Announcements
We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!
Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.
259 records found
Latest recommendations
Id | Title * ▲ | Authors * | Abstract * | Picture | Thematic fields * | Recommender | Reviewers | Submission date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
31 Dec 2024
STAGE 1
![]() How Does Model (Mis)Specification Impact Statistical Power, Type I Error Rate, and Parameter Bias in Moderated Mediation?Jessica L. Fossum, Amanda K. Montoya, and Samantha F. Anderson https://osf.io/bauznDependence of power and type I error on model misspecification for mediated moderationRecommended by Zoltan DienesResearchers are often interested in moderated mediation. A predictor variable, such as number of counselling sessions, may predict an outcome, such as approach to a feared object, by way of a mediator, for example number of times the object was described in counselling. The strength of mediation in turn may depend on a moderator, such as vividness of imagery: Counselling reduces fear by way of imaginative exposure, particularly in those with vivid imagery. There may be a number of mediators ("indirect" paths), and any or all of these mediators may be moderated. In testing moderated mediation, a statistical model is specified which may or may not match the data generating process; in particular, there may or may not be moderators in the model corresponding to moderators that may or may not exist in the real data generating process, resulting in overspecification (more moderators of the indirect paths in the model than reality), underspecification (less moderators of indirect paths in the model than reality) or complete misspecification (where the moderated indirect paths in the model are not moderated in reality, and vice versa).
Researchers rely on the validity of tests (correct type I error rates), if they use frequentist statistics. Model misspecification may impact the validity of inferential tests for moderated mediation. Similarly, researchers need to be able to assess power for any analysis. In simulating power for mediated moderation, it may be important to know the possible extent to which the model is misspecified, and take this into account in planning numbers of participants. Fossum et al. (2024) will address this important problem with a series of simulations to determine if power is reduced meaningfully with over or under specification, or type I error and parameter estimates are biased for complete misspecification. The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to reviewers’ and the recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/8gwfu
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 Fossum, J. L., Montoya, A. K., & Anderson, S. F. (2024). How Does Model (Mis)Specification Impact Statistical Power, Type I Error Rate, and Parameter Bias in Moderated Mediation? A Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/8gwfu
| How Does Model (Mis)Specification Impact Statistical Power, Type I Error Rate, and Parameter Bias in Moderated Mediation? | Jessica L. Fossum, Amanda K. Montoya, and Samantha F. Anderson | <p>Moderated mediation models are commonly used in psychological research and other academic fields to model when and how effects occur. Researchers must choose which paths in the mediation model are moderated when specifying this type of model. W... | Life Sciences, Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2023-02-04 00:13:10 | View | ||
19 Mar 2023
STAGE 1
![]() How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered ReportPhilip Newall, Richard James, Olivia Maynard https://osf.io/zf4c8Does relaying ‘house edge’ information influence gambler’s perceived chances of winning and their factual understanding of the statistical outcomes?Recommended by Charlotte PenningtonMany products that can impact upon health and wellbeing (e.g. alcohol, food) relay information to consumers about the potential risks. However, such information is commonly provided in suboptimal format for gambling-related products. To encourage safer gambling, research has therefore recommended that information about the average loss from a gambling product (“house edge”) or percentage payout (“return-to-player”) should be communicated, with the former translating to better perceived understanding by gamblers. In this study, Newall et al. (2022) aim to experimentally compare two phrasings of the house edge against a control return-to-player to arrive at the most effective phrasing to aid gambler’s perceived chances of winning and their factual understanding of the statistical outcomes of their bet. Using a hypothetical gambling scenario, a sample of 3,000 UK-based online gamblers will be randomly assigned to receive two alternative phrasings of the house edge or the equivalent return-to-player information. Two outcome measures will be used to judge the effectiveness of the house edge information: gamblers’ perceived changes of winning and rates of accurate responding on a multiple-choice question measuring factual understanding of this information. This study will therefore assess the most effective communication of gambling risk, which can inform public health policies to reduce gambling-related harm.
