The human capacity and need for play has been recognized as a central psychotherapeutic component for a long time (e.g. Winnicott 1971). More recently, experts have started developing specialized digital gameplay to be used as therapeutic tools and even utilizing existing videogames for similar purposes (see Ceranoglu 2010). On the other hand, the concerns about some players becoming overinvolved in videogames also led the World Health Organization to include “gaming disorder” in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases, which echoes the nuance required to address human-technology relationships in general.  
 
In the present registered report, Billieux et al. (2024) make use of analog structured role-play in a new intervention aiming to mitigate social anxiety and problematic gaming patterns in online gamers. The authors carried out an exploratory pilot to test a 10-week protocol over three modules inspired by the well-known Dungeons & Dragons franchise. Through a multiple single-case design with a 3-month follow-up, the authors carried out the pilot with 20 participants (two dropped out), which enabled collecting valuable early data about the feasibility and potential of the intervention. 
 
Weekly psychometric assessments indicated that the intervention may support participants and it should continue to be studied in order to comprehensively evaluate its effectiveness. Feedback obtained from participants and other parts of the pilot project enabled identifying elements (e.g., difficulty adjustments), which can be given attention usefully in intervention development. Without question, the study by Billieux et al. (2024) is to be commended for highly transparent documentation of the project, which allows future researchers and intervention developers to learn from the pilot beyond initial results. Among other relevant materials, the supplements provide a detailed case study and item-level psychometric reporting, which can help the development of technical solutions and new hypotheses.
 
Taken together, the study by Billieux et al. (2024) paves the way for open science invention piloting in the field. The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by three experts (areas: experimental methods, psychopathology, gaming) via in-depth peer review across two rounds. Based on the authors’ careful responses and revisions, the revised manuscript was judged to meet the Stage 2 criteria and was awarded a positive recommendation. 
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/h7qat

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: 

 

• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

References
 
1. Billieux, J., Fournier, L., Rochat, L., Georgieva, I., Eben, C., Malmdorf Andersen, M., King, D., Simon, O., Khazaal, Y., Lieberoth, A. & Blocha., J. (2024) Can playing Dungeons and Dragons be good for you? A registered exploratory pilot program using offline Tabletop Role-Playing Games (TTRPGs) to mitigate social anxiety and reduce problematic involvement in multiplayer online videogames [Stage 2 RR]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/z32d5

 

2. Ceranoglu, T. (2010). Video Games in Psychotherapy. Review of General Psychology, 14 (2). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019439

 

3. Winnicott, D. (1971/2009). Playing and Reality. Routledge.

The replication crisis/credibility revolution has driven a vast number of changes to our research environment (Korbmacher et al., 2023) including a much needed spotlight on issues surrounding measurement (Flake & Fried, 2020). As general understanding and awareness has increased surrounding the 'garden of forking paths' or 'researcher degrees of freedom' (Simmons et al., 2011), and the various decisions made during the scientific process that could impact the conclusions drawn by the process, so too should our interest in meta-research that tells us more about the methodological processes we follow, and how discretionary decisions may influence the design, analysis and reporting of a project.

 

Peeters et al. (2025) have proposed a systematic literature review of this nature, mapping the methodological variation in experience sampling methods (ESM) from the design stage all the way to dissemination. It starts this journey by mapping how ESM studies vary e.g., in design, considering a variety of factors like sample size, number of measurements, and sampling scheme. It also evaluates reporting quality, rationales provided, and captures the extent of open science practices adopted. Covering many parts of the research process that get assumed, unreported or otherwise unjustified, the proposed work looks set to springboard an important body of work that can tell us more effectively how to design, implement and report ESM studies.

 

The Stage 1 submission was reviewed over one round of in-depth review with two reviewers. Based on detailed responses to reviewers’ feedback, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.

