Single gene alterations have been estimated to account for nearly half of neurodevelopmental conditions (NDCs), providing a crucial opportunity for animal models to understand the underlying mechanisms, causes and potential treatments. The use of systematic reviews (SRs) can, in principle, provide a powerful means to synthesise this evidence-base; however, the reporting quality of previous SRs in preclinical animal research has been found lacking (Hunniford et al., 2021). In the current study, Wilson et al. (2023) will undertake an umbrella review – a systematic review of systematic reviews – to assess the characteristics and reporting quality of SRs that, in turn, synthesise research in genetically-modified animals to model NDCs. In particular, the authors will extract key features of reviews (including, among others, the aim and primary research questions, relevant animal model, and number of studies in the SR), in addition to quality indicators such as risk of bias and completeness of reporting. In doing so, the authors aim to enhance guidance on the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in this area.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/952qk

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exists AND is accessible in principle to the authors BUT the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.

 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

1. Hunniford V. T., Montroy J., Fergusson D. A., Avey M. T., Wever K. E., McCann S. K., Foster M., Fox G., Lafreniere M., Ghaly M., Mannell S., Godwinska K., Gentles A., Selim S., MacNeil J., Sikora L., Sena E. S., Page M. J., Macleod M., Moher D., & Lalu M. M. (2021). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews. PLOS Biology, 19:e3001177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001177

 

2. Wilson, E., Currie, G., Macleod, M., Kind, P. & Sena, E. S. (2023). Genetically-modified animals as models of neurodevelopmental conditions: an umbrella review, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/952qk

Paid loot boxes – items bought for real-world money that offer randomised rewards – are a prevalent feature of contemporary video games (Zendle et al., 2020). Because they employ random chance to provide rewards after spending real money, loot boxes have been considered a form of gambling, raising concerns about risk of harm to children and other vulnerable users. In response, some countries have taken legal steps to regulate and even ban the use of loot boxes, with only limited success so far (Xiao, 2022). At the same time, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) now expect games that contain loot boxes to be marked with warning labels that, in theory, will enable users (including parents) to make more informed decisions. These requirements by ESRB/PEGI are not legally binding and may be considered a form of industry self-regulation.

 

In the current study, Xiao (2023) will investigate the effectiveness of self-regulation in the use of loot box labels. Study 1 examines the consistency of warning labels by the ESRB and PEGI, with the expectation that if self-regulation works as it should then these labels should always (or nearly always) co-occur. Study 2 establishes the compliance rate for labelling among popular games that are known to contain loot boxes, with a rate of ≥95% considered to be successful. The findings should prove useful in identifying the success or failure of self-regulation as a means of ensuring industry compliance with loot box labelling.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/e6qbm

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they have not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

 

1. Zendle, D., Meyer, R., Cairns, P., Waters, S., & Ballou, N. (2020). The prevalence of loot boxes in mobile and desktop games. Addiction, 115(9), 1768-1772. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14973

2. Xiao, L. Y. (2022). Breaking Ban: Belgium’s ineffective gambling law regulation of video game loot boxes. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hnd7w 

 

3. Xiao, L. Y. (2023). Beneath the label: Assessing video games’ compliance with ESRB and PEGI loot box warning label industry self-regulation, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/e6qbm

Rapid learning in response to pain is a crucial survival mechanism, relying on forming associations between cues in the environment and subsequent pain or injury. Existing evidence suggests that associations between conditioned stimuli (cues) and unconditioned aversive stimuli (such as pain) are learned faster than for appetitive stimuli that signal pain relief. In addition, when the link between a conditioned and unconditioned stimulus is broken (by unpairing them), the extinction of this learning effect is slower for aversive that appetitive stimuli, resulting in a flatter extinction slope. Understanding why extinction slopes are reduced for aversive stimuli is important for advancing theoretical models of learning, and for devising ways of increasing the slope (and thus facilitating extinction learning) could help develop more effective methods of pain relief, particularly in the treatment of chronic pain.

 

In the current programmatic submission, Busch et al. (2023) will undertake two Registered Reports to test whether a verbal instruction intervention that explicitly informs participants about contingency changes between conditioned and unconditioned stimuli facilitates extinction learning, especially for aversive (painful) stimuli, and how changes in extinction learning relate to neural biomarkers of functional connectivity. In the first Registered Report, they will initially seek to replicate previous findings including faster acquisition of aversive than appetitive conditioned stimuli as well as incomplete extinction of aversive conditioned stimuli without verbal instruction. They will then test how the instruction intervention alters extinction slopes and the completeness of extinction for appetitive and aversive stimuli, using a range of behavioral measures (expectancy and valence ratings) and physiological measures (pupillometry, skin conductance responses). To shed light on the neural correlates of these processes, in the second Registered Report the authors will use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to ask firstly how acquisition and extinction of aversive and appetitive conditioned responses are related to resting state brain connectivity within a network that includes ventromedial prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and striatum, and secondly, whether the effectiveness of instruction on extinction learning is associated with differences in resting state connectivity across this network.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/cj75p (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:
 

