Despite inattentional blindness being a widely recognized and researched phenomenon — popularized by experiments like the invisible gorilla — the evidence on how individual differences affect the occurrence of inattentional blindness has remained inconsistent, largely due to small sample sizes and methodological variations.

 

In this context, Daniel J. Simons, known for his role in bringing public attention to inattentional blindness, along with Yifan Ding, Connor M. Hults, and Brent W. Roberts, presents an ambitious yet well-constructed registered report that addresses this critical gap in the literature. Their report outlines a comprehensive investigation into whether individual differences in cognitive ability or personality traits can predict the likelihood of noticing unexpected objects in various inattentional blindness tasks. The two proposed studies — one focusing on cognitive predictors and the other on personality predictors — arguably represent the most extensive single-sample tests to date on this topic.

 

The authors propose a robust methodology that includes a total of 2,000 participants (1,000 per study). The study design features three distinct inattentional blindness tasks with varying levels of demand to assess the generalizability of the findings across different experimental contexts. In Study 1, cognitive measures such as matrix reasoning and operation span — both well-established indicators of fluid intelligence and working memory — are utilized. Study 2 incorporates a range of personality measures, including the Big Five personality traits and attention-related traits (e.g., ADHD and obsessive-compulsive characteristics).

 

The report also presents a detailed analysis plan with pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes, strong justifications for the sample size, and clearly defined criteria for data inclusion and exclusion. The authors intend to employ multiple statistical techniques, such as correlation analyses and regression models, along with rigorous checks for replicability, to explore the relationship between individual differences and inattentional blindness.

 

Overall, this registered report is a well-justified and meticulously planned investigation into the role of individual differences in inattentional blindness. The proposed studies have the potential to make a significant contribution to our understanding of the cognitive and personality factors that influence the noticing of unexpected objects. The rigorous experimental design, large sample sizes, and adherence to open science practices make this a valuable addition to the literature.

Based on the strengths of the proposal and the authors' responsiveness to the detailed feedback from two reviewers, the recommender justed that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

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

 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra: Psychology
• Cortex
• Experimental Psychology
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Personality Science
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

Simons, D. J., Ding, Y., Hults, C. M., & Roberts, B. W. (2024). Registered Report: Do individual differences in cognitive ability or personality predict noticing in inattentional blindness tasks? In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/zsqyj

 

The reward value of a stimulus is based on an error in prediction: Things going better than predicted. Could this learning principle, often tested on short acting stimuli, also apply to a long lasting episode, like going for a run? Could how rewarding a run is be based on the run going better than predicted?

 

Understanding the conditions under which exercise is pleasurable could of course be relevant to tempting people to do more of it! In the current study, Brevers et al. (2024) asked people before a daily run to predict the amount of perceived exertion they would experience; then just after the run, to rate the retrospective amount of perceived exertion actually experienced. The difference between the two ratings was the prediction error. Participants also rated their remembered pleasure in running. As hypothesized, the authors found that running pleasure increased linearly with how much retrospective exertion was than predicted.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript received one round of review from two external reviewers, then some minor comments from the recommender, after which it was judged to satisfy the Stage 2 criteria and was awarded a positive recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/xh724
 
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.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

References
 
1. Brevers, D., Martinent, G., Oz, I. T., Desmedt, O. & de Geus, B. (2024). Do prediction errors of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure? [Stage 2]. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xfgqp

The debate about consciousness and its neural underpinnings is a hot topic in cognitive neuroscience that has driven innovative original research and theoretical frameworks (Dehaene et al., 2006; Lamme, 2006). Consciousness itself can be defined and studied from different perspectives, such as neuropsychology (Laureys et al., 2004; Monti, 2012), applied philosophy (Blanke & Metzinger, 2009), and experimental cognitive neuroscience (Dehaene & Changeux, 2011). However, after several decades of research via different methods and from different perspectives, basic questions regarding consciousness and its neural underpinnings are still debated (Chalmers, 2010). One of the reasons for this ongoing debate is that consciousness cannot be easily disentangled from confounds, such as involvement of other cognitive processes like memory, language, and so forth (Dehaene & Changeux, 2011).

 

In the current study, Colombari et al. (2025) focus on disentangling neural markers of conscious visual perception from motoric responses. To this end, the study uses a cutting-edge neuroimaging technique, Event-Related Optical Signal (EROS), to measure the neural responses during a Go/No-Go detection task, which is especially designed to gauge visual perception regardless of response production. The study, therefore, is instrumental in addressing the neural foundation of conscious visual perception and is well situated to advance our understanding of consciousness and its neural underpinnings.

