As children grow, their cognition develops alongside their metacognition – the awareness and understanding of their own thought processes. One important aspect of cognitive development is learning effective strategies for exploring new situations and testing surprising claims, prompting the question of how improvement in cognition and reasoning is related to metacognitive understanding of these processes. For example, as children develop more targeted and efficient exploration strategies to test a surprising claim (e.g. “of these three rocks, the smallest one is the heaviest”), metacognitive understanding of why they are uncertain or skeptical may be crucial to testing the claim effectively and, in the long run, developing more complex reasoning and logical skills.

 

In this lab-based study of 175 children, Hermansen et al. (2022) will test the role of metacognition in shaping how children search for information to test surprising claims. Using a series of measures – including an experimental task involving comparative claims (e.g. “this rubber duck sinks much faster than this metal button”) – the authors will ask whether older (relative to younger) children express more uncertainty about surprising claims, propose more plausible reasons for their uncertainty, and are more likely to suggest specific empirical tests for a claim. Furthermore, they will investigate whether prompting children to reflect on their uncertainty helps them devise an efficient test for the claim, and whether any such benefit of prompting is greater for younger children.

 

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/uq6dw
 
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. Hermansen T. K., Mathisen, K. F., & Ronfard, S. (2022). Knowing why: Children’s reflection on their own uncertainty about an adult’s surprising claim increases their tendency to test that claim, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/uq6dw

The Temporal Doppler Effect refers to the subjective perception that the past is further away than the future even when both temporal distances are objectively the same from the present moment (Caruso et al., 2013). In the current study, Zhang et al. ran a replication of this phenomenon and tested one possible explanation for it, namely that people overestimate the temporal distance of the past because the past is filled with more events than the future. This is because we can access information only about planned events for the future, but have access to both planned and unplanned events that happened in the past (filled-duration illusion; Thomas & Brown, 1974).

 

Over two studies, the authors found that the sampled participants reported feeling that the past was psychologically closer than the future, which is the opposite of what has previously been reported and termed the Temporal Doppler Effect (Caruso et al., 2013). In addition, the authors reported inconsistent results regarding the correlations between the psychological distance and different variables associated with the filling rate of duration. The authors discuss the differences between their own results and those by Caruso et al. (2013) in terms of methodological and contextual differences and highlight cultural aspects that may be critical to consider in future replications and overall testing of this phenomenon. As such, they highlight that, at the moment, the Temporal Doppler Effect should not be considered a robust and culturally universal phenomenon. 

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by two reviewers who had also reviewed the stage 1 report. Following a revision by the authors, which consisted of adding the Data Availability statement, as well as a more precise summary of the results in various sections of the report, 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/d9ec3/
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to Stage 1 in-principle acceptance. 

 

 

 

1. Caruso, E. M., Van Boven, L., Chin, M., & Ward, A. (2013). The temporal doppler effect: When the future feels closer than the past. Psychological Science, 24, 530-536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612458804 

 

2. Thomas, E. C., & Brown, I. (1974). Time perception and the filled-duration illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 449-458. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198571 

 

3. Zhang, Q., Masuda, Y., Ueda, K.,Toda, K., & Yamada, Y. (2022). Is the past farther than the future? A registered replication and test of the time-expansion hypothesis based on the filling rate of duration. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://psyarxiv.com/pb47n/ 

 

Much of how we use our perception involves judgements on how similar things are: You might vaguely recognise an actor's face in a movie but not immediately recognise where you have seen it before. Some people claim to be "bad with faces". Is that in fact based on objectively poorer ability to recognise faces? Psychophysical lab studies of perception typically use forced-choice discrimination tasks in which participants must make explicit, and usually binary, decisions. Such designs can yield parametric information about underlying perceptual processes, but it is very different from how we use perception in daily life.

