phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | context-specific improvements in interference resolution (priming of control)— “We used fMRI to test the priming of control hypothesis, the proposition that implicit contextual cues can trigger bottom-up retrieval of specific top-down control settings.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “These results suggest that top-down control states can be bound into episodic event representations and can subsequently be primed by other features of those representations.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Here, we harnessed functional magnetic resonance imaging in humans to test whether these behavioral findings truly reflect online, bottom-up priming of top-down attentional control settings.” | |
| mechanism | Top-down control settings are bound into episodic event-file representations, so that later presentation of another feature of that representation (the contextual cue) implicitly retrieves and reinstates the control setting.— “we propose that top-down control settings associated with specific contextual information can be bound into episodic “event file” representations, and that, subsequently, their retrieval can be implicitly primed by other features of that representation” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Experienced conflict triggers an arousal/noradrenergic response which, via Hebbian associative learning, binds the current bottom-up context representation to the top-down task/biasing representation.— “According to the model, the experience of conflict elicits an arousal response (accompanied by noradrenalin release) that in turn promotes the binding of current bottom-up stimulus/context representations and top-down task representations/biasing processes via Hebbian (associative) learning” | mechanisms[1] |
| extends | Vandenberghe et al., 2001; Yantis et al., 2002; Serences et al., 2004; Shulman et al., 2009— “These findings extend the established role of the mSPL in mediating explicitly cued shifts of attention ( Vandenberghe et al., 2001 ; Yantis et al., 2002 ; Serences et al., 2004 ; Shulman et al., 2009 ) to include the retrieval and execution of implicitly primed control settings.” | claim_relations[0] |
| replicates | Crump et al., 2006— “Furthermore, contrary to the suspicion that that this phenomenon merely reflects aggregate congruency sequence effects, context-specific improvements in interference resolution were dissociable from such trial-by-trial “conflict adaptation” effects in the current study, verifying previous reports ( Crump et al., 2006 ).” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | A FALSE DICHOTOMY, NAMED AS SUCH: `Recent behavioral findings, however, suggest that this juxtaposition of automatic and controlled processing may in fact represent a false dichotomy.` The distinction between bottom-up association and deliberate top-down control is the oldest working partition in this literature, and the paper's contribution is to show a case that sits on both sides of it - an ASSOCIATIVE trigger for a CONTROL state— “Recent behavioral findings, however, suggest that this juxtaposition of automatic and controlled processing may in fact represent a false dichotomy” | senses[0] |
| sense | PRIMING APPLIED TO A CONTROL SETTING - a fifth kind of thing for the word in this corpus, beside a concept, a behaviour, a goal and a sentence structure. `top-down control states can be bound into episodic event representations and can subsequently be primed by other features of those representations.` The claim is that a control configuration is storable and retrievable like any other feature of an episode, so the machinery already built for priming concepts applies to it unchanged— “These results suggest that top-down control states can be bound into episodic event representations and can subsequently be primed by other features of those representations” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE MIRROR OF Kiefer2012, tagged earlier tonight. Kiefer argued that top-down configuration GATES unconscious processing - control reaching down into the automatic. This paper argues the other direction: an automatic associative cue TRIGGERS a control state. Between them the boundary is crossed both ways, and neither needs the other to be wrong. What is left of `automatic` after both is the pair of criteria Kiefer kept - not conscious, not deliberately initiated - and nothing about autonomy— “However, recent behavioral studies have cast doubt on the validity of this dichotomy, showing that implicit contextual cues can modulate performance in a way suggestive of an associative triggering of specific top-down control states” | senses[2] |
| sense | AWARENESS CHECKED, NOT ASSUMED, AND THE CONCLUSION IS DEFINITIONAL: the effect occurred `despite the participant's lack of awareness of systematic variation in conflict frequency, illustrating the implicit nature of the phenomenon and delivering further evidence questioning the notion that controlled processing is inherently volitional`. A survey after scanning quantified what participants noticed. The target is not a finding but a property the word `controlled` is usually taken to carry— “Crucially, this “pure” expression of contextual conflict-control occurred despite the participant's lack of awareness of systematic variation in conflict frequency, illustrating the implicit nature of the phenomenon and delivering further evidence questioning the notion that controlled processing is inherently volitional” | senses[3] |
| control | the stimulus-response mapping was counterbalanced across subjects — held — rules out that a conflict effect is a fixed stimulus-response preference— “Participants were instructed to rapidly and accurately classify the viewpoint direction of the face in the center of the array (target) with a button press (S-R mapping was counterbalanced across subjects) and ignore the flanker faces (distracters).” | controls[0] |
| control | the first trial of each run and all responses faster than 150 ms or slower than 2000 ms were discarded - 1.6 per cent of trials — held — rules out that the mean is pulled by anticipations and lapses rather than by the manipulation— “Before analyzing the performance data, we excluded the first trial of each run and all trials with excessively fast/slow responses (>150 ms/<2000 ms; 1.6% of all trials).” | controls[1] |
| control | conflict frequency was manipulated BY LOCATION - one side of fixation 25 per cent congruent, the other the reverse — held — rules out that a contextual control effect is a global strategy rather than one bound to a location— “Conflict frequency was manipulated according to stimulus location by defining one side of fixation as a high-conflict context (25% congruent/75% incongruent trials) and the other as a low-conflict context (75% congruent/25% incongruent trials; counterbalanced across participants).” | controls[2] |
| audit | contextual cues —causes→ top-down control — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but implicit cues modulate performance 'in a way SUGGESTIVE of' triggering control states; causes is hedged.— “However, recent behavioral studies have cast doubt on the validity of this dichotomy, showing that implicit contextual cues can modulate performance in a way suggestive of an associative triggering of specific top-down control states” | concept_edges[0] |
