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

Mind-wandering broadly refers to the phenomenon by which a person's thoughts are directed towards internally generated states as opposed to being directed towards those that are task-relevant. It has been proposed that mind-wandering and cognitive control are supported by overlapping neural systems. While neuroimaging work has implicated prefrontal cortex in both mind-wandering and cognitive control, studies testing its causal role using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been inconclusive.

 

Here, Rasmussen and colleagues (2025) put to a strict test the question of whether the effects of prefrontal cortex tDCS on mind-wandering are mediated by dopaminergic availablility, which is known to be important for cognitive control. Using noninvasive brain stimuluation (prefrontal cortex tDCS vs sham) and a pharmacological intervention (levodopa vs. placebo), they found that contrary to some previous work, stimulation of prefrontal cortex does not alter mind-wandering. By contrast, in the absence of stimulation, increasing dopamine availability via levodopa reduced the frequency of freely moving thought. Together, these results clarify the degree to which prefrontal cortex tDCS and dopamine play a causal role in mind-wandering

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' 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/ujp7e
 
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:
 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Brain and Neuroscience Advances
• Cortex
• Imaging Neuroscience
• NeuroImage: Reports
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica

 

 

Rasmussen, T., Dux, P. E. & Filmer, H. (2025). On the neural substrates of mind wandering and dynamic thought: A drug and brain stimulation study [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.02.620526 

 

Rhythmic changes in pain can lead to corresponding modulations of EEG amplitudes in theta, alpha, and beta bands. But the question remains open as to whether these modulations are actually tracking pain, or maybe rather saliency or stimulus intensity. The question is of some importance because a marker of pain per se could be useful for tracking felt pain without a verbal response, and could be useful in investigating interventions for treating pain (such as suggestion).  Here, Leu et al. (2025) addressed the question of whether modulations reflect saliency or else the intensity of pain, by using an oddball paradigm in which most trials are a pain stimulus of a certain intensity, and oddball trials will sometimes occur, at either a higher intensity or a lower intensity than the baseline ones. If the modulations reflected salience, the modulation at the frequency of the oddball would be similar for high and low intensity oddballs. However, if the modulations reflected pain intensity, the modulations for the low rather than high oddball condition would be lower.

 

In fact, the baseline and oddball stimulations were found to be perceived significantly differently only in the high oddball condition; and consistantly, the oddballl stimulus significantly modulated ongoing oscillations in only the high oddball condition. Thus, whether oscillations are modulated by pain intensity or salience could not be picked apart in this study. The study does however raise an important isssue, indicate how it could be addressed, and provide data relevant for clearly resolving the issue in the future.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth peer review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria for acceptance.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/qbrf2
 
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. Leu, C., Forest, S., Legrain, V., & Liberati, G. (2025). The effect of stimulus saliency on the modulation of pain-related ongoing neural oscillations: a Registered Report [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/98edq

Experimental research demonstrates that executing or inhibiting motor responses (or approaching / avoiding) towards a stimulus can alter the valuation of the stimulus (Yang et al., 2022). There are competing theories as to the proposed mechanisms of value change, such as increased response conflict or prediction errors (Houben & Aulbach, 2023). However, research has mostly examined response execution/inhibition and approach/avoidance in isolation and the few studies that have examined these together have focused on stimulus evaluation as an outcome.

 

In the current study Chen et al. (2025) set out to examine how action interpretations (e.g. go vs approach) can impact individuals food-choices. This is important for cognitive bias modification approaches which aim to manipulate these actions to promote behaviour change (Iannazzo et al., 2024; Veling et al., 2021), but also theoretical accounts which suggest certain motor-responses acquire valence. Here there are two groups randomised to receive instructions to either go/no-go or approach/avoid images of candy in novel training task (Chen et al., 2019).
 
The results of the experiment suggested that despite both groups making the same responses (pressing a space bar vs not), the framing of the response as go vs approach and no-go vs avoidance influenced subsequent food-choice (i.e. responses framed as approach increased the probability of choosing approach items over avoidance items, but not go items over no-go items).
 
As the authors state, these findings cast doubt on theoretical models which suggest there are ‘hardwired’ links between specific go/approach responses and appetitive systems or specific no-go/avoidance responses and aversive systems. They also suggest these responses aren’t valenced, but acquire valence through interpretation of the action. These findings can also inform future studies into cognitive bias modification.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review by two reviewers with expertise in the relevant area, who also assessed the Stage 1 manuscript. Based on the authors’ careful responses and revisions, the revised manuscript was judged to meet the Stage 2 criteria and was awarded a positive recommendation.
 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/bn5xa
 
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. Chen, Z., Van Dessel, P., Serverius, J., Zhu, D. & Figner, B. (2025). Action interpretation determines the effects of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions on food choice. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6xhw4_v2

 

2. Chen, Z., & Van Dessel, P. (2024). Action Interpretation Determines the Effects of Go/No-Go and Approach/Avoidance Actions on Stimulus Evaluation. Open Mind, 8, 898–923. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00151
 

3. Houben, K. and Aulbach, M. (2023). Is there a difference between stopping and avoiding? A review of the mechanisms underlying Go/No-Go and Approach-Avoidance training for food choice. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 49, 101245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101245

4. Iannazzo, L. H., Hayden, M. J., Lawrence, N. S., Kakoschke, N., Hughes, L. K., Van Egmond, K., … Staiger, P. K. (2024). Inhibitory control training to reduce appetitive behaviour: a meta-analytic investigation of effectiveness, potential moderators, and underlying mechanisms of change. Health Psychology Review, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2410018
 
5. Veling, H., Verpaalen, I. A. M., Liu, H., Mosannenzadeh, F., Becker, D., & Holland, R. W. (2021). How can food choice best be trained? Approach-avoidance versus go/no-go training. Appetite, 163, 105226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105226

 

6. Yang, Y., Qi, L., Morys, F., Wu, Q. & Chen, H. (2022). Food-Specific Inhibition Training for Food Devaluation: A Meta-Analysis. Nutrients, 14, 1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071363