Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a mental illness affecting ~1 in 100 people (Ellison et al., 2018), characterised by emotional dysregulation, impulsivity, a distorted sense of self, and a long-term pattern of unstable interpersonal relationships. Among this heterogenous range of symptoms is difficulty in the cognitive dimension of empathy, in particular understanding the perspectives of others, which in turn has been suggested to rely on the mirror neuron system, both in the motor and somatosensory domains. The integrity of the mirror system has therefore been a focus for understanding the possible causes or consequences of the disorder, with preliminary studies pointing to hypoactivity of neuronal areas associated with the mirror system in BPD (Mier et al., 2013).

 

In the current study, Zazio et al. (2023) will use crossmodal paired associative stimulation (cm-PAS) in which an image of a hand being touched is repeatedly paired with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) to test the hypothesis that BPD is associated with a specific deficit in the tactile mirror system. In healthy controls, the close temporal coupling (20ms) between the visual depiction of tactile stimulation and TMS of S1 is expected boost tactile acuity and elevate the performance cost of incongruence in a task that manipulates visuo-tactile spatial congruity (VTSC) – effects that are thought to reflect the fidelity of the tactile mirror system.

 

In BPD patients, however, the authors make the crucial prediction that impairment of the tactile mirror system (if present) will lead to a reduced (or even non-existent) effect of cm-PAS on tactile acuity and VTSC task performance compared to healthy controls. To help ensure a severe test of this hypothesis, the design includes a variety of controls, including an attention check, control cm-PAS in which the inter-stimulus interval is increased to 100ms to break the close temporal coupling between visual stimulation and TMS, and a positive control to confirm that active cm-PAS (compared to control cm-PAS) produces the expected boost in tactile acuity in healthy controls.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three 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/sqnwd
 
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. Ellison, W. D., Rosenstein, L. K., Morgan, T. A., & Zimmerman, M. (2018). Community and clinical epidemiology of borderline personality disorder. Psychiatric Clinics, 41, 561-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2018.07.008

2. Mier, D., Lis, S., Esslinger, C., Sauer, C., Hagenhoff, M., Ulferts, J., Gallhofer, B. & Kirsch, P. (2013). Neuronal correlates of social cognition in borderline personality disorder. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 531-537. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss028

 

2. Zazio, A., Guidali, G., Rossi, R., Bolognini, N. & Bortoletto, A. (2023). Cortical plasticity of the tactile mirror system in borderline personality disorder, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/sqnwd

The N2pc is a lateralised ERP component that is often interpreted as a marker of attentional allocation, so much so that it is frequently used a tool in the attention literature for inferring that a stimulus was attentionally processed. This interpretation of N2pc can be traced back to the seminal work of Eimer (1996), which has been conceptually replicated many times but has never been replicated directly.

 

This registered direct replication by Constant et al. (2023) forms part of a larger series of large-scale, multi-lab replications of highly influential EEG papers by the #EEGManyLabs project (Pavlov et al., 2021). Seven labs (with the potential for more to sign up later), will conduct high-powered replications of the critical Experiment 2 of Eimer (1996), where in the crucial conditions, participants discriminate a target letter (M vs W) or colour (blue vs green) in the presence of a distractor. Using four preprocessing pipelines, including the original, the authors will test whether the N2pc is observed over parieto-occipital electrodes contralateral to target presentation.  

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review and one additional round of minor corrections. 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).

 

 

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 (so-called “primary RR”)

 

 

 

 

1. Constant, M., Mandal, A., Asanowicz, D., Yamaguchi, M., Gillmeister, H., Kerzel, D., Luque, D., Pesciarelli, F., Fehr, T., Mushtaq, F., Pavlov, Y. G. & Liesefeld, H. R. (2023). A multilab investigation into the N2pc as an indicator of attentional selectivity: Direct replication of Eimer (1996), in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/dw68r

 

2. Eimer, M. (1996). The N2pc component as an indicator of attentional selectivity. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 99, 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(96)95711-9

 

3. Pavlov, Y. G., Adamian, N., Appelhoff, S., Arvaneh, M., Benwell, C. S., Beste, C., ... & Mushtaq, F. (2021). #EEGManyLabs: Investigating the replicability of influential EEG experiments. Cortex, 144, 213-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2021.03.013

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been used to explore brain-behaviour relationships for many years, with proliferation of a wide range of sophisticated analytic procedures. However, rather scant attention has been paid to the reliability of findings. Concerns have been growing following failures to replicate findings in some fields, but it is hard to know how far this is a consequence of underpowered studies, flexible analytic pipelines, or variability within and between participants. 

