflict.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “The results indicate that the conflict-monitoring hypothesis, augmented by mechanisms for encoding stimulus history, can explain key phenomena associated with performance in sequential speeded response tasks.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Simulations conducted in a neural network model incorporating sequential priming mechanisms (developed in Cho et al., 2002) confirmed that a computational measure of response conflict was higher on low-frequency trials across all three tasks.” | |
| mechanism | Repeated high-frequency stimuli build residual activation (an expectancy) in one stimulus-response pathway, so a low-frequency stimulus must overcome that preactivation, and the resulting competition is what registers as conflict in ACC.— “Specifically, in the model, repeated presentations of high-frequency stimuli create an expectancy for continued future repetitions, which results in residual activity in the expected stimulus– response pathway.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Conflict at the decision layer produces ACC-indexed signal that lowers strategic priming, which raises control (slower, more accurate responding) on subsequent trials.— “The role of the conflict detector was to increase control by decreasing strategic priming in response to conflict.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Because the incorrect nontarget decision unit in one-response tasks is not connected to a response execution unit, transient wrong-channel activation never becomes an overt error, so the task difference arises downstream of conflict detection rather than at it.— “The difference in behavioral profiles across the two tasks is captured in the model by the simple fact that premature activation of the incorrect nontarget decision layer unit does not result in an overt behavior under a one-response task situation.” | mechanisms[2] |
| extends | Cho et al. (2002) sequential-priming choice-discrimination model— “The present model extends this previous work by adding the conflict-control loop (Botvinick et al., 2001) into the Cho et al. model.” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Usher and McClelland (2001) leaky competing accumulator architecture— “As was mentioned above, the basic architecture was developed in Usher and McClelland (2001) and was extended by Botvinick et al. (2001) and Cho et al. (2002).” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | Braver, Barch, Gray, Molfese, and Snyder (2001) neuroimaging dataset— “The neuroimaging data used for the present study were originally reported in Braver et al. (2001).” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | THE MECHANISM IS A CHAIN OF THREE VERBS AND EACH ONE IS DOING WORK: the ACC `detects the presence of response conflict and conveys this information to other brain regions, enabling subsequent adjustments in cognitive control`. Detect, convey, adjust. A claim that a region is `active during` something cannot be wrong in an interesting way; this one can - it predicts that the signal precedes the adjustment, that removing it removes the adjustment, and that its size tracks the amount of competition rather than the difficulty— “indicates that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) detects the presence of response conflict and conveys this information to other brain regions, enabling subsequent adjustments in cognitive control.” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND IT MEETS erb2019 HEAD-ON WITHOUT EITHER PAPER KNOWING. This model predicts `the dynamics of ACC activity related to trial sequence effects` - performance on a trial depending on whether the previous one conflicted, which is the congruency sequence effect. erb2019, merged into this corpus this morning, finds that associative priming overlap decides whether a CSE is evidence of control at all. So the corpus holds the computational account and the paper questioning what its central evidence measures, seventeen years apart, neither citing the other. This sense was first attached to the conflict-theory sentence, which does not contain the words `trial sequence effects` at all - the audit caught it before the gate did, which is the one step in this pipeline that has no automated equivalent— “In addition, the model captured detailed aspects of behavioral reaction time and accuracy data, predicted the dynamics of ACC activity related to trial sequence effects, and provided evidence for the functional role of conflict information in performance monitoring and optimization.” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE ORDER OF EVENTS IS REPORTED HONESTLY, WHICH IS RARER THAN IT SHOULD BE: `In order to test this idea, however, existing implementations of the conflict model had to be augmented so as to be responsive to the effects of stimulus frequency on processing.` The model did not handle frequency; it was extended; then it fitted. A model extended to fit the data it then fits is a weaker result than one that predicted it, and stating the sequence lets a reader price that difference instead of having to reconstruct it from the methods— “In order to test this idea, however, existing implementations of the conflict model had to be augmented so as to be responsive to the effects of stimulus frequency on processing.” | senses[2] |
| control | the mapping of stimuli onto the target and nontarget categories was counterbalanced across subjects — held — rules out that a category effect is a stimulus effect - that the target set is simply easier— “However, the mapping of stimuli to target/R1 and nontarget/ R2 categories was counterbalanced across subjects.” | controls[0] |
