People can represent quantities in different ways. Numbers can be represented non-symbolically through an Object Tracking System (for small quantities, when one immediately perceives how many objects are there) and an Approximate Number System (for large quantities), and symbolically, for example with Arabic symbols or words. One unresolved question is the extent to which using these numerical representations, and transferring between them, can be done automatically, or rather involves components of working memory. Key relevant working memory components are the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad.
 
In this study, Xenidou-Dervou and colleagues (2025) asked subjects to perform a dot comparison task with small and large numbers, to engage the non-symbolic systems, and a digit comparison task, to engage the symbolic system, and a cross modal task to engage translation between the systems. Participants either performed these tasks alone or with a secondary task, one that loaded either the phonological loop or else the visuospatial sketchpad. In the comparison of symbolic numerals, the visual secondary task itself was performed more poorly in dual rather than single task conditions, indicating the involvement of the visual spatial sketchpad in use of symbolic numerals. The visual secondary task interfered with non-symbolic number judgements, indicating involvement of the visuospatial sketch pad with the non-symbolic system as well. Finally, the translation between the systems also involved the visuospatial sketchpad, as shown by the secondary task itself suffering dual task interference. In sum, there was evidence for the visuospatial sketchpad, but not for the phonological loop, playing a role in simple comparisons using either or both of the symbolic and non-symbolic number systems. 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments and edits to the Stage 2 report, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria for recommendation.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/32qdw
 
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.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

 

Xenidou-Dervou, I., Appleton, C., Rossi, S., Guy, N., & Gilmore, C. (2025). Can adults automatically process and translate between numerical representations? [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/me6tn

The detour task, where an individual has to go around a see-through barrier in order to reach a goal, is one of the oldest paradigms used in animal cognition research (Kabadayi et al. 2018). While these previous tests have documented variation in the ability of animals to inhibit going straight for the visible reward, the cognitive underpinnings of this behaviour are as yet not fully understood. In the current study, Dewulf et al. (2025) assessed one of the specific cognitive processes that might be involved in this behaviour, the ability to identify the transparent object as a barrier. Through experimental procedures relying on large samples of individuals from four bird species, they compared the role of signal detection in inhibitory response performance in a detour task. The authors found that, unlike suggested in previous work with these four species (Regolin et al. 1994, Zucca et al. 2005), changing the markings on the barriers to potentially better match those experienced by individuals in their natural environments did not improve their performance. Nevertheless, the detailed further explorations suggest that in order to understand variation in how quickly individuals and species solve the detour task, it is important to consider that different cognitive processes are involved. Their work therefore provides a basis to better understand and further investigate why species might differ in their performance in the detour task.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review, the first round consisting of detailed comments from two reviewers and the second round consisting of a close read by the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

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.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/qvxgh
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

1. Dewulf, A., Garcia-Co, C., Müller, W., Madden, J.R., Martel, A., Lens, L. & Verbruggen, F. (2025). Do Ecological Valid Stop Signals Aid Detour Performance? A Comparison of Four Bird Species [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/j2k9h
 

2. Kabadayi, C., Bobrowicz, K., & Osvath, M. (2018). The detour paradigm in animal cognition. Animal Cognition, 21, 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1152-0

 

3. Regolin, L., Vallortigara, G., & Zanforlin, M. (1995). Object and spatial representations in detour problems by chicks. Animal Behaviour, 49, 195-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80167-7

 

4. Zucca, P., Antonelli, F., & Vallortigara, G. (2005). Detour behaviour in three species of birds: quails (Coturnix sp.), herring gulls (Larus cachinnans) and canaries (Serinus canaria). Animal Cognition, 8, 122-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0243-x

We may not believe what our memory tells us: Memory may deliver a compelling recollection we believe did not happen (we know we were not there at the time); and we may know an event happened that we fail to remember. That is, there can be distrust in remembering and distrust in forgetting. Previous work by the authors has looked at this through a signal detection lens, reporting in separate studies that people who have distrust in remembering have either a high or low criterion for saying "old" (Zhang et al, 2023, 2024). A plausible explanation for these contrasting results is that the criterion can either be the means by which false memories are generated enabling the distrust (low criterion); or rather, in conditions where accuracy is at stake, the means for compensating for the distrust (high criterion).

 

In the current study by Zhang et al (2025), participants were incentivised to be as accurate as possible, and in a memory test given feedback about commission errors or, in another group, ommission errors. The manipulation check indicated that the feedback did not increase (by a meaningful amount) distrust in remembering or distrust in forgetting, respectively, compared to a no feedback control group. Nonetheless, the authors found that people adjusted the criterion to say "old" in a compensatory way in each group. The possible mechanisms underlying these criterion shifts are discussed by the authors, who grapple with the distinction between response criterion shifts versus genuine meta-memory belief changes, and for the latter case, whether any memory distrust change could be contextual versus global (the manipulation check measured the latter).

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review by four reviewers. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' and recommender's comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria for recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/x69qt
 
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. 
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

 

1. Zhang, Y., Qi, F., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Jelicic, M. (2023). A Tale of Two Distrusts: Memory Distrust towards Commission and Omission Errors in the Chinese Context. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000134

 

2. Zhang, Y., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Rosar, L. (2024). Time and memory distrust shape the dynamics of recollection and belief-in-occurrence. Memory, 32, 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2336166

 

3. Zhang, Y., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Li, C. (2025). The effects of false feedback on state memory distrust toward commission and omission, and recognition memory errors [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/z8mv5

This study seeks to understand cultural and age differences in the effort moralization effect, a phenomenon in which people who put more effort into a task are considered more moral, regardless of the quality or the morality associated with the task. This is shown in common phrases such as the “great resignation” or “quiet quitting”, which are mostly used against younger members of the population, in particular generation Z.

