phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | behavioural priming and repetition suppression— “Behavioral responses to a perceptual stimulus are typically faster with repeated exposure to the stimulus (behavioral priming).” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “The latter results indicate that repetition suppression and behavioral priming are associated with strengthening of top-down network influences on perceptual processing, consistent with predictive coding models of repetition suppression, and they support a central role for changes in large-scale cortical dynamics in achieving more efficient… | |
| method — evidence | — “Here, we used the unparalleled precision of electrocorticography (ECoG) to analyze the timing and magnitude of task-related changes in neural activation and propagation while patients named novel vs repeated visual objects.” | |
| transfer | from econometrics / time-series causality analysis: The Granger-causality framework for time series is taken over, as event related causality built on multivariate autoregressive models, to estimate the direction and timing of neural propagation between cortical recording sites.— “we evaluated changes in the propagation of high gamma activity using a recently developed technique – event related causality (ERC), based on the concept of Granger causality, to measure the timing, magnitude and directionality of task-related changes in neural propagation across cortical networks activated during visual object naming” | transfers[0] |
| transfer | from Bayesian statistics: The predictive coding account the paper adopts treats the cortex itself as a hierarchical generative Bayesian statistical model, with top-down predictions and bottom-up prediction error.— “In this model, the cortex is considered a form of hierarchical generative Bayesian statistical model.” | transfers[1] |
| mechanism | With repetition the cortex's generative model predicts the stimulus better, so top-down predictive input grows stronger and the prediction-error cells it suppresses fire less, which is what is measured as repetition suppression— “As the model improves its predictions with stimulus repetition and experience, the top-down input grows stronger and activity in cells that encode prediction error decreases, yielding repetition suppression.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Strengthened top-down propagation from left prefrontal cortex drives down activation in ventral occipito-temporal cortex and elsewhere, producing repetition suppression— “These findings are suggestive of a role for repetition-related top-down propagation from LPFC in driving effects on repetition suppression that are observed in VOTC and elsewhere.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | At sensorimotor and superior-temporal sites the apparent temporal shift is not a change in perception but a consequence of the shorter speaking latency: the activity is locked to the response, so aligning to response onset abolishes the shift— “This shift, however, was no longer apparent when cortical signals were aligned to response onset, suggesting that activation at these sites was linked to response processing and that the temporal shift was due to shorter latencies to respond to repeated stimuli.” | mechanisms[2] |
| builds-on | Ghuman et al. (2008) MEG study of LPFC-temporal phase locking during priming— “Our finding of early increased top-down propagation with repetition complements a previous study by Ghuman et al. (2008) using MEG, which reported enhanced phase-locking between LPFC and temporal cortex in low-beta frequencies (12–14 Hz) for repeated objects during object identification, beginning ~200 ms after stimulus onset.” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | the “facilitation” model of repetition suppression (James et al., 2000; Henson, 2003)— “Importantly, we did not observe a consistent temporal shift in the temporal envelope of VOTC activation to earlier latencies, as predicted by the “facilitation” model.” | claim_relations[1] |
| extends | Ghuman et al. (2008) MEG study of top-down phase locking in priming— “Our finding of early increased top-down propagation with repetition complements a previous study by Ghuman et al. (2008) using MEG, which reported enhanced phase-locking between LPFC and temporal cortex in low-beta frequencies (12–14 Hz) for repeated objects during object identification, beginning ~200 ms after stimulus onset.” | claim_relations[2] |
| contradicts | the "facilitation" model of repetition suppression (James et al., 2000; Henson, 2003)— “Importantly, we did not observe a consistent temporal shift in the temporal envelope of VOTC activation to earlier latencies, as predicted by the “facilitation” model.” | claim_relations[3] |
| builds-on | the "predictive coding" model of repetition suppression and priming (Henson, 2003; Friston, 2005)— “The entire pattern of results is perhaps in best accordance with the “predictive coding” model of repetition suppression and priming ( Henson, 2003 ; Friston, 2005 ).” | claim_relations[4] |
| replicates | Marinkovic et al. (2003) MEG finding of a shift from repetition enhancement to repetition suppression— “This diversity occurred early, and sustained suppression followed, consistent with previous findings with MEG that repetition effects can shift from initial RE to RS ( Marinkovic et al. , 2003 ).” | claim_relations[5] |
| sense | THE SAME PARADOX Gotts2012 REVIEWS, AND THIS IS THE EXPERIMENT IT ASKED FOR. Gotts said the four candidate models were `in need of testing`; this paper says why they had not been tested - `noninvasive techniques for human studies have had insufficient spatial-temporal precision for testing their predictions` - and then supplies the precision with electrocorticography. A review naming a gap and a study filling it, two records in one corpus— “Several neurophysiological models have been proposed to resolve this paradox, but noninvasive techniques for human studies have had insufficient spatial-temporal precision for testing their predictions. Here, we used the unparalleled precision of electrocorticography” | senses[0] |
| sense | THREE EFFECTS, NOT TWO. Beside suppression the study finds repetition ENHANCEMENT at some sites and a TEMPORAL SHIFT to earlier responses at others - `repetition suppression (RS) at some sites, and repetition enhancement (RE) in others, the latter often followed by repetition suppression (~600 ms)`. The paradox as usually stated has two terms; measured at this resolution the cortex does three different things, sometimes in sequence at one site— “we observed a more complex pattern of changes, reflecting repetition suppression (RS) at some sites, and repetition enhancement (RE) in others, the latter often followed by repetition suppression” | senses[1] |
