We may not believe what our memory tells us: Memory may deliver a compelling recollection we believe did not happen (we know we were not there at the time); and we may know an event happened that we fail to remember (even for when we were not drunk!). That is, there can be distrust in remembering and distrust in forgetting. Previous work by the authors has looked at this through a signal detection lens, reporting in separate studies that people who have distrust in remembering have either a high or low criterion for saying "old" (Zhang et al, 2023, 2024a). A plausible explanation for these contrasting results is that the criterion can either be the means by which false memories are generated enabling the distrust (low criterion); or rather, in conditions where accuracy is at stake, the means for compensating for the distrust (high criterion).

 

In the current study by Zhang et al (2024b), participants will be incentivised to be as accurate as possible, and in a memory test given feedback about commission errors or, in another group, ommission errors. As a manipulation check, the authors will test that the feedback increases distrust in remembering or distrust in forgetting, respectively, compared to a no feedback control group. Crucially, the authors hypothesize that people will adjust the criterion to say "old" in a compensatory way in each group. The study uses inference by intervals to provide a fairly severe test of this hypothesis.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over multiple rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' and recommender's 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/x69qt
 
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. Zhang, Y., Qi, F., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Jelicic, M. (2023). A Tale of Two Distrusts: Memory Distrust towards Commission and Omission Errors in the Chinese Context. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000134

 

2. Zhang, Y., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Rosar, L. (2024). Time and memory distrust shape the dynamics of recollection and belief-in-occurrence. Memory, 32, 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2336166

 

3. Zhang, Y., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Li, C. (2024b). The effects of memory distrust toward commission and omission on recollection-belief correspondence and memory errors. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/x69qt

 

Different disciplines and research areas that rely on participants’ self-reports to accrue data on participants’ true preferences are faced with the question to what extent the former can be equated with the latter. Using monetary incentivisation for study participation may influence this relationship, and researchers, especially in economics, have been discussing how to develop and implement incentive-compatible research designs, i.e., those in which the incentivisation yields the best payoff for the participant if they report their true preferences (Hertwig & Ortmann, 2011; Baillon, 2017). The Bayesian Truth Serum, first introduced by Prelec (2004), according to which participants are rewarded based on how surprisingly common their own answers are relative to the actual distribution of answers, has been proposed as a possible incentive-compatible design for survey studies that rely on participants’ self-reports about their true preferences (Schoenegger, 2021).

 

In this study, Schoenegger and Verheyen (2022) ran a replication of the study by Schoenegger (2021) and assessed whether the effect elicited by the manipulations known as the Bayesian Truth Serum is distinct from its separate constituent parts. The authors report that the manipulation did not yield a significant difference compared to control conditions, which they interpret as a failure to replicate the original results. At the same time, the authors are careful in drawing conclusions as to the usefulness of the Bayesian Truth Serum for self-report studies using Likert-scale items in general, as they emphasise that smaller effect sizes may be of interest and that the results may differ when different items are used. 

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by two reviewers, one of whom reviewed the first Stage 1 submission, and the other one of whom reviewed the manuscript specifically to assess statistical questions.

 

Following a careful revision by the authors, the recommender judged that the manuscript meets the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

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

 

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. Baillon, A. (2017). Bayesian markets to elicit private information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 114(30), 7985-7962. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703486114

 

2. Hertwig, R. & Ortmann (2001). Experimental practices in economics: a methodlogical challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 383-403. https://doi.org/10.1037/e683322011-032

 

3. Prelec, D. (2004). A Bayesian Truth Serum for Subjective Data. Science, 306(5695), 462-466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102081

 

4. Schoenegger, P. (2021). Experimental Philosophy and the Incentivisation Challenge: a Proposed Application of the Bayesian Truth Serum. Review of Philosophy and Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00571-4 

 

5. Schoenegger, P., & Verheyen, S. (2022). Taking A Closer Look At The Bayesian Truth Serum: A Registered Report. Stage 2 Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9zvqj

What are the neurophysiological correlates of paired associative stimulation (PAS) in inducing plastic changes in human motor cortex (M1)? Here, Arrigoni and colleagues (2024) will apply transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to left M1 paired with electrical stimulation of the right median nerve at an ISI of 25 ms or 10 ms to induce long-term potentiation (LTP) or long-term depression (LTD), respectively. Arrigoni and colleagues (2024) will determine if these stimulation pairings effect cortical excitability using motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs). Specifically, they hypothesize PASLTP will increase the peak-to-peak amplitude of MEPs, whereas PASLTD will decrease the amplitude, replicating previous work. They will then extend these previous findings by examining TEPs. The authors anticipate modulation of the P30 and P60, which are TEPs thought to reflect local cortical excitability. They plan to account for the MEP reafference which may also mediate the P60 amplitude by stimulating at sub- and supra- motor threshold. Further, they hypothesize an increase of the N100, a marker of inhibitory processing mediated by GABA, by PASLTD. Finally, the authors will also examine the impact of cortical excitability over time to determine the duration of the PAS effects.   

 

This detailed examination of TEPs following PAS stimulation will determine which TEPs could be used as biomarkers with the induction of LTP and LTD through stimulation. The authors have built in an MEP replication for the PAS stimulation, supporting previous literature and acting as a positive control.  

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by three expert reviewers across two rounds. Following in-depth review and responses from the authors, the recommender determined that Stage 1 criteria was met and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/detjc (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. Arrigoni, E., Bolognini, N., Pisoni, A. & Guidali, G. (2024). Neurophysiological correlates of plasticity induced by paired associative stimulation (PAS) targeting the motor cortex: a TMS-EEG registered report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/detjc

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/ 

 

The Temporal Doppler Effect is a phenomenon where people subjectively perceive the past to be further away than the future even when both temporal distances are objectively the same from the present moment (Caruso et al., 2013). A common explanation for this phenomenon assumes that our perception of the past and future is based on spatial and temporal analogies (Matlock, Ramscar, & Boroditsky, 2005; Casanto & Boroditsky, 2008) and that the subjective discrepancy is due to people feeling that they are moving towards the future and away from the fast, thus underestimating the temporal distance of the former and overestimating the temporal distance of the latter (Caruso et al., 2013).

 

In the current study, Zhang et al. propose to replicate the Temporal Doppler Effect as tested by Caruso et al. (2013) in study 1 and to test an alternative explanation for the effect in study 2 based on the filled-duration illusion (Thomas & Brown, 1974). This alternative explanation assumes that the subjective discrepancy is based on the difference that the past and the future are filled with events that we can remember or imagine. Because the past has already happened, it is comprised of more events (those that were planned and those that were not), while the future still exists only of events that are currently planned. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review. The main changes during the review process involved clarifications and adaptations of the way that the authors will measure the participants’ perception of how full of events the past and the future are, as the originally proposed way measuring this did not have sufficient theoretical or empirical justifications. The authors decided to address this by firstly, clarifying this issue in the stage 1 report so that the reader is aware of the potential shortcomings of this measure, and secondly, by testing a second group of participants with an alternative measure. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments and edits to the stage 1 report, 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/d9ec3

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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. Casanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579-593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004

 

3. Matlock, T., Ramscar, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2005). One the experiential link between spatial and temporal language. Cognitive Science, 29, 655-664. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_17 

 

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

 

5. 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 1 Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/d9ec3