 

 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 1. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been accessed and observed by the authors, including key variables, but the authors certify that they have not yet performed any of their preregistered analyses, and in addition they have taken stringent steps to reduce the risk of bias.
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:

 

 

1. Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3, 456-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393

 

2. Korbmacher, M., Azevedo, F., Pennington, C. R., Hartmann, H., Pownall, M., Schmidt, K., ... & Evans, T. (2023). The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes. Communications Psychology, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-023-00003-2

 

3. Peeters, L., Van Den Noortgate, W., Blanchard, M. A., Eisele, G., Kirtley, O., Artner, R., & Lafit, G. (2025). Mapping Methodological Variation in ESM Research from Design to Data Analysis: A Systematic Review. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ztvn3

 

4. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632

Words have served as stimuli in memory experiments for over a century. What makes some words stand out in memory compared to others? One plausible answer is that semantically rich words are more distinctive and therefore exhibit a mirror effect in recognition memory experiments where they are likely to be correctly endorsed and also less likely to be confused with other words (Glanzer & Adams, 1985). Semantic richness can arise due to extensive prior experience with the word in multiple contexts but can also arise due to sensorimotor grounding, i.e., direct perceptual and action-based experience with the concepts represented by the words (e.g. pillow, cuddle). However, previous experiments have revealed inconsistent recognition memory performance patterns for words based on different types of sensorimotor grounding (Dymarska et al., 2023). Most surprisingly, body-related words such as 'cuddle' and 'fitness' exhibited greater false alarm rates. 

In the current study, Dymarska and Connell (2025) tested two competing theories that can explain the increased confusability of body-related words: 1) the adaptive account - contextual elaboration-based strategies activate other concepts related to body and survival, increasing confusability; and 2) the attentional account - somatic attentional mechanisms automatically induce similar tactile and interoceptive experiences upon seeing body-related words leading to less distinctive memory traces. The adaptive account leads to different predictions under intentional and incidental memory conditions. Specifically, contextual elaboration strategies are unlikely to be employed when participants do not expect a memory test and therefore in an incidental memory task, body-related words should not lead to inflated false alarm rates (see Hintzman (2011) for a discussion on incidental memory tasks and the importance of how material is processed during memory tasks). However, the attentional account is not dependent on the task instructions or the knowledge about an upcoming memory test.

Here, Dymarska and Connell (2025) undertook an incidental recognition memory experiment with over 5000 words, disguised as a lexical decision task using carefully matched pseudowords during the encoding phase. The sample size was determined by using a sequential hypothesis testing plan with Bayes Factors. To test the predictions of the adaptive and attentional accounts, the authors derived a set of lexical and sensorimotor variables (including a body-component) after dimensionality reduction of a comprehensive set of lexical and semantic word features. The analysis involved running both Bayesian and frequentist hierarchical linear regression to explain four different measures of recognition memory performance based on the key sensorimotor variables and other baseline/confounding variables. While this analysis plan enables a comparison with the earlier results from an expected memory test (Dymarska et al., 2023), the current study is self-contained in that it is possible to distinguish the adaptive and attentional accounts based on the effect of body component scores on hit rate and false alarm rate.

 

Results provided support for the attentional account: body-related words increased false alarms even when attention was not directed to them during the study phase, consistent with a somatic attentional mechanism that causes body-related words to activate tactile and other bodily modalities that render their representations less distinctive as a memory trace and retrieval cue. Overall, the authors conclude that their findings point to a reconsideration of the role of semantic richness in word memory.

The manuscript was evaluated over one round of review, after which the recommenders judged that the submission satisfied the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/ck5bg
 
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:
 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra: Psychology
• Cortex
• Experimental Psychology
• F1000Research
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open
   

 

Dymarska, A. & Connell, L. (2025). Sensorimotor Effects in Surprise Word Memory – a Registered Report [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/mg9jt

Dymarska, A., Connell, L. & Banks, B. (2023). More is Not Necessarily Better: How Different Aspects of Sensorimotor Experience Affect Recognition Memory for Words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, Cognition. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001265 

Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 13, 8-20. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198438

Hintzman, D. L. (2011). Research strategy in the study of memory: Fads, fallacies, and the search for the “coordinates of truth”. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 253-271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406924

People can represent quantities in different ways. Numbers can be represented non-symbolically through an Object Tracking System (for small quantities, when one immediately perceives how many objects are there) and an Approximate Number System (for large quantities), and symbolically, for example with Arabic symbols or words. One unresolved question is the extent to which using these numerical representations, and transferring between them, can be done automatically, or rather involves components of working memory. Key relevant working memory components are the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad.
 
