Adverse environments involving threat, uncertainty, deprivation, and stress have been shown to have significant impacts on cognition and development. In this Stage 2 manuscript, Vermeent et al. (2024) adhere to their Stage 1 protocol, investigating the effects of adversity on working memory (WM) using a comprehensive, psychometric modeling approach. The authors aimed to clarify seemingly contradictory findings from previous research: The evidence for working memory capacity impairments in adverse environments versus the possibility that adversity might enhance specific aspects of WM, such as updating ability. Moreover, they examined the effects of distinct types of adversity—neighborhood threat, material deprivation, and unpredictability—on WM performance.

 

The results of the study were, overall, inconclusive: the authors did not find consistent associations between adversity and either WM capacity or WM updating ability. Despite using a large sample and employing latent variable modeling, the study did not reveal significant effects that were either clearly positive or negative for any type of adversity examined. In addition, no evidence for equivalence to zero associations was found. The lack of clear associations suggests that the relationship between adversity and WM is likely more complex than previously thought.

 

As with the Stage 1 evaluation, this manuscript has undergone a rigorous peer review process at Stage 2. The reviewers included specialists in child and youth cognitive development. The constructive feedback from the reviewers ensured that the pre-registered protocol was followed accurately, deviations were reported appropriately, and all concerns raised were addressed satisfactorily. These processes helped to refine Vermeent et al.'s methods and confirm that the planned analysis was followed. Despite the inconclusive results, this study makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the subtle effects of adversity on working memory by providing transparent and rigorous findings that add valuable data to the field. Therefore, I am fully confident that this manuscript is suitable for Stage 2 recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/dp7wc
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that was used to the answer the research question had been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they had not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence until after Stage 1 in-principle acceptance.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

1. Vermeent, S., Schubert, A.-L., DeJoseph, M. L., Denissen, J. J. A, van Gelder, J.-L. & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2024). Inconclusive evidence for associations between adverse experiences in adulthood and working memory performance [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://github.com/StefanVermeent/liss_wm_profiles_2023/blob/master/manuscript/stage2_tracked.pdf

This recommendation concerns the plan of two studies that are intended to be conducted simultaneously, using the same data collection approach, and to result in two manuscripts that will be submitted for assessment at Stage 2. The Stage 1 manuscript containing these protocols was submitted via the programmatic track.

 

Protocol 1 concerns “Open Scholarship and Feedback in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered Report”. With this study, the authors aim to explore how applied researchers integrate feedback processes into their work, in relation to transparency and rigor in particular. They will investigate whether their sample are aware of and use feedback mechanisms from the open science movement, such as registered reports, which makes this study nicely metascientific. Through interviews with 50 applied researchers from various fields, the study will examine current feedback practices. The authors intend to use the findings of this first study to inform recommendations on how open science practices can be incorporated into research workflows.

 

Protocol 2 concerns “Understanding the Role of Climate Change in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered Report”. This study aims to explore how applied researchers address climate change in their work, including the ways their practices are influenced by and respond to climate challenges. It addresses how their approaches may evolve, and they plan to look into the barriers and opportunities climate change presents in practice. Interviews with 50 applied researchers will be analysed to help understand these dynamics. The authors aim to provide recommendations to help applied researchers and their employers adjust their priorities to align with the urgency of climate action. One reviewer did not comment on this second protocol, as the content was outside of their own research area. Although I would have found a reviewer who specializes in this area directly ideally, I found I could still rely on the other two reviewers and my own knowledge to assess this protocol.
 
General comments: As I mentioned in my initial assessment text, these studies were well planned from the get-go and the protocol nicely articulated those plans. The use of different colour highlighting clearly helped the reviewers target different elements of the protocol and give direct feedback on specific parts. It also helped prevent me from getting lost in all the details! Well done, once again, to the authors for making the distinction between the two studies so clear. I was also pleased at how well they balanced the information between the two protocols – this made it easier to see if there were deficiencies in either one somehow. Finally, I loved that reflexivity was considered by the authors. One suggestion by me is that the authors might consider providing a collective positionality statement to go with the trainees’ reflexivity statements (if this is already in the plan and I missed it, please forgive the oversight!) in the final studies, even if as part of an appendix. This is because the open science movement and climate change can both be controversial, and because of the nature of the qualitative approach I would like to understand a little of the stance the group takes towards these issues collectively if the authors think it’s appropriate. I understand that with a big group that might be difficult or impossible, but if it is possible I would like to see it. I would also like to see initials used in the manuscripts to indicate who was responsible for what analysis elements where possible. This allows for accountability and to attribute interpretation to specific individuals involved in the data analysis. Alternatively, individuals can be attributed in a statement at the end of each manuscript to serve the same purpose and be less awkward in the text. If this won't work for some reason, please motivate this decision. 

 

The three reviewers that took the time to go through the reports nevertheless had useful comments, most of which would have contributed to strengthening the plan and minimizing problematic bias later on. The authors took these comments seriously, and thoughtfully (cheerfully even) responded to each. In my estimation, each of the suggestions of the reviewers were satisfied by the authors’ response to reviews letter. Other than my earlier comment about the positionality statement, I have no further comments for the Stage 1 protocol, and I wish the authors all the best with running the studies and writing up Stage 2 for each.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/jdh32
 
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:
 

 

 

Evans, T. R. et al. (2024). Open Scholarship and Feedback in Applied Research/Understanding the Role of Climate Change in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/jdh32

The enhanced processing account suggests that domain-specific expertise enhances the processing of information in that domain, such as enhanced color perception in visual artists and grapheme-color synaesthetes. A previous study (Ovalle-Fresa et al., 2021) found support for this account in both synaesthetes and non-synaesthete color experts; however, to fully understand the domain specificity of enhanced processing, other domains of expertise should be investigated and compared against each other in a double dissociation.