Following a positive initial appraisal, and after two rounds of in-depth review, 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/5npy9
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. Newall, P. W. S., James, R. J. E. & Maynard, O. M. (2022). How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/5npy9 | How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Report | Philip Newall, Richard James, Olivia Maynard | <p>The provision of information to consumers is a common input to tackling various public health issues. By comparison to the information given on food and alcohol products, information on gambling products is either not given at all, or shown in ... | Social sciences | Charlotte Pennington | 2022-07-18 16:25:06 | View | ||
How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered ReportPhilip Newall, Richard James, Olivia Maynard https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pfnzdDoes relaying ‘house edge’ information influence gambler’s perceived chances of winning and their factual understanding of the statistical outcomes?Recommended by Charlotte PenningtonMany products that can impact upon health and wellbeing (e.g., alcohol, food) relay information to consumers about the potential risks. However, such information is commonly provided in suboptimal format for gambling-related products. To encourage safer gambling, research has therefore recommended that information about the average loss from a gambling product (“house edge”) or percentage payout (“return-to-player”) should be communicated, with the former translating to better perceived understanding by gamblers. This Registered Report aimed to experimentally compare two phrasings of the house edge against a control return-to-player to arrive at the most effective phrasing to aid gambler’s perceived chances of winning and their factual understanding of the statistical outcomes of their bet. Using a hypothetical gambling scenario, a sample of 3,333 UK-based online gamblers received one of three phrasings: an original house-edge (“his game keeps 10% of all money bet on average”), an alternative house-edge (“on average this game is programmed to cost you 10% of your stake on each bet”) or return-to-player (“this game has an average percentage payout of 90%”). Two outcome measures were employed to judge the effectiveness of this information: gamblers’ perceived changes of winning and factual understanding. The findings indicate that the two-house edge formats were more effective in communicating gambling-related harms than the return-to-player format, but the original house edge phrasing appeared to be the most optimal as it decreased gambler’s perceived chances of winning and increased their factual understanding compared to return-to-player. These results can therefore inform public health policies to reduce gambling-related harm by presenting the most effective communication of gambling risk.
After two in-depth reviews, 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/5npy9
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. Newall, P. W. S., James, R. J. E. & Maynard, O. M. (2023). How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Report. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pfnzd | How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Report | Philip Newall, Richard James, Olivia Maynard | <p>The provision of information to consumers is a common input to tackling various public health issues. By comparison to the information given on food and alcohol products, information on gambling products is either not given at all, or shown in ... | Social sciences | Charlotte Pennington | Zhang Chen | 2023-01-09 14:56:36 | View | |
09 Sep 2024
STAGE 1
![]() How Effortful is Boredom? Studying Self-Control Demands Through PupillometryVanessa C. Radtke, Wanja Wolff, Corinna S. Martarelli https://osf.io/eujpa?view_only=12191f02a5db4689b00b42bab7dbd522Unmasking the effort of boredom: A deeper look into self-control dynamicsRecommended by Thomas MeyerEffective effort regulation is central for self-control and has been a focus of psychological research for many decades. It is well established that challenging cognitive tasks, which impose self-control demands due to their complexity, are perceived as more effortful and require greater physiological activation than simpler tasks. However, the experience and allocation of effort during a task, whether easy or difficult, likely depends on more than these inherent self-control demands. Another key factor is boredom, which can arise during task execution. Yet, the role of boredom and the interplay with perceived task difficulty over time remains underexamined.
Based on these considerations, Radtke et al. (2024) aim to examine how boredom and task difficulty influence both subjective and objective measures of effort. They propose that subjective cognitive effort consists of both boredom-related and difficulty-related components, hypothesizing that both factors together more accurately predict objective effort allocation than task difficulty alone. The proposed study will use a within-subject design, in which participants perform two versions of the Stroop task: an easy version with only congruent trials and a hard version. Thought probes during the task will track subjective boredom, fatigue, perceived difficulty, and effort. Phasic and stimulus-evoked pupil dilation will serve as an objective index of cognitive effort, while a subsequent flanker task will assess effects on secondary task performance.