| sense | AND THE NOVEL EFFECT DOES NOT SURVIVE THE GROUP ANALYSIS, IN THE PAPER'S OWN WORDS: `Group analyses aggregating recording sites with statistically significant repetition enhancement (RE) did not reach statistical significance for VOTC, LPFC, or OAS.` So RE is a per-site observation, reported honestly as one, with the closing verdict that further investigation `is warranted` rather than that the effect is established. The result the abstract calls `interesting` is the one the results section declines to claim at group level— “Group analyses aggregating recording sites with statistically significant repetition enhancement (RE) did not reach statistical significance for VOTC, LPFC, or OAS” | senses[2] |
| sense | WHAT THE ELECTRODES COULD SEE IS A LIMIT ON WHAT WAS FOUND, and the paper says so: `the numbers of sites revealing repetition suppression, repetition enhancement, or temporal shift were limited by the electrode locations unique to each patient`. Coverage is clinical, not experimental - electrodes go where the epilepsy surgery needs them - so absence of an effect at a site is not evidence of its absence in that region. A sampling constraint that no amount of statistics repairs— “Therefore, the numbers of sites revealing repetition suppression, repetition enhancement, or temporal shift were limited by the electrode locations unique to each patient” | senses[3] |
| control | object names matched for word frequency, and the lists of repeated versus novel objects counterbalanced across patients — held — rules out that a difference between novel and repeated objects is a difference in word frequency, or a property of which particular objects happened to land in which list— “Object names were matched for word frequency, and lists of repeated versus non-repeated (novel) objects were counterbalanced across patients.” | controls[0] |
| differs in | behavioral priming —contrasted-with→ repetition suppression — THE DIRECTION EACH MOVES ON THE SAME REPETITION - responses get FASTER while neural activity gets WEAKER. The paper calls it a paradox in the sentence that states it, and the whole study exists to resolve it— “Many studies of the neural bases for behavioral priming have encountered an interesting paradox: in spite of faster behavioral responses, repeated stimuli usually elicit weaker neural responses (repetition suppression)”— “in spite of faster behavioral responses” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | behavioral priming —contrasted-with→ repetition suppression — The same contrast tagged on Gotts2012 forty minutes earlier, from a review; here it is from the experiment that tests it. Two records, one paradox, and the corpus can now hold the review's inventory beside the measurement.— “Many studies of the neural bases for behavioral priming have encountered an interesting paradox: in spite of faster behavioral responses, repeated stimuli usually elicit weaker neural responses (repetition suppression)” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | behavioral priming —contrasted-with→ repetition suppression — 0.95— “Many studies of the neural bases for behavioral priming have encountered an interesting paradox: in spite of faster behavioral responses… | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | predictive coding —causes→ repetition suppression — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the results 'PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR' predictive coding; the 'increases' sign is not stated. | concept_edges[1] |
| effect direction | predictive coding —causes→ repetition suppression — increases 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[1] |
| note | predictive coding —causes→ repetition suppression — THE EVIDENCE IS A TIMING CLAIM: the top-down propagation PRECEDED the suppression, which is what makes it a candidate cause rather than a correlate. Weighted 0.85 - 'provide support for' is the paper's own strength, and precedence is necessary but not sufficient for the model. 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[1] |
| weight | predictive coding —causes→ repetition suppression — 0.85 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[1] |
| differs in | repetition enhancement —distinct-from→ repetition suppression — THE SIGN OF THE NEURAL CHANGE AT A SITE - enhancement is more activity with repetition, suppression is less, and the two occur at different electrodes in the same patients, sometimes in sequence at one site with enhancement followed by suppression around 600 ms 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. 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 | repetition enhancement —distinct-from→ repetition suppression — Weight 0.8 and NOT higher, because of the group analysis: RE 'did not reach statistical significance for VOTC…'. The distinction is real at individual sites and unestablished at group level, and the sense row carries that. Recording this at 0.95 would assert what the results section declines to claim. 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 | repetition enhancement —distinct-from→ repetition suppression — 0.8 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] |
| duplicate of | limitation — limitations[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. | limitations[5] |
| duplicate of | limitation — limitations[1] 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[6] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | Repetition enhancement was significant only at individual sites; group analyses failed to reach significance in any region of interest, possibly through timing variability and uneven sampling. 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 | Only very short (few-second) repetition delays were examined, while the models at stake concern much longer delays. 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] |
| limitation | High gamma responses cannot adjudicate models that posit changes in single-neuron tuning, such as the sharpening model. 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[2] |
| limitation | Electrode placement was clinically, not experimentally, determined, constraining which sites could show each repetition effect. 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[3] |
| limitation | Electrode placement was clinically determined, so the sites at which each repetition effect could be detected were constrained by each patient's coverage. 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[4] |
| limitation | Repetition enhancement was significant at individual sites but failed to reach significance in any region-of-interest group 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. | limitations[5] |
| limitation | Only short (few-second) repetition delays were tested, whereas the models at issue concern long-lasting representational change. 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[6] |
