phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | masked repetition priming of pictures— “This experiment examined invariance in object representations through measuring event-related potentials (ERPs) to pictures in a masked repetition priming paradigm.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “This experiment found that both early (N190/P190 effects) and later effects (N400) were invariant to size, whereas only the N190/P190 effect was invariant to mirror reflection.” | |
| method — evidence | — “The EEG (250 Hz sampling rate, bandpass 0.01 and 40 Hz) was recorded continuously (SA Instruments amplifier, San Diego, CA) and ERPs were averaged time-locked to the onset of targets.” | |
| mechanism | Object recognition proceeds hierarchically: perceptual overlap between prime and target must first be established before a higher-level semantic representation can be activated, so blocking the early overlap blocks the later effect.— “Taken together, the results of this set of experiments suggests that object recognition, more specifically, activating an object representation, occurs in a hierarchical fashion where overlapping perceptual information between the prime and target is necessary, although not always sufficient, to activate a higher level semantic… | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Insufficient pooling: many neurons coding low-level features may fire to both prime and target, yet not enough of their activity converges to drive the sparser, more complex intermediate representation.— “It is possible that a large number of neurons are active to encode perceptual features of the prime object that overlap with the target object, but there is not sufficient activation to pool together to activate an intermediate representation that relies on a more complex integration of these features.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Receptive-field displacement: mirror reflection moves the prime-activated features outside the receptive fields of the cells that the target activates, so no priming benefit accrues.— “If the mirror reflection is placing visual features activated by the prime outside the receptive field of a cell activated for the target, then no benefit in priming would be expected.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | Compensation cost: reconciling a prime and target that differ in both size and left-right orientation demands extra processing effort, which shows up as a reduced (here absent) N190/P190 priming effect.— “If a compensation process must equate the prime and target as the same when they are different sizes and mirror reflected, an increase in processing effort (as indicated by greater amplitude for the repeated condition and less of an N190/P190) would be expected, like the effect observed in the current experiment.” | mechanisms[3] |
| contradicts | Fiser and Biederman (2001)— “This finding of an attenuated N400 effect for the mirror reflected condition is inconsistent with the findings of Fiser and Biederman (2001) who found intact priming effects regardless of left-right orientation.” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | Chauncey et al. (2008) masked size-priming study with words— “This finding is consistent with the findings of intact series of priming effects with changes in word size by Chauncey et al. (2008) as well as findings in neurophysiological studies (e.g., Ito et al., 1995 ) where a significant change in size still led to invariant firing the inferior temporal (IT) cortex of monkey.” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | Eddy et al. (2006) masked repetition priming of pictures— “The aim of this experiment was to address how the series of ERP components observed in masked repetition picture priming ( Eddy et al., 2006 ) are affected by changes in physical features of the stimuli.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | PRIMING IS THE INSTRUMENT AND INVARIANCE IS THE SUBJECT, stated in the abstract's first sentence: `This experiment examined invariance in object representations through measuring event-related potentials (ERPs) to pictures in a masked repetition priming paradigm.` Whether priming SURVIVES a transformation is the measurement of whether the representation is invariant to it - so the experiment is about object representation, and priming is the apparatus. The pickering2008 distinction in a third literature, after Argiris2021— “This experiment examined invariance in object representations through measuring event-related potentials (ERPs) to pictures in a masked repetition priming paradigm” | senses[0] |
| sense | NECESSARY, ALTHOUGH NOT ALWAYS SUFFICIENT - an explicit logical qualifier, which is rare enough in this corpus to be worth a row of its own. `overlapping perceptual information between the prime and target is necessary, although not always sufficient, to activate a higher level semantic representation.` Necessity and the denial of sufficiency in one clause, and the design earns both halves separately: the mirror condition gives early overlap WITHOUT the later effect (not sufficient), and the size-mirror condition removes the early effect and the later one with it (necessary). The record's mechanisms[0] paraphrases only the necessity half— “Taken together, the results of this set of experiments suggests that object recognition, more specifically, activating an object representation, occurs in a hierarchical fashion where overlapping perceptual information between the prime and target is necessary, although not always sufficient, to activate a higher level semantic… | senses[1] |
| sense | THE LATE STAGE IS MORE INVARIANT THAN THE EARLY ONE, which is the opposite of the obvious ordering. `The N400 unlike the N190/P190 appears to be FULLY invariant to size, since the repetition effect for the small prime condition DID NOT DIFFER from the repetition effect for the identity priming condition` - a null stated with its statistical basis attached. The early perceptual effect survives the same manipulation but pays for it: it `compensates for differences in size, but not without a small processing cost`. So invariance is not a property a representation has or lacks; it is graded, and it is cheaper further up— “Importantly though, the N400 unlike the N190/P190 appears to be fully invariant to size, since the repetition effect for the small prime condition did not differ from the repetition effect for the identity priming condition” | senses[2] |