| audit | response conflict —causes→ cognitive control — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but conflict detection ENABLES ADJUSTMENTS in cognitive control; the 'increases' sign is not stated.— “indicates that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) detects the presence of response conflict and conveys this information to other brain regions, enabling subsequent adjustments in cognitive control.” | concept_edges[1] |
| effect direction (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | response conflict —causes→ cognitive control — increases | concept_edges[1] |
| note | response conflict —causes→ cognitive control — THIS IS THE WHOLE ACCOUNT IN ONE TRIPLE AND IT IS THE STRONGER OF THE TWO. 'enabling subsequent…' - conflict is detected, and control changes as a result. Weight 0.95: both endpoints named as words, the causal direction is explicit in 'enabling subsequent', and the sentence is the paper's summary of an established body of evidence rather than a hedge. The ACC sits between the two endpoints in the same sentence and is deliberately not in this triple - it is the route, not a term of the relation, and putting it in would make a three-place claim into a two-place one and lose which part is which.— “indicates that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) detects the presence of response conflict and conveys this information to other brain regions, enabling subsequent adjustments in cognitive control.” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | response conflict —causes→ cognitive control — 0.95— “indicates that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) detects the presence of response conflict and conveys this information to other brain regions, enabling subsequent adjustments in cognitive control.” | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the trial-by-trial fit to individual behaviour: ALTHOUGH THESE NUMBERS INDICATE A SOMEWHAT LOW FIT, NOISE PROCESSES IN HUMANS (WHICH ARE POORLY UNDERSTOOD) MAY MAKE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO TRIAL-BY-TRIAL BEHAVIORAL PERFORMANCE— “Although these numbers indicate a somewhat low fit, it is important to note that noise processes in humans (which are poorly understood) may make a significant contribution to trialby-trial behavioral performance.” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the imaging test of the sequence prediction: THIS ANALYSIS WAS COMPLICATED BY OUR USE OF RAPID EVENT-RELATED fMRI AND THE SLOW EVOLUTION OF THE HEMODYNAMIC RESPONSE— “This analysis was complicated by our use of rapid event-related fMRI and the slow evolution of the hemodynamic response.” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the model's coverage, bounded by the authors: THE PRESENT STUDY WAS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE ACCOUNT OF THE MYRIAD PROCESSES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO COGNITIVE CONTROL— “The present study was not intended to provide a complete account of the myriad processes that contribute to cognitive control.” | limitations[2] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The trial-by-trial fit of the model to individual subjects' behaviour is low, which the authors attribute partly to unsimulated human noise processes.— “Although these numbers indicate a somewhat low fit, it is important to note that noise processes in humans (which are poorly understood) may make a significant contribution to trialby-trial behavioral performance.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The imaging reanalysis testing the sequence prediction was hampered by hemodynamic overlap in rapid event-related fMRI.— “This analysis was complicated by our use of rapid event-related fMRI and the slow evolution of the hemodynamic response.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The model covers only a specific type of control, not cognitive control in general.— “The present study was not intended to provide a complete account of the myriad processes that contribute to cognitive control.” | limitations[2] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Simulated conflict was significantly greater for low- than for high-frequency events in all task conditions.— “There was significantly greater conflict for low- versus high-frequency events in all task conditions (all ps , .001).” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The model reproduced the puzzling exception that accuracy to low-frequency targets in the oddball (one-response) task is near perfect and not degraded by low frequency.— “In this condition, low-frequency responses were nearly perfectly accurate and were not significantly different from responses to high-frequency [F(1,63) = 0.297, p = .588] or equal-frequency [F(1,63) = 0.133, p = .717] events.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Conflict tracked not only global stimulus frequency but also the local sequential history of stimuli.— “The high correlation observed between conflict and empirical data behavioral performance (accuracy, r = .934; RT, r = .891) indicates that conflict not only tracks global frequency but also the local sequential history of stimuli.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Empirical ACC data matched the model's conflict predictions (r = .856), accounting for 73% of the variance in the sequential pattern.— “the empirical data from the ACC corresponds rather well with the conflict predictions obtained from the model (r = .856, p , .001), accounting for 73% of the variance present in the sequential pattern of ACC activation” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Trials whose four preceding stimuli were repetitions had the fastest reaction times and fewest errors, in both human and simulated data.— “In fact, the four categories ending in RR had the four lowest RTs and error rates in both the behavioral and the simulated data.” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Without the conflict-monitoring control loop the model predicted performance slightly less well, indicating the loop contributes.— “The performance of the model with no conflictmonitoring control loop was slightly less effective at predicting performance, thus indicating a contribution of this component of the model.” | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Subjects showed significant adjustments in RT after errors and in error rate after slow trials.— “There were significant adjustments in RT following errors [t(60) = 6.50, p , .001], in error rate following slow RT trials [t(64) = 25.76, p , .001], and in both RT and error rate following fast RT trials [RT, t(64) = 22.6, p , .01; error rate, t(64) = 4.81, p , .001].” | content_tags.findings[6] |