| limitation | The design and analyses cannot adjudicate the sharpening or synchrony models. 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[7] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Behavioral priming was accompanied by suppressed high gamma activity in ventral occipito-temporal cortex, left prefrontal cortex and other activated sites, plus a shift of activity to earlier time points in sensorimotor regions that mediate speaking. 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 | Repetition also increased activation at 30 sites in lateral frontal, parietal and temporal cortex, but never in ventral occipito-temporal cortex, so repetition enhancement and suppression occupy different territory. 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 | Repeated stimuli produced a statistically significant increase in high gamma propagation from left prefrontal cortex into ventral occipito-temporal cortex beginning about 100 ms after stimulus onset. 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 | The repetition-related rise in top-down propagation became significant numerically earlier than repetition suppression in VOTC. 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 | Within individual patients, novel stimuli drove propagation mainly bottom-up, from VOTC to LPFC. 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 | Repeated trials showed no consistent shift of VOTC activation to earlier latencies, as the facilitation model predicted. 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 | Repetition suppression emerged in ventral occipito-temporal cortex at about 140 ms but only reached significance in left prefrontal cortex at about 280 ms. 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] |
| finding | Repetition enhancement, although present at individual electrodes, did not survive group-level statistics in any region of interest. 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[7] |
| quantity | t(9) = 6.015, p < 0.001 — Group-level paired t-test confirming faster responses to repeated than to novel pictures across the ten patients 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 | 962 — Total number of recording sites sampled across all ten patients 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 | 58 sites — Number of recording sites showing repetition suppression 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 | 30 sites — Number of recording sites showing repetition enhancement, none of them in VOTC 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 | 10 sites — Number of recording sites showing only a temporal shift in peak activation 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 | ~ 280 ms vs ~ 140 ms — Onset latency of significant repetition suppression in LPFC compared with VOTC 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] |
| quantity | 12–21 — Number of electrodes selected per patient for inclusion in the multivariate autoregressive model 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[6] |
| quantity | Ten patients — Sample size: epilepsy surgery patients with subdural ECoG who performed the object-naming 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[7] |
| variable | response 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[1] |
| variable | high gamma power (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[2] |
| variable | ERC (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 | word frequency (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[4] |
| variable | baseline power (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[5] |
| definition | repetition suppression 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 | behavioral 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[1] |
| definition | event related causality (ERC) 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 | predictive coding 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 | facilitation model 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 | synchrony model 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 | behavioral priming — not defined in this paper's own words; the behavioural half of the paradox - faster responses with repetition - and the paper attaches a clinical stake to it: this implicit learning is 'critical for survival but impaired in a variety of neurological disorders, including Alzheimer's disease' 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 | repetition suppression — not defined in this paper's own words; the neural half, pointing the other way, and here it is LOCALISED: ventral occipito-temporal cortex and left prefrontal cortex, measured directly from the cortical surface 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 | repetition enhancement — not defined in this paper's own words; the third effect, and the one the literature's framing does not predict - some sites got MORE active with repetition. Reported against the grain and, at group level, not statistically significant 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 | electrocorticography — not defined in this paper's own words; the reason this paper can adjudicate where reviews could not - electrodes on the cortical surface of epilepsy patients, giving the spatial-temporal precision that noninvasive methods lacked 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 | predictive coding — not defined in this paper's own words; the model the results are taken to support, and the evidence is a TIMING claim rather than a magnitude one: top-down propagation arrives BEFORE the suppression it is supposed to explain 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] |
| paired t-test t | as written: paired t -test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons 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] |
| sign test | as written: nonparametric sign test 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] |
| false discovery rate correction for multiple comparisons q | as written: FDR corrected for multiple comparisons at every time point 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] |
| one-tailed t-test t | as written: one-sided t-test with FDR correction 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] |
| multivariate autoregressive model order selection by Akaike Information Criterion AIC | as written: Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) 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] |
| confidence interval | as written: 95% joint 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[5] |
| multitaper spectral estimation | as written: multi-taper algorithm from the Chronux toolbox 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] |
| penalized spline regression | as written: statistical testing (penalized thin-plate spline) 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] |
| standard deviation and median absolute deviation MAD | as written: standard deviations ... median absolute deviations (MAD) 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[8] |
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