 

1. Busch, L., Wiech, K., Gamer, M., Knicses, B., Spisak, T., Schmidt, K., & Bingel, U. (2023). Modulatory effects of instructions on extinction efficacy in appetitive and aversive learning: A registered report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/cj75p

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a mental illness affecting ~1 in 100 people (Ellison et al., 2018), characterised by emotional dysregulation, impulsivity, a distorted sense of self, and a long-term pattern of unstable interpersonal relationships. Among this heterogenous range of symptoms is difficulty in the cognitive dimension of empathy, in particular understanding the perspectives of others, which in turn has been suggested to rely on the mirror neuron system, both in the motor and somatosensory domains. The integrity of the mirror system has therefore been a focus for understanding the possible causes or consequences of the disorder, with preliminary studies pointing to hypoactivity of neuronal areas associated with the mirror system in BPD (Mier et al., 2013).

 

In the current study, Zazio et al. (2023) will use crossmodal paired associative stimulation (cm-PAS) in which an image of a hand being touched is repeatedly paired with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) to test the hypothesis that BPD is associated with a specific deficit in the tactile mirror system. In healthy controls, the close temporal coupling (20ms) between the visual depiction of tactile stimulation and TMS of S1 is expected boost tactile acuity and elevate the performance cost of incongruence in a task that manipulates visuo-tactile spatial congruity (VTSC) – effects that are thought to reflect the fidelity of the tactile mirror system.

 

In BPD patients, however, the authors make the crucial prediction that impairment of the tactile mirror system (if present) will lead to a reduced (or even non-existent) effect of cm-PAS on tactile acuity and VTSC task performance compared to healthy controls. To help ensure a severe test of this hypothesis, the design includes a variety of controls, including an attention check, control cm-PAS in which the inter-stimulus interval is increased to 100ms to break the close temporal coupling between visual stimulation and TMS, and a positive control to confirm that active cm-PAS (compared to control cm-PAS) produces the expected boost in tactile acuity in healthy controls.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/ge2rm
 
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. Ellison, W. D., Rosenstein, L. K., Morgan, T. A., & Zimmerman, M. (2018). Community and clinical epidemiology of borderline personality disorder. Psychiatric Clinics, 41, 561-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2018.07.008

2. Mier, D., Lis, S., Esslinger, C., Sauer, C., Hagenhoff, M., Ulferts, J., Gallhofer, B. & Kirsch, P. (2013). Neuronal correlates of social cognition in borderline personality disorder. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 531-537. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss028

 

2. Zazio, A., Guidali, G., Rossi, R., Bolognini, N. & Bortoletto, A. (2023). Cortical plasticity of the tactile mirror system in borderline personality disorder, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ge2rm

Numeracy – the ability to understand and work with numbers – is associated with a wide range of social and health-related outcomes, including socioeconomic status, employment, literacy, reasoning, and life satisfaction. A substantial body of evidence has also shown links between numeracy and decision-making, prompting the question of how it relates to finer-grained measures of reasoning, judgment and affect/emotion.

 

In the current study, Zhu and Feldman repeated four influential experiments from a study by Peters et al. (2006), which reported links between numeracy and performance on a variety of decision-making tasks, including attribute framing, frequency-percentage framing, susceptibility to affective influences, and various cognitive biases. The authors also explored several extended questions, including refinements of the original hypotheses and an examination of the relationship between numeracy and confidence in numeric judgments (subjective numeracy).

 

The results broadly constitute a successful replication, with higher numeracy associated with weaker attribute framing and susceptibility to bias. The relationship between numeracy and the frequency-percentage framing effect – that is, the change in decision-making when numbers are presented as frequencies (e.g. 5 out of 100) rather than percentages (e.g. 5%) – was inconclusive for the main analysis that treated numeracy as a categorical variable (low vs. high); however the link emerged reliably in exploratory analyses that considered numeracy as a continuous variable. The outcomes of the extended analyses were mixed, revealing evidence for a potentially weak relationship between numeracy and confidence.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewer's comments, 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/r73fb

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA. 

 

 

 

 

1. Zhu, M. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the links between numeracy and decision making: Replication Registered Report of Peters et al. (2006) with an extension examining confidence. Acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/62wqb

 

2. Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17, 407-413. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9280.2006.01720.x