Previous research has demonstrated that experimental participants – both adults and infants – can track syllable co-occurrences in an artificial speech stream. This statistical learning (SL) is thought to support word segmentation and to be a core component of language acquisition. There is also some evidence that SL, as measured through artificial language tasks, is related to individual differences in language learning. What is not well understood is the underpinnings of individual differences in SL. In the current study, van der Wulp et al. (2023) will investigate the relationship between auditory SL and musical – specifically rhythmic – abilities. This work takes advantage of recent methodological innovations which allow online assessment of SL via electroencephalography (EEG) measures of neural entrainment. Up to N=105 participants will be recruited (using a well specified optional stopping procedure) and will be exposed to an artificial language using this EEG method to measure their response to the language through the exposure phase. In addition, post-tests will assess participants’ learning of the artificial language using behavioural tasks, as well as their abilities in a battery of tasks measuring rhythmic, musical, and cognitive abilities, and their vocabulary size. Core analyses will investigate whether the neural signature of statistical learning is found at a group level (i.e. replicating previous work) and whether at the individual level this is related to rhythm perception. Bayes factors will be used to assess the extent of evidence for these hypothesized relationships over the null. Exploratory analyses will explore other relationships, including with working memory and vocabulary size. 

 

The topic of individual differences in language learning and is important, but work in this area is often underpowered, and the correlational nature of the research makes it vulnerable to HARKing. In this context, the current RR looks set to make an important contribution. The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review by the recommender and two expert reviewers, and one additional round of review by the recommender, before issuing 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:
 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Brain and Neuroscience Advances
• Collabra: Psychology
• Cortex
• Experimental Psychology
  
• Imaging Neuroscience
• In&Vertebrates
• Journal of Cognition
• NeuroImage: Reports
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica

 

References
 
1. van der Wulp, I. M., Struiksma, M. E., Batterink, L. J., & Wijnen, F. N. K. (2023). Investigating individual differences in linguistic statistical learning and their relation to rhythmic and cognitive abilities: A speech segmentation experiment with online neural tracking. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/2y6sx

 

 

Over the past decade there has been an exponential increase in the number of research papers utlising nanoparticles for biological applications such as intracellular sensing [1, 2], theranostics [3-5] and more recently drug delivery and precision medicine [6, 7]. Despite the success stories, there is a disconnect regarding current dogma on issues such as nanoparticle uptake and trafficking, nanoparticle delivery via the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect, and endosomal escape. Critical re-evaluation of these concepts both conceptually and experimentally is needed for continued advancement in the field.

 

For this preregistration, Said et al. (2024) focus on nanoparticle intracellular trafficking, specifically endosomal escape [8]. The current consensus in the literature is that nanoparticles enter cells via endocytosis [9, 10] but reportedly just 1-2% of nanoparticles/ nanoparticle probes escape endosomes and enter the cytoplasm [11-13]. There is therefore an apparent paradox over how sensing nanoparticles can detect their intended targets in the cytoplasm if they are trapped within the cell endosomes. To address this fundamental issue of nanoparticle endosomal escape, Lévy and coworkers are carrying out replication studies to thoroughly and transparently replicate the most influential papers in the field of nanoparticle sensing. The aim of these replication studies is twofold: to establish a robust methodology to study endosomal escape of nanoparticles, and to encourage discussions, transparency and a step-change in the field.  

 

 

For this replication study, the authors classified papers on the topic of nanoparticle sensing and subsequently ranked them by number of citations.  Based on this evaluation they selected a paper by Zhu and colleagues [14] entitled “Carbon-Dot-Based Dual-Emission Nanohybrid Produces a Ratiometric Fluorescent Sensor for In Vivo Imaging of Cellular Copper Ions” for their seminal replication study.  To determine the reproducibility of the results from Zhu et al., the authors aim to establish the proportion of endosomal escape of the nanoparticles, and to examine the data in a biological context relevant to the application of the probe.

 

 

The authors plan to replicate the exact conditions reported in the materials and methods section of the selected paper such as nanoparticle probe synthesis of CdSe@C-TPEA nanoparticles, assessment of particle size, stability and reactivity and effect on cells (TEM, pH experiments, fluorescent responsivity to metal ions and cell viability). In addition, Said et al., plan to include further experimental characterisation to complement the existing study by Zhu and colleagues. They will incorporate additional controls and methodology to determine the intracellular location of nanoparticle probes in cells including: quantifying excess fluorescence in the culture medium, live cell imaging analysis, immunofluorescence with endosomal and lysosomal markers, and electron microscopy of cell sections. The authors will also include supplementary viability studies to assess the impact of the nanoparticles on HeLa cells as well as an additional biologically relevant cell line (for use in conjunction with the HeLa cells as per the original paper).

 

The Stage 1 manuscript underwent two rounds of thorough in-depth review. After considering the detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommenders  determined that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).  

 

The authors have thoughtfully considered their experimental approach to the replication study, whilst acknowledging any potential limitations. Given that conducting such a replication study is novel in the field of Nanotechnology and there is currently no ‘gold standard’ approach in doing so, the authors have showed thoughtful regard of statistical analysis and unbiased methodology where possible.