 

Tissot and Roth (2025) conducted a replication of a study from Celniker et al. (2023) which found evidence for this effect, with new samples from Mexico and Germany, to test potential cultural and age differences. 

The results indicated a generalization of the effort moralization effect in Germany and Mexico, with important heterogeneity in the effect found, and effects sizes that were smaller than in the original study conducted in the USA. However, no effect was found regarding age, as younger individuals judged effort as being important in the same way as older individuals. It is possible, therefore, that the effort moralization effect is a consistent bias that persists regardless of age.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on ​detailed responses to the reviewers’ and recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

 

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.

 

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 
References

 

1. Celniker, J. B., Gregory, A., Koo, H. J., Piff, P. K., Ditto, P. H., & Shariff, A. F. (2023). The moralization of effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152, 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001259

 

2. Tissot, T. T. & Roth, L. H. O. (2025). Is it Worth the Hustle? A Multi-Country Replication of the Effort Moralization Effect and an Extension to Generational Differences in the Appreciation of Effort [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ck4st_v5

How well animals may be able to cope with changes of habitat, specifically with rapid changes and thus novelty they encounter in an environment densely populated by humans, may be influenced by how they respond to novelty in general (Batisteli et al., 2022; Biondi et al., 2024; Castano et al., 2024; Heales et al., 2024). In considering this, it may be important to account for any difference in behavioural responses that animals exhibit when encountering a novel situation alone versus when they are doing so as part of a group.

 

Here, Allaert et al. (2025) tested how neophobia – the fear of unfamiliar objects – is affected by the social context in gulls, birds that are increasingly forced to live in urban environments due to the loss of natural coastlines. In this study, in which they reared herring gulls from egg and tested them taking into account that nestmates are not tested within the same groups, the authors found that the birds were faster to eat and spent more time in the zone of interest when they were tested in a group than when they were tested individually, specifically when a novel object was placed next to the food compared to when that object was a familiar one. The birds were also faster to enter the testing area when tested in a group, but this was not specific to the novel object condition. In addition to these changes in the average responses, the authors also report reduced variance when tested in a group in two of their three measures, namely in the latency to enter the testing area and time spent in the zone of interest.

 

The authors interpret their findings as being mostly in line with the ‘risk-dilution’ hypothesis, which is often considered in terms of predation risk (Krause & Buxton, 2002). They discuss possible reasons why other studies, with different species and different methodological setups, found support for alternative explanations.

 

The Stage 2 report was evaluated by the same two reviewers who had also reviewed the Stage 1 manuscript. In the revision, the authors focused on adding sex as a factor in their statistical models, which was the planned procedure for the statistical analyses in the Stage 1 report, and adding information regarding the problems encountered during testing and how these were handled. This specifically refers to the planned sample size (which the authors planned in the Stage 1 report taking into account both mortality and the fact that some birds would be not herring gulls but lesser black-backed gulls, which can only be established after hatching). However, there was higher than expected mortality, leading to a larger-than-planned overall reduction in sample size. During the study, the authors had contacted the recommender and discussed this issue, and the recommender advised on continuing the study and approved of the planned changes in the Stage 2 report. During the revision process, the authors added more information and also conducted an exploratory analysis, which included all birds, i.e. herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls. This was suggested by a reviewer and the authors present this exploratory analysis in full in the supplemental material, while the main inferences are presented in the main text. In addition, during the Stage 2 review it became apparent that some minor details regarding the procedure would be useful to be included in the Stage 2 report, which the authors included in the Stage 2 revision. This did not alter the procedure as described in the Stage 1 report, but merely added more clarity to the text.

 

Based on detailed engagement with these points and the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

 
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.

 

 

• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Personality Science
• Royal Society Open Science

 

 

1. Allaert, R., Knoch, S., Braem, S., Debeer, D., Martel, A., Müller, W., Stienen, E., Lens, L., & Verbruggen, F. (2025). Neophobia across social contexts in juvenile Herring gulls [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/b58ha

 

2. Batisteli, A. F., Pizo, M. A., & Sarmento, H. (2022). Female neophobia predicts the use of buildings as nesting sites in a Neotropical songbird. Animal Behaviour, 183, 151-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.11.008

 

3. Biondi, L. M., Medina, A., Bonetti, E. A., Paterlini, C. A., & Bó, M. S. (2024). Cognitive flexibility in a generalist raptor: a comparative analysis along an urbanization gradient. Behavioral Ecology, 35, arae025. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arae025

 

4. Castano, M. V., Zumpano, F., Biondi, L. M., & García, G. O. (2024). Does urbanization affect behavioral responses to novel objects in marine birds? The Olrog’s Gull as a case of study. Urban Ecosystems, 27, 427-437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01465-2

 

5. Heales, H. E., Flood, N. J., Oud, M. D., Otter, K. A., & Reudink, M. W. (2024). Exploring differences in neophobia and anti-predator behaviour between urban and rural mountain chickadees. Journal of Urban Ecology, 10, juae01. https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juae014

 

6. Krause, J. & Ruxton, G. (2002). Living in Groups. Oxford University Press, USA.