BATES Kathryn
- Department of Psychology, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom
- Humanities, Medical Sciences, Social sciences
Recommendations: 0
Reviews: 2
Areas of expertise
Kathryn’s research seeks to understand how individual differences in brain, cognition, and environment impact youth development to create solutions to support all young people to thrive. She works with stakeholders, including lived experienced young people, charities, and support practitioners, in her research and science communication. She is currently a Co-Investigator on an ESRC-funded project using mixed methods to understand loneliness in socio-economically marginalised young people (PI: Dr Delia Fuhrmann). Kathryn writes regularly for multiple digital platforms on learning and development for parents and teachers (see examples here). In December 2021, she received a competitive KCL/Wellcome Trust Public Engagement grant to co-produce a podcast with young people on youth mental health. We created The Science or Fiction Podcast where we interview researchers to separate the science from the fiction in news headlines on mental health. You can find links to listen and further information here: www.scienceorfiction.co.uk. Catch new episodes on the first Monday of every month.
Reviews: 2
Inconclusive evidence for associations between adverse experiences in adulthood and working memory performance
Adversity and working memory: Nuanced effects underpinned by rigorous methodology
Recommended by Yuki Yamada based on reviews by Kathryn Bates and 1 anonymous reviewerAdverse 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:
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:
- Collabra: Psychology
- Journal of Cognition
- Peer Community Journal
- PeerJ
- Royal Society Open Science
- Studia Psychologica
- Swiss Psychology Open
References
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
28 Mar 2024
STAGE 1
Working memory performance in adverse environments: Enhanced, impaired, or intact?
A closer look at working memory changing with adversity
Recommended by Yuki Yamada based on reviews by Kathryn Bates and 1 anonymous reviewerAdverse environments involving threat, uncertainty, deprivation and stress can cause significant and long-lasting harm to cognition and development. In this Stage 1 protocol, Vermeent and colleagues (2024) aim to simultaneously test with a single paradigm and statistical model for findings from previous studies showing that human working memory capacity is impaired in adverse environments, as well as other evidence suggesting that adversity may actually enhance updating of working memory. Furthermore, they will also investigate whether working memory is related to each of the adversity types: threat, deprivation, and unpredictability.
The findings of this study should help clarify how working memory functions in combination with adversity, and will provide insight into the development of better interventions and training methods for optimal performance in a variety of environments.
The manuscript was reviewed by two experts and the recommender. Following two rounds of peer review, and based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, I, 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/dp7wc
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:
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:
- Collabra Psychology
- Journal of Cognition
- Peer Community Journal
- PeerJ
- Royal Society Open Science
- Studia Psychologica
- Swiss Psychology Open
References
1. Vermeent, S., Schubert, A.-L., DeJoseph, M. L., Denissen, J. J. A, van Gelder, J.-L. & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2024). Working memory performance in adverse environments: Enhanced, impaired, or intact? In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/dp7wc