 

Demidenko et al. (2023) plan a study that will be a major step forward in addressing these issues. They take advantage of the availability of three existing datasets, the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, the Michigan Longitudinal Study, and the Adolescent Risk Behavior Study, which all included a version of the Monetary Incentive Delay task measured in two sessions. This gives ample data for a multiverse analysis, which will consider how within-subject and between-subject variance varies according to four analytic factors: smoothing (5 levels), motion correction (6 levels), task modelling (3 levels) and task contrasts (4 levels).  They will also consider how sample size affects estimates of reliability. This will involve a substantial amount of analysis.

 

The study is essentially focused on estimation, although specific predictions are presented regarding the combinations of factors expected to give optimal reliability.  The outcome will be a multiverse of results which will allow us to see how different pipeline decisions for this task affect reliability. In many ways, null results – finding that at least some factors have little effect on reliability – would be a positive finding for the field, as it would mean that we could be more relaxed when selecting an analytic pathway. A more likely outcome, however, is that analytic decisions will affect reliability, and this information can then guide future studies and help develop best practice guidelines. As one reviewer noted, we can’t assume that results from this analysis will generalise to other tasks, but this analysis with a widely-used task is an important step towards better and more consistent methods in fMRI.

 

The researchers present a fully worked out plan of action, with supporting scripts that have been developed in pilot testing. The Stage 1 manuscript received in-depth evaluation from three expert reviewers and the recommender. 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).

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question has been accessed and partially observed by the authors, but the authors certify that they have not yet sufficiently observed the key variables within the data to be able to answer the research questions AND they have taken additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

References

1. Demidenko, M. I., Mumford, J. A., & Poldrack, R. A. (2023). Test-Retest Reliability in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Impact of Analytical Decisions on Individual and Group Estimates in the Monetary Incentive Delay Task. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/nqgeh

In 2023, the journal eLife ended the practice of making binary accept/reject decisions following peer review, instead sharing peer review reports (for manuscripts that are peer-reviewed) and brief “eLife assessments” representing the consensus opinions of editors and peer reviewers. As part of these assessments, the journal draws language from a "common vocabulary" to linguistically rank the significance of findings and strength of empirical support for the article's conclusions. In particular, the significance of findings is described using an ordinal scale of terms from "landmark" → "fundamental" → "important" → "valuable" → "useful", while the strength of support is ranked across six descending levels from "exceptional" down to "inadequate".

 

In the current study, Hardwicke et al. (2023) question the validity of this taxonomy, noting a range of linguistic ambiguities and counterintuitive characteristics that may undermine the communication of research evaluations to readers. Given the centrality of this common vocabulary to the journal's policy, the authors propose a study to explore whether the language used in the eLife assessments will be interpreted as intended by readers. Using a repeated-measures experimental design, they will tackle three aims: first, to understand the extent to which people share similar interpretations of phrases used to describe scientific research; second, to reveal the extent to which people’s implicit ranking of phrases used to describe scientific research aligns with each other and with the intended ranking; and third, to test whether phrases used to describe scientific research have overlapping interpretations. The proposed study has the potential to make a useful contribution to metascience, as well as being a valuable source of information for other journals potentially interested in following the novel path made by eLife.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round 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/mkbtp
 
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. Hardwicke, T. E., Schiavone, S., Clarke, B. & Vazire, S. (2023). Finding the right words to evaluate research: An empirical appraisal of eLife’s assessment vocabulary. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/mkbtp

When we familiarise with new faces over repeated exposures, it is generally in situations that have meaning for us. Seeing a face more often tends to go along with learning more about the person, and their likely contexts and actions. In this Registered Report, Noad and Andrews (2024) tested whether meaningful context during exposure improves the consolidation of faces into long-term memory. Participants were shown video clips from the TV series Life on Mars, either in their original chronological sequence, which provides meaningful context, or in a scrambled sequence. It was expected that the original sequence would provide a better conceptual understanding, and this was confirmed by free recall and structured question tests. Face recognition memory was tested with images of the actor from the original clips (‘in show’) and the same actor from another show (‘out-of-show’), to test whether memory was modulated by the similarity of appearance to that at encoding. Face recognition was tested immediately after exposure and after four weeks, to allow time for consolidation. As expected, recognition memory was better for participants in the meaningful context condition, and for in-show faces. However, meaningful context did not lead to less forgetting of the faces at the follow up test, even for in-show faces, which did not support the original predictions. An exploratory analysis found that a metric of overlap between pairs of participants’ conceptual understanding was related to overlap in the set of faces they recognised. This relationship was stronger after four weeks, which suggests increased interaction of conceptual knowledge and face recognition after consolidation.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was assessed over two rounds of review, and the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria for recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/8wp6f
 
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. Noad, K. & Andrews, T. J. (2024). The importance of conceptual knowledge when becoming familiar
with faces during naturalistic viewing [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/thgrz