The authors predict that the easy Stroop version will result in lower perceived difficulty but higher boredom, as well as fewer errors and faster reaction times compared to the hard version. Over time, boredom and perceived effort due to boredom are expected to increase, while perceived task difficulty and effort attributed to difficulty are anticipated to decrease. Linear Mixed Models will be employed to determine whether phasic and stimulus-evoked pupil dilation can be predicted by effort attributed to boredom, difficulty, or both. This innovative approach combines objective and subjective measures and promises to deepen our understanding of the cognitive demands posed by boredom, with significant implications for research on effort regulation and motivation.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by four expert reviewers in two rounds of in-depth review. Following responses from the authors, the recommender determined that Stage 1 criteria were met and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/38qz4
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 Radtke, V., Wolff, W., & Martarelli, C. S. (2024). How effortful is boredom? Studying self-control demands through pupillometry. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/38qz4
| How Effortful is Boredom? Studying Self-Control Demands Through Pupillometry | Vanessa C. Radtke, Wanja Wolff, Corinna S. Martarelli | <p>Self-control is essential for managing our actions, yet its exertion is perceived as effortful. Performing a task may require effort not only because of its inherent difficulty but also due to its potential for inducing boredom, as boredom has ... | Humanities, Social sciences | Thomas Meyer | 2023-11-21 17:56:13 | View | ||
09 Jul 2023
STAGE 1
![]() How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant InformationDavid A. Neequaye & Alexandra Lorson https://psyarxiv.com/bpdn2How an interviewee knows what information is key to disclose or withholdRecommended by Zoltan DienesResearch on interviewing has often focused on topics (such as aiding memory of witnesses) which presume the interviewee has already correctly identified the precise information that the interviewer is really after. But how does an informant know what sort of information is asked for, a precondition for an informant to then choose to provide the information or withhold it (depending on their own interests)?
In this study, Neequaye and Lorson will ask subjects to take the role of an informant about a criminal gang, with the further instructions to be cooperative or resistant in helping the interviewer obtain the information they want. In one study, the participants will be asked merely to identify what information the interviewer wants. In the second study, the participants will answer the interviewer's questions, disclosing whatever information they feel best suits their interest. Crucially, the level of detail of the questions will be manipulated, such that the question specifies a clear objective or not. The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review. 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/82qtn 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. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2022). How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/82qtn
| How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information | David A. Neequaye & Alexandra Lorson | <p>This research explores how intelligence interviewees mentally identify the relevant information at their disposal, which they may or may not disclose. We theorize that interviewees mentally identify applicable information items by estimating th... | Humanities, Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2022-02-25 22:20:40 | View | ||
How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant InformationDavid A. Neequaye & Alexandra Lorson https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bpdn2How an interviewee knows what information is key to disclose or withholdRecommended by Zoltan DienesResearch on interviewing has often focused on topics (such as aiding memory of witnesses) which presume the interviewee has already correctly identified the precise information that the interviewer is really after. But how does an informant know what sort of information is asked for, a precondition for an informant to then choose to provide the information or withhold it (depending on their own interests)?
