Language production is associated with a distinct lateralised pattern of brain activation biased toward the left cerebral hemisphere. This also applies to writing. It has also been shown to be modulated by handedness, with less pronounced lateralisation in left-handers. However, in recent decades the use of handwriting has declined significantly while the use of smartphones has exploded. To date, no study has explored whether the same neural correlates of written language production found for handwriting also hold for typing on a smartphone.

 

In the current study, Samsouris et al. (2023) will use functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound (fTCD) to measure blood flow velocity within cerebral hemispheres to investigate this question. This technique is particularly suited for this purpose because it provides better control for the movement confounds associated with a writing task and the technical challenges of using a smart device than other neuroimaging techniques like fMRI or M/EEG. The authors hypothesise that there will be no difference in left cerebral lateralisation for handwriting and typing on a smartphone. They also expect to replicate previous findings of weaker lateralisation in left-handers in written language production when typing on a smartphone. To isolate the effect of written language production, both these conditions will be corrected for their corresponding motor component using control conditions without a linguistic component.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over 6 rounds of in-depth review by the recommender and two expert reviewers, before issuing in-principle acceptance.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/j7egz
 
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. Samsouris, C., Badcock, N. A., Vlachos, F., & Papadatou-Pastou, M. (2023). Cerebral laterality as assessed by functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound in left-and right-handers: A comparison between handwriting and writing using a smartphone. In principle acceptance of Version 7 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/j7egz

COVID-19 has been suspected to have long-lasting effects on cognitive function. The SARS-CoV-2 virus may enter the central nervous system (Frontera et al., 2020; Miners, Kehoe, & Love, 2020), explaining the observed detrimental effects of COVID-19 on verbal planning and reasoning (Hampshire et al., 2021; Wild et al., 2021), executive function (Hadad et al., 2022), and long-term memory (Guo et al., 2022). In particular, Guo et al. (2022) used verbal item recognition and non-verbal associative memory tasks. Weinerova et al. (2024), in the current study, propose to conduct a replication of Guo et al. (2022), but specifically, to disentangle the effect of COVID-19 infection status on both memory type (item vs. associative) and stimulus modality (verbal vs. non-verbal). Furthermore, Weinerova et al. (2024) propose to analyze cognitive function based on vaccination status before infection to provide a critical test of the potential protective effects of vaccination on cognitive function.

Data collection has been completed with 325 participants after exclusion criteria were applied (COVID group N = 232, No COVID group N = 93). Simulations assuming an effect size observed in Guo et al. (2022), a Bayesian t-test comparing the groups, and a Bayes Factor of 6 indicated that N = 320 is sufficient to detect an effect on 79% of simulations. The main analyses will be conducted using a Bayesian ANCOVA that allows for the inclusion of control variables such as age, sex, country, and education level. Both accuracy and reaction times from the item and associative recognition tasks will be analyzed as the dependent variables. In one analysis, vaccination status will be included as a between-subjects factor, to understand whether vaccination status at the time of infection influences subsequent cognitive function. 

It is important to note that participants were recruited through long-COVID Facebook groups and clinics. Therefore, the results must be interpreted carefully to avoid generalizing to all COVID-19 infections. The data are part of a larger longitudinal study, and the current pre-registration applies only to the baseline timepoint for a cross-sectional analysis. The remaining longitudinal data collection is ongoing and is not part of the current pre-registration.  

The study plan was refined after one round of review, with input from three external reviewers who all agreed that the proposed study was well-designed and scientifically valid. The recommender then reviewed the revised manuscript and judged that the study met the Stage 1 criteria for in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/tjs5u
 
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. Frontera, J., Mainali, S., Fink, E.L. et al. Global Consortium Study of Neurological Dysfunction in COVID-19 (GCS-NeuroCOVID): Study Design and Rationale. Neurocrit Care 33, 25–34 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-020-00995-3

2. Guo, P., Benito Ballesteros, A., Yeung, S. P., Liu, R., Saha, A., Curtis, L., Kaser, M., Haggard, M. P. & Cheke, L. G. (2022). COVCOG 2: Cognitive and Memory Deficits in Long COVID: A Second Publication From the COVID and Cognition Study. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2022.804937  

3. Hadad, R., Khoury, J., Stanger, C., Fisher, T., Schneer, S., Ben-Hayun, R., Possin, K., Valcour, V., Aharon-Peretz, J. & Adir, Y. (2022). Cognitive dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. Journal of NeuroVirology, 28(3), 430–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13365-022-01079-y  

4. Hampshire, A., Trender, W., Chamberlain, S. R., Jolly, A. E., Grant, J. E., Patrick, F., Mazibuko, N., Williams, S. C., Barnby, J. M., Hellyer, P. & Mehta, M. A. (2021). Cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from COVID-19. EClinicalMedicine, 39, 101044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101044

5. Miners, S., Kehoe, P. G., & Love, S. (2020). Cognitive impact of COVID-19: looking beyond the short term. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 12, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00744-w 

 

6. Weinerova, J., Yeung, S., Guo, P., Yau, A., Horne, C., Ghinn, M., Curtis, L., Adlard, F., Bhagat, V., Zhang, S., Kaser, M., Bozic, M., Schluppeck, D., Reid, A., Tibon, R. & Cheke, L. G. (2024). Changes in memory function in adults following SARS-CoV-2 infection: findings from the Covid and Cognition online study. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/tjs5u

7. Wild, C. J., Norton, L., Menon, D. K., Ripsman, D. A., Swartz, R. H. & Owen, A. M. (2022). Disentangling the cognitive, physical, and mental health sequelae of COVID-19. Cell Reports Medicine, 3, 100750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100750 

Social anxiety, which designates intense fear or anxiety of social situations due to the expectation of negative evaluation, is a relatively common disorder affecting 7-13% of the population (Modini & Abbott, 2016). Given the negative consequences that the disorder has on affected individuals (Matos et al., 2013; Modini & Abbott, 2016), looking for novel methods to ameliorate the symptoms is a societal imperative. 