 

The Stage 1 submission was evaluated by three expert reviewers. After several rounds of revision, the recommender determined 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:

 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Brain and Neuroscience Advances
• Cortex
• Imaging Neuroscience
• In&Vertebrates
• NeuroImage: Reports
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice *pending editorial consideration of disciplinary fit
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica

 

 

1. Blanke, O., & Metzinger, T. (2009). Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.003

 
2. Chalmers, D. J. (2010). Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness. In The Character of Consciousness (pp. 3-34). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311105.003.0001 

 

3. Colombari, E., Parisi, G., Mele, S., Mazzi, C., & Savazzi, S. (2025). The role of extra-striate areas in conscious motor behavior: a registered report with Fast-Optical Imaging. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/8ya2t

 

4. Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J. P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron, 70, 200-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018 

 

5. Dehaene, S., Changeux, J. P., Naccache, L., Sackur, J., & Sergent, C. (2006). Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 204-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.007 

 

6. Lamme, V. A. (2006). Towards a true neural stance on consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 494-501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.09.001 

 

7. Laureys, S., Owen, A. M., & Schiff, N. D. (2004). Brain function in coma, vegetative state, and related disorders. The Lancet Neurology, 3, 537-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(04)00852-x 

 

8. Monti, M. M. (2012). Cognition in the vegetative state. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 431-454. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143050

It is a challenging task to measure consciousness. In this project, Ponce de Leon et al. (2025) propose the use of electroencaphalography (EEG) to evaluate the utility of two brain-based complexity measures – Lempel-Ziv complexity and the perturbational complexity index – in the study of conscious content. The overarching aim of the study is to investigate whether these two measures can discriminate between visual and auditory content varying in granularity levels. In addition to the main objectives, the authors plan to conduct a set of exploratory analyses.

 

The study will provide a significant contribution to the field by attempting to replicate effects previously reported in the literature and extending their generalisability through comparisons across varying configurations of the stimuli. The utility of these complexity measures within conscious content research will be further elucidated through exploratory regression analyses with behavioural variables and ratings of subjective experience.

 

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). Ethics approval has not been granted yet, so this is a provisional IPA, which will be promoted to a full IPA once ethical approval is in place.

 

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

 

Ponce de Leon, S., Backer, K. C., Monti, M. M., & Yoshimi, J. (2025). Detecting differences in conscious contents using EEG complexity measures. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/kdsau

Measuring people’s experiences, thoughts, and mental processes has always been a core challenge of psychological science (e.g. Nisbett & Wilson 1977). When such measurement relates to rapidly changing and conceptually diverse human-technology interactions, the task becomes even more difficult due to protean, multidimensional constructs. A good understanding of a construct is a basic step in its measurement (Borsboom 2005).  
 
In the present registered report—carried out as part of a long-term measure development project—Dunne et al. (2024) carried out a focus group study with adolescents (n=26) aged 11 to 15 in Northwest England to improve the understanding of constructs related to social media and mental health. The authors applied reflexive thematic analysis to explore adolescents’ social media use experiences and related motivations in the light of mental health.
 
The data and research process led to a construction of five themes, which were connected to mental health in direct and indirect ways. The participants voiced direct experiences of anxiety, self-esteem, and social aspects that reflect a mental health network where social media play diverse roles. Indirect implications of coping and self-control were found to supplement the network. Taken together, the themes and their implications to wellbeing make a valuable contribution to the evolving qualitative understanding young people's social media use in the UK (e.g., Conroy et al. 2023) and serve as a useful basis for future measure development.
 
A particular strength of the work was the engagement of three Young Researchers who co-facilitated the focus groups and were involved in the analysis. The research meets high reflexivity and transparency criteria, and the carefully constructed supplementary materials provide informative details especially for measure developers. Finally, the authors must be commended for sharing these valuable data for reuse.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was reviewed over two rounds by three unique reviewers. The reviewers’ expertise ranged from social media and technology use research to health psychology and qualitative methods. Based on careful revisions and detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments, 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/w24ec
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence had been accessed and partially observed by the authors prior to IPA, but the authors certify that they have not yet observed the key variables within the data that were used to answer the research question.

 

List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals: 
 

• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open
• WiderScreen  

 

References
 
1. Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge University Press.
 
2. Conroy, D., Chadwick, D., Fullwood, C., & Lloyd, J. (2023). “You have to know how to live with it without getting to the addiction part”: British young adult experiences of smartphone overreliance and disconnectivity. Psychology of Popular Media, 12, 471-480. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000425

 

3. Dunne, J. H., Black, L., Banwell, E., Nanda, P., Anderton, M, Butters, L.C., Demkowicz, O., Davies, J., Davidson, B., Qualter, P., Humphrey, N., Jay, C., & Panayiotou, M. (2024). Identifying relevant dimensions to the measurement of adolescent social media experience via focus groups with young people [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 9 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/erjvz
 
4. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological review, 84, 231-259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231