| sense | THE ERP CASCADE TURNS `IS IT INVARIANT?` INTO `WHEN DOES IT STOP BEING INVARIANT?` The conclusion says exactly this: the results `help elucidate the time course of previous fMRI findings of size invariance in adaptation paradigms and also when during object processing left-right arrangement of objects becomes important for activating an object representation.` fMRI adaptation can say a region is invariant; a component sequence can say at which stage the invariance ends. That is the methodological reason this paper exists, and it is a claim about what its instrument can resolve rather than about objects— “The results of this study help elucidate the time course of previous fMRI findings of size invariance in adaptation paradigms and also when during object processing left-right arrangement of objects becomes important for activating an object representation” | senses[3] |
| control | twelve counterbalanced lists, so each repeated and unrepeated object appears an equal number of times across participants while appearing in only one condition for any single participant — held — rules out item effects - that a difference between repeated and unrepeated objects is a property of which objects happened to fall in which condition— “Twelve counterbalanced lists resulted in each repeated and unrepeated object being presented an equal number of times across participants, but each object being presented in only one trial for each participant.” | controls[0] |
| audit | invariance —operationalised-as→ masked repetition priming — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says invariance was examined through ERPs in a masked repetition priming paradigm; operationalised-as is loose.— “This experiment examined invariance in object representations through measuring event-related potentials (ERPs) to pictures in a masked repetition priming paradigm” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | invariance —operationalised-as→ masked repetition priming — The instrument relation, and the paper's own first sentence states it: invariance is examined THROUGH a masked repetition priming paradigm. Weighted 0.95 because this is a statement of what the experiment does, not an inference from its results.— “This experiment examined invariance in object representations through measuring event-related potentials (ERPs) to pictures in a masked repetition priming paradigm” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | invariance —operationalised-as→ masked repetition priming — 0.95— “This experiment examined invariance in object representations through measuring event-related potentials (ERPs) to pictures in a masked repetition priming paradigm” | concept_edges[0] |
| differs in | N190/P190 —contrasted-with→ N400 — WHICH TRANSFORMATION EACH TOLERATES. Both survive a halving of the prime; only the early one survives mirror reflection of the target. The two manipulations are therefore indistinguishable at the perceptual stage and separate at the semantic one, which is how the paper locates where left-right arrangement starts to matter— “This experiment found that both early (N190/P190 effects) and later effects (N400) were invariant to size, whereas only the N190/P190 effect was invariant to mirror reflection”— “only the N190/P190 effect was invariant to mirror reflection” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | N190/P190 —contrasted-with→ N400 — THE PAPER'S CORE DISSOCIATION, and the span carries both arms of it so a reader cannot take half. Grounded on the abstract's result sentence rather than the discussion because this is the one place both components and both transformations appear together.— “This experiment found that both early (N190/P190 effects) and later effects (N400) were invariant to size, whereas only the N190/P190 effect was invariant to mirror reflection” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | N190/P190 —contrasted-with→ N400 — 0.9— “This experiment found that both early (N190/P190 effects) and later effects (N400) were invariant to size, whereas only the N190/P190 effect was invariant to mirror reflection” | concept_edges[1] |
| audit | mirror reflection —causes→ N400 — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says mirror reflection APPEARS to be enough to attenuate the N400; hedged.— “The rearrangement of spatial configuration of parts (by mirror reflection) appears to be enough to attenuate the N400 effect, which suggests the hierarchical processing of perceptual features to semantic features was interrupted by this manipulation” | concept_edges[2] |
| effect direction | mirror reflection —causes→ N400 — reduces— “The rearrangement of spatial configuration of parts (by mirror reflection) appears to be enough to attenuate the N400 effect, which suggests the hierarchical processing of perceptual features to semantic features was interrupted by this manipulation”— “appears to be enough to attenuate the N400 effect” | concept_edges[2] |
| note | mirror reflection —causes→ N400 — 'reduces' AND NOT 'eliminates', WHICH IS A CALL AND IT WENT AGAINST THE OBVIOUS READING. The result sentence says 'no significant N400 effect was observed' and the record's existing content_tags.findings[6] says the effect was 'eliminated ... altogether' - but the discussion's own verb for the same result is ATTENUATE, and a non-significant effect is not a demonstrated zero. The paper's weaker word is the one inside the quote. Weight 0.85 and 'appears to be' left in for the same reason.— “The rearrangement of spatial configuration of parts (by mirror reflection) appears to be enough to attenuate the N400 effect, which suggests the hierarchical processing of perceptual features to semantic features was interrupted by this manipulation” | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | mirror reflection —causes→ N400 — 0.85— “The rearrangement of spatial configuration of parts (by mirror reflection) appears to be enough to attenuate the N400 effect, which suggests the hierarchical processing of perceptual features to semantic features was interrupted by this manipulation” | concept_edges[2] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | contested | |
| limitation | Object symmetry was not controlled, so the surviving early mirror effect may be an artefact of symmetric items.— “One factor that was not controlled for was how symmetrical objects were when mirror reflected.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The early mirror-reflection priming effect may reflect global shape overlap rather than internal object features.— “It is possible this effect was mainly driven by overlap in overall shape of the prime and target, rather than internal… | limitations[1] |