In this study, Neequaye and Lorson (2023) asked subjects to take the role of an informant about a criminal gang, with the further instructions to be cooperative or resistant in helping the interviewer obtain the information they want. In one study, the participants were asked merely to identify what information the interviewer wants. In the second study, the participants answered the interviewer's questions, disclosing whatever information they felt best suited their interest. Crucially, the level of detail of the questions was manipulated, such that the question specified a clear objective or not. Contrary to the theory, mental designation preferences indicated that interviewees generally assume interviewers wanted to know complete details, irrespective of question specificity. The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on responses to the comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and therefore awarded a positive recommendation. URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/82qtn 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. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2023). How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information [Stage 2]. Acceptance of of Version 10 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bpdn2
| How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information | David A. Neequaye & Alexandra Lorson | <p>This research explored how intelligence interviewees mentally identify the relevant information at their disposal. We theorized that interviewees estimate the interviewer’s objectives based on how they frame any attempt to solicit information. ... | Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2023-05-24 06:57:09 | View | ||
20 Jan 2025
STAGE 1
![]() How Interviewees Determine What Interviewers Want to KnowDavid A. Neequaye, Alexandra Lorson https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/8s35kDecoding Interviewer’s Intent: How Interviewees Infer Information GoalsRecommended by Yikang ZhangInvestigative interviews are structured social interactions where interviewers seek information from interviewees to address various objectives (e.g., Neequaye, 2023). Across diverse contexts such as eyewitness recall or intelligence gathering (e.g., Geiselman et al., 1986; Granhag & Hartwig, 2015), interviewees must first identify their interviewer’s goals before deciding whether to cooperate or resist their requests. This is the central focus of the current study.
In a prior study, Neequaye and Lorson (2023) made an unexpected discovery: interviewees tended to assume their interviewer was interested in all the information they possessed on a topic, regardless of the specificity of the questions (high vs. low specificity). The current submission by Neequaye and Lorson (2025) seeks to replicate these findings while addressing two potential confounds from the earlier research.
Replication 1 utilizes a within-subjects design for question-specificity trials, while Replication 2 employs a between-subjects design. In both replications, participants indicate what they believe their interviewer wants to know using free-text responses rather than selecting from predefined options. The authors present clear hypotheses, predicted outcomes, and alternative predictions, supported by well-reasoned rationales. Furthermore, the methodology, including data collection and analysis plans, is described in detail and has undergone review by three experts. Based on the expert reviews and the authors’ responses, the recommender concluded that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and granted in-principle acceptance.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/9suze
Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exists AND is accessible in principle to the authors, but the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals: References
1. Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1986). Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. The American Journal of Psychology, 99, 385-401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422492
2. Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2015). The Strategic Use of Evidence Technique: A Conceptual Overview. In A. Vrij & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Deception detection: Current challenges and new directions (pp. 231–251). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118510001.ch10
3. Neequaye, D. A. (2023). Why Rapport Seems Challenging to Define and What to Do About the Challenge. Collabra: Psychology, 9, 90789. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.90789
4. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2023). How intelligence interviewees mentally identify relevant information. Royal Society Open Science, 10(8), 230986. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230986
5. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2025). How Interviewees Determine What Interviewers Want to Know. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/9suze
| How Interviewees Determine What Interviewers Want to Know | David A. Neequaye, Alexandra Lorson | <p>We examine the mechanisms by which interviewees in investigative interviews mentally organize information when deciphering what an interviewer wants to know. The overarching idea is that such a process stems from the extent to which an intervie... | Social sciences | Yikang Zhang | 2024-06-14 22:53:12 | View | ||
17 Jan 2023
STAGE 1
![]() How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replicationde Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P.C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L.P., Gunschera, L.J., Murre, J.M.J. https://osf.io/hpsft/?view_only=c8ec62553146496e8b5e4d100a0f08b5How much practice is needed before daily actions are performed in a way that feels habitual?Recommended by Zoltan DienesEven small changes in daily life can have a significant impact on one’s health, for example going to the gym at regular times and eating a healthy breakfast. But how long must we do something before it becomes a habit? Lally et al. (2010) tracked the subjective automaticity of a novel, daily (eating or exercise-related) routine. Based on 39 participants, they found a median time of 66 days. This estimate has never been replicated with their exact procedure, so the question remains of how well this holds up. Yet the estimate is useful for knowing how long we have to effortfully make ourselves perform an action until we will do it automatically.
