‘Pseudoneglect’ is a small, lateralised bias of visuospatial attention towards the left side of space, and is typically observed in healthy adults. Recently, Strauch et al. (2022) reported that bright stimuli presented in the left visual field induced a greater constriction of the pupil (the pupillary light reflex) compared to the same bright stimuli presented in the right visual field. Further, the pupillary restriction bias was positively correlated with a behavioural measure of pseudoneglect (the greyscales task). This is potentially an important development for attention research, because the passive nature of the task, in addition to the ability to track the time course of the bias measures, could provide a new, and highly sensitive, method of studying spatial attention.

 

In this report, Burns and McIntosh (2023) aim to replicate and extend the study of Strauch et al. (2022). The extension centres around investigating whether the pupillary biases are influenced by recording pupillary responses from the right or left eye. In their pilot replication data, Burns & McIntosh identified a larger constriction in response to stimuli on the right side when recording from the right eye. They hypothesise that pupillary biases may be stronger to stimuli presented in the ipsilateral, rather than contralateral, side of space.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed over 2 rounds by 2 reviewers, including the authors of the study being replicated. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments and edits to the Stage 1 report, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:
 

 

1. Strauch, C., Romein, C., Naber, M., Van der Stigchel, S. & Ten Brink, A. F. (2022). The orienting response drives pseudoneglect—Evidence from an objective pupillometric method. Cortex, 151, 259-271.

 
2. Burns, N. E. & McIntosh, R. D. (2023). Does pupillometry provide a valid measure of spatial attentional bias (pseudoneglect)? In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ua9jn

Vocal sounds, including both speech and non-speech sounds, have been found to activate the Superior Temporal Sulci and Gyri in comparison to non-vocal sounds. These regions, termed Temporal Voice Areas (TVAs), are considered to be involved in early voice processing and therefore critical for social interaction. TVA activation has been examined in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) to determine if the characteristic difficulties in social communication and interaction are linked to an impaired early voice processing. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), one study found typical brain activation in TVAs for 15 out of 16 autistic participants (Schelinski et al., 2016), whereas another found atypical activation in 4 out of 5 autistic participants (Gervais et al., 2004).

 

Here, the inconsistencies in the previous literature propel Gautier et al. (2023) to examine brain activation of TVAs with a larger sample size (26 ASD and 26 non-ASD participants). Gautier et al. (2023) will present vocal sounds and non-vocal sounds to both groups of participants during fMRI and predict that fewer participants in the ASD group will show a preferential response to voices in TVAs compared to the non-ASD group. These results would suggest that symptoms of ASD interfere with early stages of social interaction, at the level of voice processing.

 

This Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated in an initial round by the co-recommenders and another two rounds of in-depth review by two expert reviewers. With these revisions, the recommenders judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/538m4
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

References
 
1. Gautier, R., Houy-Durand, E., Barantin, L., Briend, F. & Latinus, M. (2023). Cortical voice processing in Autism Spectrum Disorder. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/538m4

What are the neurophysiological correlates of paired associative stimulation (PAS) in inducing plastic changes in human motor cortex (M1)? Here, Arrigoni and colleagues (2024) will apply transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to left M1 paired with electrical stimulation of the right median nerve at an ISI of 25 ms or 10 ms to induce long-term potentiation (LTP) or long-term depression (LTD), respectively. Arrigoni and colleagues (2024) will determine if these stimulation pairings effect cortical excitability using motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs). Specifically, they hypothesize PASLTP will increase the peak-to-peak amplitude of MEPs, whereas PASLTD will decrease the amplitude, replicating previous work. They will then extend these previous findings by examining TEPs. The authors anticipate modulation of the P30 and P60, which are TEPs thought to reflect local cortical excitability. They plan to account for the MEP reafference which may also mediate the P60 amplitude by stimulating at sub- and supra- motor threshold. Further, they hypothesize an increase of the N100, a marker of inhibitory processing mediated by GABA, by PASLTD. Finally, the authors will also examine the impact of cortical excitability over time to determine the duration of the PAS effects.   

 

This detailed examination of TEPs following PAS stimulation will determine which TEPs could be used as biomarkers with the induction of LTP and LTD through stimulation. The authors have built in an MEP replication for the PAS stimulation, supporting previous literature and acting as a positive control.  

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by three expert reviewers across two rounds. Following in-depth review and responses from the authors, the recommender determined that Stage 1 criteria was met and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/detjc (under temporary private embargo)
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA. 
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

References
 
1. Arrigoni, E., Bolognini, N., Pisoni, A. & Guidali, G. (2024). Neurophysiological correlates of plasticity induced by paired associative stimulation (PAS) targeting the motor cortex: a TMS-EEG registered report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/detjc

What determines whether groups of people can come up with ideas that are both original and useful? Since the 1960s, this question has been intensively studied with the help of more or less structured group creativity activities such as brainstorming or creative problem solving, with subsequent rating of the generated ideas.

In this line of research, personal factors—such as personality traits, and other interindividual differences in emotion and cognition—have received substantial attention as potential correlates of creative outcomes of group activities. This has spawned a sprawling literature that, to date, has not yet been synthesized. Thus, empirical findings in this literature, which are also sometimes contradictory, have not yet been well-integrated.

In the present study, Fillon et al. (2022) conducted the first meta-analysis of correlations between personal factors and group creativity outcomes. The authors searched and synthesized the existing published literature according to predetermined criteria to (1) assess the overall relationship between a broad list of personal factors and creativity outcomes in group settings and (2) explore potential moderators of these relationships. 

In total, 11 studies could be included in the meta-analysis. They provided weak support for a positive correlation between self-efficacy and the three investigated group creative outcomes, number of ideas, originality of ideas, and usefulness of ideas. With respect to moderators, many of the planned analyses could not be conducted due to the low number of studies. The only finding that arose was weak evidence for the idea that time constraint moderates associations: relationships between personal factors and group creativity outcomes were slightly stronger for tasks limited to 20 minutes rather than 10 minutes. Statistical power overall was low across studies.

The authors conclude their meta-analysis with the observation that the available data on the topic are very limited. They suggest that to improve our knowledge of the topic, future studies should adhere to standardized creativity methods and protocols and implement expert ratings of creativity. They also call for increasing the availability of raw data in this field of study to improve the accumulation of knowledge about links between personal factors and the creative performance of groups.

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review provided by the recommender and Chris Chambers, as the original reviewers were no longer available. Based on additional changes to the manuscript, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/nybg6
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that was used to answer the research question had been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certified that had not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence prior to IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

The Bayesian Truth Serum, first introduced by Prelec (2004) rewards participants based on how surprisingly common their own answers are in relation to the actual distribution of answers. As such, it has been suggested as a possible incentive-compatible design for survey studies in different disciplines that rely on participants’ self-reports about their true preferences (Schoenegger, 2021). 

 

In this study, Schoenegger and Verheyen propose to replicate the results reported by Schoenegger (2021) and to directly investigate whether the effect elicited by the manipulations known as the Bayesian Truth Serum is distinct from its separate constituent parts. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments and edits to the stage 1 report, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.

 

 

 

 

1. Prelec, D. (2004). A Bayesian Truth Serum for Subjective Data. Science, 306(5695), 462-466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102081

 

2. Schoenegger, P. (2021). Experimental Philosophy and the Incentivisation Challenge: a Proposed Application of the Bayesian Truth Serum. Review of Philosophy and Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00571-4 

 

3. Schoenegger, P., & Verheyen, S. (2022). Taking A Closer Look At The Bayesian Truth Serum: A Registered Report. Stage 1 Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/dkvms