 

In this Stage 1 manuscript, Sachdeva et al. (2024) will investigate whether an enhanced processing account can explain domain-specific expertise in groups of color experts (i.e., visual artists) / grapheme-color synaesthetes and spatial experts (i.e., architects) / sequence-space synaesthetes. The spatial domain was chosen to compare to color since color and spatial processing recruit two distinctive cortical visual pathways: the ventral and dorsal streams, respectively. If enhanced processing is domain specific, then color experts / grapheme-color synaesthetes should show selective perceptual and memory performance enhancements for color tasks but not spatial tasks; and vice versa for spatial experts and sequence-space synaesthetes. The authors of this planned study further propose that perceptual performance should predict memory performance in the domain of expertise only; and that synaesthetes and non-synaesthetes with the same domain of expertise should perform similarly to each other.

 

To address these hypotheses, four independent groups will be recruited: grapheme-color synaesthetes, visual artists, sequence-space synaesthetes, and architects. Individuals with overlapping expertise and synaesthesia (e.g., visual artists who also have grapheme-color synaesthesia) will be excluded. Perception, short-term memory, and long-term memory for color (3 tasks) and space (3 tasks) will be assessed in all groups, and the authors will compare groups (synaesthetes, non-synaesthetes), domains of expertise (color, space), and task feature (color, space) in 2x2x2 linear mixed models. For all models, the authors predict that a significant interaction between domain of expertise and task feature will provide evidence for the domain specificity of the enhanced processing account. Additional analyses concerning working memory load (one, three, or five items) in the short-term memory tasks, and testing day (one, two, or three days post-training) in the long-term memory tasks, will be conducted to more deeply explore potential performance enhancements related to domain-specific expertise. Although these analyses may potentially provide additional evidence in favor of the hypothesized direction of effects, any deviation from predicted may pose a challenge for the interpretation of results. Nevertheless, this planned study is methodologically rigorous, and comprehensive in its aims.

 

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:
 

References
 

1. Ovalle-Fresa, R., Ankner, S., & Rothen, N. (2021). Enhanced perception and memory: Insights from synesthesia and expertise. Cortex, 140, 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2021.01.024

2. Sachdeva, D. & Whelan, E., Ovalle-Fresa, R., Rey-Mermet, A., Ward, J., & Rothen, N.. (2024). How perceptual ability shapes memory: An investigation in healthy special populations. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/6wn4m

 

Previous research has shown that higher-level cognitive processes like attention, memory or mental imagery can produce pupil responses, without any actual difference in luminance of the visual stimulus. Interestingly, the inverse scenario remains untested: when a difference in luminance is perceptually eliminated from awareness, does pupil size still track cognitive factors? In this study, Vilotijević and Mathôt (2024) seek to test this experimentally using a perceptual fading phenomenon where two Gaussian patches with different luminances fade from consciousness and are thus perceived as mid-level uniform grey. The researchers will present this fading manipulation and a control condition where no fading occurs in separate blocks. Participants are instructed to covertly attend one of the patches. If pupil size reflects attentional selection, pupil responses should be reduced in the fading condition, and this should evolve with time as the stimuli are perceptually fading.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by three reviewers and the Recommender over three rounds of review. One reviewer advises conducting robustness checks to rule out eye movements confounds. This constitutes exploratory analyses at Stage 2 that probably require some flexibility. Despite this, the Recommender decided to grant in-principle acceptance of this study. While these robustness tests can put the eventual results in context, the general hypotheses and predictions specified in this version are clear and straightforward.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/bmtp6
 
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. Vilotijević, A. & Mathôt, S. (2024). The effect of covert visual attention on pupil size during perceptual fading. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bmtp6

 

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 present study, Chen et al. (2024) will use a novel version of a combined go/no-go / approach avoidance paradigm to test the effects on choice of consumable candy. In this task, participants are randomly assigned to make a response framed as a go / no-go action or an approach / avoidance action to control a shopping cart (Chen & Van Dessel, 2024). Following this they will complete a food choice task in which participants make a series of binary choices for different candies. Their performance on this task will lead to the receipt of real-world candy. The authors aim to test whether the same responses will lead to different effects on food choice, depending on how the response was interpreted (e.g. participants in the approach/avoidance instruction group will select Approach items more often than those in the go/no-go instruction group). The study is well powered to detect the proposed effect size of interest, and data will be analysed using Bayesian mixed-effect models.
 
This study will shed light onto theoretical predictions of action interpretation on stimulus value and choice, which may improve the efficacy of behaviour change tools such as approach bias training in future.  
 

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/bn5xa (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. Chen, Z. and 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

 

2. Chen, Z., Van Dessel, P., and Figner, B. (2024). Examining the role of action interpretation in changes in choice induced by go/no-go and approach/avoidance responses. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bn5xa
 
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. Yang, Y., Qi, L., Morys, F., Wu, Q. and Chen, H. (2022). Food-Specific Inhibition Training for Food Devaluation: A Meta-Analysis. Nutrients, 14, 1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071363