| limitation | No N300 effect was obtained in any condition, possibly because the rapid presentation rate merged it with the N400. | limitations[2] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Masked repetition priming of pictures produced early (N190/P190) and late (N400) ERP effects that were invariant to size, while only the early effect was invariant to mirror reflection. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Combining a small prime with a mirror-reflected target produced no significant priming effects. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Even in the earliest window, the small-prime-plus-mirror condition produced no reliable repetition effect (F<3, p>0.065). | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | No significant N300 repetition effect appeared in any condition. 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 | The N400 was fully size-invariant: the small-prime repetition effect was statistically indistinguishable from the identity 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. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | The early N190/P190 compensated for differences in size, but with a small processing cost. 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 | Mirror-reflecting the target eliminated the N400 repetition effect altogether. 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 | The failure of priming in the combined small-prime/mirror-target condition is attributable to the mirror reflection rather than to the prime size, since small primes alone still primed and mirror targets alone did not. 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] |
| finding | Target d' averaged 4.45 and 4.75, significantly above the prime items' d' in both prime-size conditions. 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[8] |
| quantity | n = 24 — participants, undergraduates with a mean age of 19.6 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.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 620 — colour photographs of common objects used as stimuli, each 256 x 256 pixels 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 | 390 — trials viewed per subject, each a unique prime-target pair 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 | 110 ms — prime-target stimulus onset asynchrony held constant across conditions 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 | 1.81 — d' for detecting a normal-size food prime (1.71 for a small food prime), indicating primes were not identifiable 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 | 4.45 — d' for food items in the target position after a normal-size filler prime (4.75 after a small prime) 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 | approximately 15% — trials discarded for blinks, eye movements or muscle artifact before averaging 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 | F(1,23) = 11.295, p = 0.003, η p 2 = 0.329 — midline main effect of repetition for the identity condition in the N400 window 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] |
| quantity | F<3, p > 0.065 — non-significant repetition effect in the early window for the small-prime/mirror-target condition 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[8] |
| variable | prime size (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 | mirror reflection of the target (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 | repetition (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 | Mean amplitude (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 | electrode site (moderator) 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 | counterbalanced lists (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] |
| variable | stimulus onset-asynchrony (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[8] |
| variable | inter-trial interval (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[9] |
| definition | identity condition 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 | size condition 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 | mirror condition 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 | size-mirror condition 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 | repetition 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[4] |
| definition | N190/P190 component 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] |
| definition | N400 component 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[6] |
| definition | adaptation 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[7] |
| concept | invariance — not defined in this paper's own words; the property under test, and the paper's own general term for it: whether an object representation survives a transformation of the image. Its title says 'size invariance', but every body use of that phrase is about prior work - the claims here are built on this word, and the transformations are named separately 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 | masked repetition priming — not defined in this paper's own words; THE INSTRUMENT, not the subject: whether priming survives a transformation is how invariance is measured here. Masking matters to the argument because it limits the measurement to fast feed-forward processing, before any feedback could compensate 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 | N190/P190 — not defined in this paper's own words; the early index, read as perceptual - and the component that turns out to be invariant to BOTH transformations, though never for free 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 | N400 — not defined in this paper's own words; the late index, read as semantic - and the one that separates the two transformations: fully invariant to a halved prime, absent when the target is mirror reflected 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 | mirror reflection — not defined in this paper's own words; the transformation that breaks the hierarchy: it preserves the object's parts and coarse outline, so the early effect survives it, but it rearranges their spatial configuration, and that is where the semantic stage stops following 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] |
| concept | object recognition — not defined in this paper's own words; the phenomenon the whole apparatus is aimed at, and the paper's claim about it is a LOGICAL one rather than a quantitative one: it proceeds hierarchically, and perceptual overlap is necessary but not always sufficient to reach the semantic stage 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[5] |
| repeated-measures ANOVA F | as written: repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| Greenhouse-Geisser correction | as written: Geisser and Greenhouse (1959) 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[1] |
| effect size (partial eta squared) η p 2 | as written: partial eta squared (η p 2 ) values were reported to assess effect size Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| t-test t | as written: t(23) = 1.119, p = 0.275 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] |
| d-prime (signal detection sensitivity) d’ | as written: The average d’ was calculated 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 | as written: Mean amplitude measurements 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 deviation SD | as written: SD = 1.2 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[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