 

Based on current information, this study is the first use of preregistration via Peer Community in Registered Reports and the first formalised replication study in Nanotechnology for Biosciences. The outcomes of this of this study will be significant both scientifically and in the wider context in discussion of the scientific method.

 

 
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. Howes, P. D., Chandrawati, R., & Stevens, M. M. (2014). Colloidal nanoparticles as advanced biological sensors. Science, 346(6205), 1247390. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1247390

 

2. Liu, C. G., Han, Y. H., Kankala, R. K., Wang, S. B., & Chen, A. Z. (2020). Subcellular performance of nanoparticles in cancer therapy. International Journal of Nanomedicine, 675-704. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S226186

 

3. Tang, W., Fan, W., Lau, J., Deng, L., Shen, Z., & Chen, X. (2019). Emerging blood–brain-barrier-crossing nanotechnology for brain cancer theranostics. Chemical Society Reviews, 48(11), 2967-3014. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8CS00805A

 

4. Yoon, Y. I., Pang, X., Jung, S., Zhang, G., Kong, M., Liu, G., & Chen, X. (2018). Smart gold nanoparticle-stabilized ultrasound microbubbles as cancer theranostics. Journal of Materials Chemistry B, 6(20), 3235-3239. https://doi.org/10.1039%2FC8TB00368H

 

5. Lin, H., Chen, Y., & Shi, J. (2018). Nanoparticle-triggered in situ catalytic chemical reactions for tumour-specific therapy. Chemical Society Reviews, 47(6), 1938-1958. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7CS00471K

 

6. Hou, X., Zaks, T., Langer, R., & Dong, Y. (2021). Lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery. Nature Reviews Materials, 6(12), 1078-1094. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00358-0

 

7. Mitchell, M. J., Billingsley, M. M., Haley, R. M., Wechsler, M. E., Peppas, N. A., & Langer, R. (2021). Engineering precision nanoparticles for drug delivery. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 20(2), 101-124. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-020-0090-8

 

8. Said, M., Gharib, M., Zrig, S., & Lévy, R. (2024). Replication of “Carbon-Dot-Based Dual-Emission Nanohybrid Produces a Ratiometric Fluorescent Sensor for In Vivo Imaging of Cellular Copper Ions”. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/qbxpf

 

9. Behzadi, S., Serpooshan, V., Tao, W., Hamaly, M. A., Alkawareek, M. Y., Dreaden, E. C., ... & Mahmoudi, M. (2017). Cellular uptake of nanoparticles: Journey inside the cell. Chemical Society Reviews, 46(14), 4218-4244. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6CS00636A

 

10. de Almeida, M. S., Susnik, E., Drasler, B., Taladriz-Blanco, P., Petri-Fink, A., & Rothen-Rutishauser, B. (2021). Understanding nanoparticle endocytosis to improve targeting strategies in nanomedicine. Chemical society reviews, 50(9), 5397-5434. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0CS01127D

 

11. Smith, S. A., Selby, L. I., Johnston, A. P., & Such, G. K. (2018). The endosomal escape of nanoparticles: toward more efficient cellular delivery. Bioconjugate Chemistry, 30(2), 263-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.8b00732

 

12. Cupic, K. I., Rennick, J. J., Johnston, A. P., & Such, G. K. (2019). Controlling endosomal escape using nanoparticle composition: current progress and future perspectives. Nanomedicine, 14(2), 215-223. https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm-2018-0326

 

13. Wang, Y., & Huang, L. (2013). A window onto siRNA delivery. Nature Biotechnology, 31(7), 611-612. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2634

 

14. Zhu, A., Qu, Q., Shao, X., Kong, B., & Tian, Y. (2012). Carbon-dot-based dual-emission nanohybrid produces a ratiometric fluorescent sensor for in vivo imaging of cellular copper ions. Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English), 51(29), 7185-7189. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201109089

‘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

This study by Ritchie and Wilbiks (2024) investigates whether the generation effect, a memory advantage for self-generated verbal information, is enhanced under multisensory conditions. It is designed to explore a gap in the literature regarding the interplay between the generation effect and multisensory facilitation, with potential applications in educational settings.

Exploring multisensory aspects of the generation effect, the study has the potential to provide new insights into cognitive processing and memory enhancement. It is well rooted in established theories of the generation effect and multisensory facilitation, deducing a reasonable hypothesis that multisensory processing amplifies the generation effect. By implementing a 2 (Task Type: generate vs. read) x 3 (Sensory Modality: auditory, visual, multisensory) factorial design, it ensures a comprehensive evaluation of multisensory benefits in the generation effect. The findings could inform multisensory learning strategies in educational contexts, enhancing teaching methods and learning outcomes.

Based on these considerations and two rounds of in-depth review, the recommender awarded in-principle acceptance of the study proposal. Its strong theoretical foundation and well-conceived methodology make it a valuable contribution to the fields of cognitive and educational psychology.

 

 

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.

 

 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra: Psychology
• Experimental Psychology
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice
  
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open
  
  

 

Ritchie, M. & Wilbiks, J. (2024). From Thought to Senses: Assessing the Relationship Between the Generation Effect and Multisensory Facilitation. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/3u7eh

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