| quantity | 65 subjects / 14 subjects — sample sizes of the behavioral and the neuroimaging studies whose data the simulations were fitted to— “There were 65 subjects (47 females and 18 males; mean age, 19.3 years; range, 17 –25 years) in the behavioral study and 14 subjects (5 males and 9 females; mean age, 22.9 years; range, 18–27 years) in the neuroimaging study.” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 17%, 50%, 83% — the three target-frequency conditions used in each version of the task— “Each version of the task (one-response, two-response) had three frequency conditions: low-frequency target/R1 (target = 17%), equalfrequency (target = 50%), and low-frequency nontarget/ R2 (target = 83%).” | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | r = .856 ... 73% — correlation between simulated conflict and reanalyzed ACC activity across matched sequence pairs, and the share of variance it explains— “the empirical data from the ACC corresponds rather well with the conflict predictions obtained from the model (r = .856, p , .001), accounting for 73% of the variance present in the sequential pattern of ACC activation” | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 16.6% / 6.8% — variance in trial-by-trial reaction time and in error explained by the full model— “the model accounts for 16.6% of the variance present in the RT and 6.8% of the variance present in error” | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 2.5% / 1.5% — the small but reliable extra variance attributable specifically to the conflict-control loop— “Thus, although the conflictcontrol effect was rather small—accounting for 2.5% of the total variation in the subjects’ RT scores and 1.5% of variance in error rates—it was highly reliable.” | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 64 out of 65 — subjects for whom adding the conflict-control loop improved the model's RT prediction | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| quantity | F(1,63) = 9,143 — test that the low-vs-high frequency conflict difference exceeded the difference under equal frequency | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| variable | stimulus frequency (independent) | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | sequential history (independent) | content_tags.variables[2] |
| variable | reaction time and error rate (dependent) | content_tags.variables[3] |
| variable | ACC activity (dependent) | content_tags.variables[4] |
| variable | simulated conflict (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 | lesioned model (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[6] |
| definition | response conflict 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 | repetition priming and alternation 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[2] |
| definition | conflict 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] |
| concept | response conflict — not defined in this paper's own words; simultaneous activation of incompatible response tendencies. Defined by what is competing, not by how it feels or how hard the task is - 'conflict between different response tendencies' - which is what lets it be computed from a model's activation values rather than rated by a subject 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 | anterior cingulate cortex — not defined in this paper's own words; the region the account assigns a job to. Not 'active during conflict' but DETECTS and CONVEYS - a monitor with an output, which is what makes the claim testable and what lets this paper go on to ask whether the signal is functionally relevant rather than merely correlated 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 | cognitive control — not defined in this paper's own words; the downstream adjustment the conflict signal is supposed to trigger. The end of a three-step chain - detect, convey, adjust - and the step that makes conflict monitoring a control theory rather than a description of when a region lights up 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 | conflict model — not defined in this paper's own words; the computational implementation. And the paper says out loud that it did not already handle frequency: 'existing implementations of the conflict model had to be augmented so as to be responsive to the effects of stimulus frequency'. The extension precedes the fit and the paper reports them in that order 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: F(1,63) 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] |
| correlation r | as written: 16-point correlation coefficient 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] |
| partial correlation | 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] |
| confidence interval | as written: 99% confidence interval 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 score (z score) z | as written: z scores 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] |
| t-test t | as written: t(64) 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] |
| p-value p | as written: all ps , .001 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] |
| mean | as written: mean RT and percentage of error 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[7] |
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