| effect direction | contextual cues —causes→ top-down control — increases— “However, recent behavioral studies have cast doubt on the validity of this dichotomy, showing that implicit contextual cues can modulate performance in a way suggestive of an associative triggering of specific top-down control states” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | contextual cues —causes→ top-down control — THE PAPER'S CLAIM, and the direction is the surprising half: the ASSOCIATIVE process is the cause and the CONTROL state is the effect, which is the reverse of how the dichotomy arranges them. 'suggestive of' is the hedge in this span - the fMRI result is what upgrades it, and that is a separate edge.— “However, recent behavioral studies have cast doubt on the validity of this dichotomy, showing that implicit contextual cues can modulate performance in a way suggestive of an associative triggering of specific top-down control states” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | contextual cues —causes→ top-down control — 0.9— “However, recent behavioral studies have cast doubt on the validity of this dichotomy, showing that implicit contextual cues can modulate performance in a way suggestive of an associative triggering of specific top-down control states” | concept_edges[0] |
| effect direction | contextual cues —causes→ interference resolution — increases— “However, recent behavioral studies have cast doubt on the validity of this dichotomy, showing that implicit contextual cues can modulate performance in a way suggestive of an associative triggering of specific top-down control states. Here, we harnessed functional magnetic resonance imaging in humans to test whether these behavioral findings…— “implicit contextual cues can modulate performance” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | contextual cues —causes→ interference resolution — The behavioural expression, and the paper's own summary sentence. 'support the proposal' is its strength - this is an fMRI study confirming and localising a behavioural phenomenon rather than establishing it.— “However, recent behavioral studies have cast doubt on the validity of this dichotomy, showing that implicit contextual cues can modulate performance in a way suggestive of an associative triggering of specific top-down control states. Here, we harnessed functional magnetic resonance imaging in humans to test whether these behavioral findings… | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | contextual cues —causes→ interference resolution — 0.9— “However, recent behavioral studies have cast doubt on the validity of this dichotomy, showing that implicit contextual cues can modulate performance in a way… | 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] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[2] |
| evidential status | mechanism — the paper's own words: we propose that | mechanisms[0] |
| replication | replicated | |
| limitation | The functional profile of mSPL was only sampled at two conflict-frequency levels and would need parametric variation of cues or load to be characterised properly. 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 | How the reduced FFA lateralisation in the high-conflict context actually produces the behavioural benefit is not established. 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 | Interference (flanker congruency) effects in reaction time were smaller for stimuli appearing in the location associated with frequent conflict than in the low-conflict location. 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 | Two regions, left dorsal premotor cortex and right medial superior parietal lobule, showed the context-by-congruency interaction in hemodynamic activity. 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 | mSPL activity for differential conflict processing covaried with activity in both visual cortex ROIs. 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 | Reduced interference was not evident on trials following a switch from the low- to the high-conflict context. 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 | Participants were essentially unaware of the location-based conflict-frequency manipulation, establishing that the effect is implicit. 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 | FFA lateralization present in the low-conflict context was absent in the high-conflict context. 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] |
| finding | Individual differences in the FFA lateralization reduction tracked individual differences in the behavioural interference reduction. 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[6] |
| quantity | 94 ms vs 123 ms — size of the flanker interference effect in the high-conflict versus low-conflict location 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 | 25 — number of participants retained for analysis 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[1] |
| quantity | 93% — overall accuracy on the flanker 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[2] |
| quantity | 783 ms vs 674 ms — mean reaction time on incongruent versus congruent 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[3] |
| quantity | p = 0.054 — binomial test on the 17-vs-8 split of participants correctly forced-choosing the high-conflict side, taken as evidence of implicit knowledge 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 | 25% congruent/75% incongruent — the conflict-frequency ratio defining the high-conflict context (reversed for the low-conflict context) 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 | conflict frequency (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 | context transition (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 | individual mean RT (covariate) 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 | mean reaction times (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 | error rates (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 | priming of 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.definitions[0] |
| definition | psychophysiological interaction (PPI) 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.definitions[1] |
| concept | dichotomy — not defined in this paper's own words; the thing under attack - the field's split between automatic bottom-up association and controlled top-down goal pursuit, which this paper says the behavioural evidence no longer supports 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 | contextual cues — not defined in this paper's own words; the mechanism of the attack: a nominally IRRELEVANT feature of the display, paired with frequent conflict, comes to summon the control setting appropriate to that context 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 | top-down control — not defined in this paper's own words; what gets primed here, and that is the paper's whole point - a control STATE, not a concept or a behaviour, retrieved by an associative cue 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 | interference resolution — not defined in this paper's own words; the behavioural read-out - how well flanker conflict is overcome - and the effect is that it improves CONTEXT-SPECIFICALLY, in the context where conflict has been frequent 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: repeated-measures 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] |
| t-test t | as written: voxelwise 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[1] |
| regression | as written: second-level random effect group regression 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[2] |
| binomial test p | 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] |
| correlation r | as written: correlated with 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] |
| Monte Carlo simulation | as written: 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations 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] |
| maximum likelihood estimation | as written: restricted maximum likelihood estimates of variance components 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