 

The current study by McCarthy et al. (2025) focuses on the comparison of the current self with previous selves, which, although well-studied in cognitive neuroscience, has not been widely applied as a treatment of clinical and sub-clinical disorders. Nevertheless, comparison with previous selves has been shown to alter cognitive and affective processes and improve current self-evaluation (Broemer et al., 2007; Hanko et al., 2009; Morina, 2021), making it a prime target for handling sub-clinical individuals with social anxiety. The current paper, therefore, investigates whether comparison with previous selves can help individuals with sub-clinical social anxiety in countering their negative affect, which offers valuable clinical and theoretical contributions.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the recommender and 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/wumdj
 
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. Broemer, P., Grabowski, A., Gebauer, J. E., Ermel, O., & Diehl, M. (2007). How temporal distance from past selves influences self‐perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 697-714. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.469

 

2. Hanko, K., Crusius, J., & Mussweiler, T. (2009). When I and me are different: assimilation and contrast in temporal self‐comparisons. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 160-168. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.625

 

3. Matos, M., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Gilbert, P. (2013). The effect of shame and shame memories on paranoid ideation and social anxiety. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 20, 334-349. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1766

 

4. McCarthy, P. A., Morina, N., & Meyer, T. (2025). Cognitive, affective and behavioural effects of temporal comparison with prior aversive experiences in individuals with social anxiety. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/wumdj

 

5. Modini, M., & Abbott, M. J. (2016). A Comprehensive Review of the Cognitive Determinants of Anxiety and Rumination in Social Anxiety Disorder. Behaviour Change, 33, 150-171. https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2016.10

 

6. Morina, N. (2021). Comparisons Inform Me Who I Am: A General Comparative-Processing Model of Self-Perception. Perspect Psychol Sci, 16, 1281-1299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966788

Human meat consumption is associated with a variety of risks to health, animal welfare, sustainability, and the environment (including greenhouse gas emissions and loss of biodiversity), prompting a growing research effort to develop psychological interventions to reduce it and encourage alternative diets. At the same time, although meat consumption remains the majority choice in the UK, its prevalence is declining, with the proportion of vegetarians and vegans increasing substantially over the last two decades.

 

One potential tool to accelerate behaviour change is to expose people to “dynamic norm” messaging, which, rather than providing static descriptive information about the prevalence of a desired behaviour, emphasises how the desired behaviour is changing over time so that people can begin to conform to the emerging trend. Although promising in theory, previous research offers mixed evidence on the effectiveness of dynamic norms in encouraging a reduction in meat consumption, with some studies suggesting benefits and others showing no effect or even counterproductive effects. The methodological rigour of some studies is also in question.

 

In the present study, Aldoh et al. (2023) investigated the effectiveness of dynamic norm information (compared to static norms) on several indicators of meat consumption, including interest, attitudes, and intentions toward reducing meat consumption, as well as self-reported meat consumption itself. Using an online sample of ~1500 participants, the authors also tested the role of visual cues (including data trend graphics) in causing any effects and explored the potential longevity of the intervention over a period of 7 days. Results revealed moderate evidence for no net effect of dynamic (compared to static) norm information on meat consumption outcomes, nor any positive change over the 7-day period. However, the addition of visual cues enhanced the effect of dynamic norm messages, suggesting potential avenues for increasing the potency of future messaging interventions.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review, following which 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. 

 

 

  

1. Aldoh, A., Sparks, P. & Harris, P. R. (2023). Communicating dynamic norm information [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 1 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tac3j

Comparative research is how evidence is generated to support or refute broad hypotheses (e.g., Pagel 1999). However, the foundations of such research must be solid if one is to arrive at the correct conclusions. Determining the external validity (the generalizability across situations/individuals/populations) of the building blocks of comparative data sets allows one to place appropriate caveats around the robustness of their conclusions (Steckler & McLeroy 2008).

 

In this registered report, Alley and colleagues plan to tackle the external validity of comparative research that relies on subjects who are either university students or participating in experiments via an online platform (Alley et al. 2023). They will determine whether data from these two types of subjects have measurement equivalence - whether the same trait is measured in the same way across groups. Although they use data from studies involved in the Many Labs replication project to evaluate this question, their results will be of crucial importance to other comparative researchers whose data are generated from these two sources (students and online crowdsourcing). If Alley and colleagues show that these two types of subjects have measurement equivalence, then this indicates that it is more likely that equivalence could hold for other studies relying on these type of subjects as well. If measurement equivalence is not found, then it is a warning to others to evaluate their experimental design to improve validity. In either case, it gives researchers a way to test measurement equivalence for themselves because the code is well annotated and openly available for others to use.

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).

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question has been accessed and partially observed by the authors, but the authors certify that they have not yet observed the key variables within the data that will be used to answer the research question AND they have taken additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour (e.g. conservative statistical threshold; recruitment of a blinded analyst; robustness testing, multiverse/specification analysis, or other approach) 

 

 

• Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
• F1000Research
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

Alley L. J., Axt, J., & Flake J. K. (2023). Convenience Samples and Measurement Equivalence in Replication Research, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/7gtvf

 

Steckler, A. & McLeroy, K. R. (2008). The importance of external validity. American Journal of Public Health 98, 9-10. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.126847

 

Pagel, M. (1999). Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature, 401, 877-884. https://doi.org/10.1038/44766