In this study, Xenidou-Dervou and colleagues (2025) asked subjects to perform a dot comparison task with small and large numbers, to engage the non-symbolic systems, and a digit comparison task, to engage the symbolic system, and a cross modal task to engage translation between the systems. Participants either performed these tasks alone or with a secondary task, one that loaded either the phonological loop or else the visuospatial sketchpad. In the comparison of symbolic numerals, the visual secondary task itself was performed more poorly in dual rather than single task conditions, indicating the involvement of the visual spatial sketchpad in use of symbolic numerals. The visual secondary task interfered with non-symbolic number judgements, indicating involvement of the visuospatial sketch pad with the non-symbolic system as well. Finally, the translation between the systems also involved the visuospatial sketchpad, as shown by the secondary task itself suffering dual task interference. In sum, there was evidence for the visuospatial sketchpad, but not for the phonological loop, playing a role in simple comparisons using either or both of the symbolic and non-symbolic number systems. 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments and edits to the Stage 2 report, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria for recommendation.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/32qdw
 
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:

 

 

 

Xenidou-Dervou, I., Appleton, C., Rossi, S., Guy, N., & Gilmore, C. (2025). Can adults automatically process and translate between numerical representations? [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/me6tn

One of the key drivers of how organisms respond to stressful events or situations is the controllability of the stressor – the extent to which the individual has (or believes) they can control the stress-inducing event or situation. A considerable literature has explored controllability and the effects of aversive events, with the general finding that uncontrollable situations more strongly impair emotion and cognition while increasing stress responses (Maier & Seligman, 1976). In a key review, Foa et al. (1992) evaluated the effects of unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events that caused disturbance in animals. Although it remains unclear, longevity of stress exposure may play a role in responsiveness when exposed to uncontrollable threats in humans.

 

Here, Dudziak et al. (2025) examine whether acute stress exposure impacts reactivity to a subsequent loss of control over threat. Participants (N=128) will be assigned to a stress or a no-stress group, undergoing an acute stress induction or a non-stressful control procedure, followed by a behavioural loss-of-control task. By assessing salivary cortisol and salivary alpha-amylase assays, blood pressure measurements, and self-report ratings they hypothesize that participants exposed to acute stress will show stronger biological and psychological responses to the loss of control over threat than those in the no-stress group. The authors will also test whether individual differences in childhood adversity are associated with heightened stress responses. Overall, the findings promise to shed light on the directional relationship between threat controllability and stress reactivity, and will therefore be relevant across a range of research areas in clinical psychology, biological psychology, and associated domains.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by three expert reviewers who performed in-depth and constructive evaluation across multiple rounds of revisions. The authors were responsive in amending their manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments and dedicated much effort to increasing the clarity and interpretability of their design and sampling plan. The revised manuscript was judged to meet the Stage 1 criteria and was awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/dca3g
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. Data collection began during the final round of Stage 1 peer review. Since no substantive revisions to the design or analysis were made after this review round, the risk of bias due to prior data observation remained zero, and the manuscript therefore qualified for Level 6.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

1. Dudziak, M., Smeets, T., Vervliet, B., & Beckers, T. (2025). Impact of acute stress exposure on reactivity to loss of control over threat. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/dca3g

 

2. Foa, E. B., Zinbarg, R., & Rothbaum, B. O. (1992). Uncontrollability and unpredictability in post-traumatic stress disorder: An animal model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 218-238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.218

 

3. Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105, 3-46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.105.1.3