In the current study, de Wit et al. (2023) propose a four-centre near-exact replication of Lally et al. (2010), for which they aim to test 800 subjects to provide a precise estimate of the time it takes to form a habit.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over four rounds of 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/bj9r2 Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exists AND is accessible in principle to the authors (e.g. residing in a public database or with a colleague), BUT the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674
2. de Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P. C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L. P., Gunschera, L. J., AND Murre, J. M. J. (2023). How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replication, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bj9r2
| How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replication | de Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P.C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L.P., Gunschera, L.J., Murre, J.M.J. | <p>How long does it take to form a habit? This question will be addressed by an innovative study by Lally et al. (2010), in which they tracked the subjective automaticity of a novel, daily (eating or exercise-related) routine, using the Self-Repor... | Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2022-05-26 09:54:26 | View | ||
16 Oct 2024
STAGE 1
![]() How perceptual ability shapes memory: An investigation in healthy special populationsChhavi Sachdeva, Emily Whelan, Rebecca Ovalle-Fresa, Alodie Rey-Mermet, Jamie Ward, Nicolas Rothen https://osf.io/842ud?view_only=606c99cb61c7437089176843cf06587aPutting the enhanced processing account of perception and memory to the testRecommended by Reshanne ReederThe 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).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/6wn4m
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 | How perceptual ability shapes memory: An investigation in healthy special populations | Chhavi Sachdeva, Emily Whelan, Rebecca Ovalle-Fresa, Alodie Rey-Mermet, Jamie Ward, Nicolas Rothen | <p>The enhanced processing account posits a close connection between visual perceptual ability and memory. This account finds support in studies involving special populations with conditions based on neural changes in the ventral visual pathway, s... | Life Sciences | Reshanne Reeder | Ariel Kershner, Katherine Moore | 2024-05-03 14:15:43 | View | |
08 Sep 2022
STAGE 1
![]() How to succeed in human modified environmentsLogan CJ, Shaw R, Lukas D, McCune KB http://corinalogan.com/ManyIndividuals/mi1.htmlThe role of behavioural flexibility in promoting resilience to human environmental impactsRecommended by Chris ChambersUnderstanding and mitigating the environmental effects of human expansion is crucial for ensuring long-term biosustainability. Recent research indicates a steep increase in urbanisation – including the expansion of cities – with global urban extent expanding by nearly 10,000 km^2 per year between 1985 and 2015 (Liu et al, 2020). The consequences of these human modified environments on animal life are significant: in order to succeed, species must adapt quickly to environmental changes, and those populations that demonstrate greater behavioural flexibility are likely to cope more effectively. These observations have, in turn, prompted the question of whether enhancing behavioural flexibility in animal species might increase their resilience to human impacts.
In the current research, Logan et al. (2022) will use a serial reversal learning paradigm to firstly understand how behavioural flexibility relates to success in avian species that are already successful in human modified environments. The authors will then deploy these flexibility interventions in more vulnerable species to establish whether behavioural training can improve success, as measured by outcomes such as foraging breadth, dispersal dynamics, and survival rate.
The Stage 1 manuscript was submitted via the programmatic track and will eventually produce three Stage 2 outputs focusing on different species (toutouwai, grackles, and jays). Following two rounds of in-depth review, 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/wbsn6
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. Liu, X., Huang, Y., Xu, X., Li, X., Li, X., Ciais, P., Lin, P., Gong, K., Ziegler, A. D., Chen, A., et al. (2020). High-spatiotemporal-resolution mapping of global urban change from 1985 to 2015. Nature Sustainability, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0521-x
2. Logan, C.J., Shaw, R., Lukas, D. & McCune, K.B. (2022). How to succeed in human modified environments, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/wbsn6
| How to succeed in human modified environments | Logan CJ, Shaw R, Lukas D, McCune KB | <p>Human modifications of environments are increasing, causing global changes that other species must adjust to or suffer from. Behavioral flexibility (hereafter ‘flexibility’) could be key to coping with rapid change. Behavioral research can cont... | ![]() | Life Sciences | Chris Chambers | 2022-05-06 12:12:05 | View |
FOLLOW US
MANAGING BOARD
Chris Chambers
Zoltan Dienes
Corina Logan
Benoit Pujol
Maanasa Raghavan
Emily S Sena
Yuki Yamada