 

Here, Moharramipour and colleagues (2024) seek to better understand the link between such subjective similarity jugdements and objective discrimination ability. They argue that subjective similarity can be considered a metacognitive process, reflecting the person's awareness of their perceptual capacity. Participants will be asked to discriminate face pairs across a spectrum of morphing steps in a classical forced-choice paradigm to estimate perceptual threshold performance, as well as provide subjective ratings of similarity of the face pairs. The researchers hypothesise a correlation between objective perceptual ability and subjective similarity judgements. They will evaluate this at the group level, and also use a resampling approach to determine the specificity of this relationship in individual participants. Confirming this hypothesis would advance our knowledge of how perceptual ability links with our metacognitive introspection of it. Are you really "bad with faces" or do you only think you are?

 

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 awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

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

 

 

Moharramipour, A., Zhou, W., Rahnev, D., & Lau, H. (2024). Is subjective perceptual similarity metacognitive? In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/pzugy

Are attention and consciousness inherently intertwined or distinct aspects of cognition? One report (Jiang et al. 2006) presented clear results in evidence of the latter. In this earlier study, the authors used a continuous flash suppression (CFS) paradigm which presents a colorful pattern to the dominant eye and stimuli of interest to the non-dominant eye; the colorful pattern masks the relevant stimulus from awareness. On each trial, the authors presented a sexually stimulating image and a scrambled image on different sides of a computer screen during CFS. They found that, even though participants were not consciously aware of the images, intact images that matched participants' sexual orientation could still capture attention.

 

Despite these seemingly clear results, the authors of the current Stage 1 manuscript pointed out that CFS studies are often not replicated, and the paper by Jiang et al. (2006) is no exception. Therefore, Chen et al. (2023) seek to replicate this study using a Bayesian (rather than NHST) analytic approach. This method will allow the authors to determine the strength of evidence for their hypotheses.

 

In this Stage 1 manuscript, Chen et al. present an introduction that motivates the replication, and a pilot study that replicated the procedure of Jiang et al. (2006) conducted with 21 participants. This led to a well-motivated statistical sampling plan and some small design changes for the main experiment, such as adding a staircasing procedure to remove potential performance ceiling effects, and using less extreme wording for stimulus attractiveness ratings. A clear study design template is presented, detailing the different hypotheses that will be tested, and what different outcomes would indicate.

 

The Stage 1 submission was evaluated by the recommender and two expert reviewers. Following revisions, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 

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. Jiang, Y., Costello, P., Fang, F., Huang, M., & He, S. (2006). A gender-and sexual orientation-dependent spatial attentional effect of invisible images. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 17048-17052. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0605678103

 

2. Chen, Y.-J., Scott, R.B., & Dienes, Z. (2023). Is conscious perception necessary to direct attention? A replication of Jiang et al. (2006). In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/b2ncp

In the past two decades, most academic fields have witnessed an open science revolution that has led to significant increases in open access publishing, reproducibility efforts, and scientific transparency in general (e.g., Spellman et al. 2018). One of the key areas in this ongoing change is data sharing. Although some evidence already points at progress in data sharing practices, many new datasets remain unshared (see Tedersoo et al. 2021).
 
In the present registered report, Henderson et al. (2023) empirically explore the factors that either hinder or facilitate data sharing in the UK. By means of semi-structured interviews, the team will chart researchers’ experiences of sharing and non-sharing. Thematic template analysis will be applied to organise the data into a hierarchical map of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations in a theoretical domains framework (COM-B-TDF). The research plan itself meets the highest open science standards and reflects on the authors own positions, from which the current qualitative interview data sharing efforts will be made.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed over three rounds by three experts with familiary of the UK cultural context and specializations in open science practices, qualitative research, and data infrastructures. Based on careful revisions and detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/2gm5s (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:

 

 

References
 
1. Henderson, E., Marcu, A., Atkins, L. & Farran, E.K. (2023). Investigating the barriers and enablers to data sharing behaviours: A qualitative Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/2gm5s

 

2. Spellman, B. A., Gilbert, E. A. & Corker, K. S. (2018). Open Science. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119170174.epcn519

 

3. Tedersoo, L., Küngas, R., Oras, E., Köster, K., Eenmaa, H., Leijen, Ä., ... & Sepp, T. (2021). Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Scientific data, 8, 192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0