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

Mind-wandering broadly refers to the phenomenon by which a person's thoughts are directed towards internally generated states as opposed to being directed towards those that are task-relevant. It has been proposed that mind-wandering and cognitive control are supported by overlapping neural systems. While neuroimaging work has implicated prefrontal cortex in both mind-wandering and cognitive control, studies testing its causal role using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been inconclusive.

 

In this study, Rasmussen and colleagues will test whether the effects of prefrontal cortex tDCS on mind-wandering are mediated by dopaminergic availablility, which is known to be important for cognitive control. Using noninvasive brain stimuluation (prefrontal cortex tDCS vs sham) and a pharmacological intervention (levodopa vs. placebo), the authors will test for a causal role of both prefrontal cortex and dopamine availability in mind-wandering, and whether dopamine availability alters the effect of tDCS on mind-wandering.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two 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/ujp7e
 
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
• NeuroImage: Reports
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica

 

 

1. Rasmussen, T., Dux, P. E. & Filmer, H. (2024). On the neural substrates of mind wandering and dynamic thought: A drug and brain stimulation study. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ujp7e

 

Social cognition involves complex processes including empathy, mentalizing, and compassion, which rely on structural connectivity and specifically white matter (WM) integrity. Prior research suggests that deficits in social cognition are linked to deficient structural connectivity, indicating that the latter might be an essential foundation for social cognitive abilities. In the current study, Hansl et al. (2025) explore the relationship between social cognition and white matter (WM) integrity in the brain across different populations, by means of a systematic review and meta-analyses. Using diffusion-weighted imaging data, the authors aim to identify specific WM tracts most associated with social cognition. Meta-analyses of region-of-interest (ROI)-based studies will provide further insights, while meta-regression and subgroup analyses will examine differences across social cognitive constructs, imaging metrics, clinical conditions, and age groups. The findings could clarify global and specific WM contributions to social cognition, guiding future research on brain structure-function relationships in social cognition across various populations.

 

The Stage 1 submission was evaluated by two expert reviewers. After two rounds of revision, 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/6n3jy (under temporary private embargo)

 

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 observed the key variables within the data that will be used to answer the research question and they have taken additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.

 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

1. Hansl, R., Maliske, L. Z., Valk, S. L., & Kanske, P. (2025). Social cognition as a matter of structural brain connections? A systematic review and diffusion weighted imaging meta-analysis. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/6n3jy

This study seeks to understand cultural and age differences in the effort moralization effect, a phenomenon in which people who put more effort into a task are considered more moral, regardless of the quality or the morality associated with the task. This is shown in common phrases such as the “great resignation” or “quiet quitting”, which are mostly used against younger members of the population, in particular generation Z.

 

Tissot and Roth (2025) conducted a replication of a study from Celniker et al. (2023) which found evidence for this effect, with new samples from Mexico and Germany, to test potential cultural and age differences. 

The results indicated a generalization of the effort moralization effect in Germany and Mexico, with important heterogeneity in the effect found, and effects sizes that were smaller than in the original study conducted in the USA. However, no effect was found regarding age, as younger individuals judged effort as being important in the same way as older individuals. It is possible, therefore, that the effort moralization effect is a consistent bias that persists regardless of age.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over three 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 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

 

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. Celniker, J. B., Gregory, A., Koo, H. J., Piff, P. K., Ditto, P. H., & Shariff, A. F. (2023). The moralization of effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152, 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001259

 

2. Tissot, T. T. & Roth, L. H. O. (2025). Is it Worth the Hustle? A Multi-Country Replication of the Effort Moralization Effect and an Extension to Generational Differences in the Appreciation of Effort [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ck4st_v6

Does knowing more about others necessarily lead to greater liking, or might it breed contempt, as suggested by Norton et al. (2007)? In the current study, Horsham et al. (2025) tried to replicate and extend that original question. Collecting data from a large sample of U.S. undergraduates and employing carefully revised designs reviewed at Stage 1, they replicated Norton et al.’s initial studies (1a, 1b, and 2) while also adding new measures. Their primary aim was to see if the “less is more” effect, where increased familiarity decreases liking, would hold under rigorous modern standards, including pre-registration and several open science practices.

 

Results indicated that people indeed believe they will like someone more if they know more about that person, replicating Norton et al.’s initial finding from Studies 1a and 1b. However, the association between greater knowledge and reduced liking, the core of the “less is more” claim, was not consistently observed. Instead, the data showed little evidence that accumulating information inevitably decreases liking. Moreover, an added examination of curiosity as a potential mediator revealed that although curiosity and liking are positively related, curiosity itself was not strongly contingent on the amount of knowledge participants had. These findings help clarify why previous literature has sometimes presented mixed outcomes, and they underline the distinction between what people predict will happen and what actually does happen in forming impressions of others.

 

Peer review involved thorough evaluations by experts. Following multiple revisions through Stages 1 and 2, the manuscript has been deemed a carefully executed Registered Report, providing transparent methods, open data, and full reproducibility. It adds nuance to discussions around how knowledge, familiarity, and curiosity jointly shape our interpersonal attitudes. On this basis, 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/7mc4y
 
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:
 

 

 

1. Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.97

 

2. Horsham, Z., Haydock-Symonds, A., Imada, H., Tai, H. C., Lau, W. L., Shum, T. L., Zeng, Y., Chow, K., & Feldman, G. (2025). Does learning more about others impact liking them?: Replication and extension Registered Report of Norton et al. (2007)’s Lure of Ambiguity [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports.​ https://osf.io/ygkft