Thank you for these thorough responses to the second round of review. The LSA is now much more clearly explained, and the shift in language from 'similarity' to 'overlap' is helpful, and liable to avoid misunderstandings. The exploratory analysis might be further questioned conceptually, but the important thing is it is now more clear exactly what you have done, and so readers will be able to make up their own minds about this aspect.

Before recommending this Stage 2 ms, I have one small change to request in the abstract. You say, "To determine if the context in which the movie was viewed had an effect on face recognition, we compared recognition in the original and scrambled condition. We found an overall effect of conceptual knowledge on face recognition." I think you should change 'conceptual knowledge' to 'context' here, to avoid the stronger implication of a causal pathway via conceptual knowledge (which is plausible, but not tested by your study).

I'd also like to take this chance to let you see the Stage 2 recommendation that I have drafted for your study. If you see anything that you think is incorrect and needs to be amended then please let me know.

Best wishes,

Rob

Draft of recommendation text

A registered test of the role of contextual information in aiding perceptual learning of faces

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 (2023) test whether the provision of meaningful context during exposure improves the consolidation of faces into long-term memory. Participants were shown TV show video clips, ordered either in their original chronological sequence, which provides meaningful context, or in a scrambled sequence, which disrupts the meaning. It was expected that the original sequence would provide a better conceptual understanding of the narrative, 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 initial encoding. Face recognition memory was tested shortly after exposure and following a four-week delay, to allow time for consolidation. Recognition memory was better for participants in the meaningful context condition, and for in-show faces, as expected. 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 suggested that a metric of overlap between pairs of participants’ conceptual understanding of the clips was related to overlap in the set of faces they recognised, and this was relationship was stronger at the follow up test, which may suggest that the interaction of conceptual knowledge and face recognition changes with 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.

Thank you for your revised Stage 2 report. I think that you have handled many of the review comments well, but that there are still some outstanding issues to be addressed. I found it necessary to ask Haiyang Jin (Reviewer#1) for a further round of external review, in particular to consult on an issue that I find problematic (or at least insufficiently well explained). I am quoting directly from my request to HJ below, to provide the context for his review comments.

“My concern is about the exploratory analysis of narrative and face similarity, and whether the method used is a valid way to operationalise the question. The narrative similarity algorithm is not clearly explained, and so I think the reader is unsure exactly what this measurement represents. Second, the face similarity metric (which you queried at Stage 1) seems very odd to me, because it is just the number of faces that were both recognised by a pair of participants. If I understand this correctly, this means that if I were a participant who recognised all faces, then my 'similarity' score with each other participant would simply be equal to the number of faces that they recognised. Moreover, for any participant, the maximum 'similarity' that they can have with any other participant is fixed at the number of faces they recognised.

This implies, for instance, that:

- for a pair of participants in which one person recognised 30 faces, and another recognised 15, the 'similarity' of recognition is 15.

- but for a pair of participants in which both people recognised exactly the same sub-set of 15 faces, the 'similarity' is also 15

- and for a pair of participants who recognised exactly the same sub-set of 7 faces, the 'similarity' is 7.

This metric, if I have interpreted it correctly, does not seem to capture what I would intuitively think of as 'similarity', missing out on critical variation in the specificity of the pattern of faces remembered.

I would very much value your consultation on this particular issue, if you have time to give it.”

Please see HJ’s review for a more knowledgeable take on the same issue. Please bear in mind that your paper needs to be fully understandable both to people who are and are not already familiar with the ‘narrative similarity’ approach you have used.

In addition:

I do not think you have answered my comment on plot style fully. In particular: (a) why do you choose different plot styles (violin, and bar) for different plots; (b) why do you choose to use SE for error bars (rather than, say 95% CIs).

Having spent some time re-reading your Methods, I noted that it was rather difficult to find some key pieces of information. Specifically, I think it would be helpful if the ‘Design’ statement named the levels per factor (not just the number of levels), and if it were more clearly stated somewhere prominent in the Methods how many faces were viewed per participant per condition (and how many in total). Although the Stage 1 parts of the manuscript should not be substantially changed at Stage 2, I think that these small amendments would improve the readability.

Fig 5 legend typo: “Higher recognition ws evident”

I therefore invite a revision of this Stage 2 manuscript to address/clarify the outstanding issues.

Best wishes,

Rob McIntosh

PCI RR recommender

Thank you for submitting your Stage 2 report for this study (and congratulations on completing the experiment).

I apologise that it has taken a while to get this decision letter to you. I have had one review available, from Haiyang Jin, for some time, but have been unable to elicit a response from the other Stage 1 reviewer. Given the time that has elapsed, I have decided to act as the second reviewer myself, and have now read the Stage 2 manuscript closely.

Haiyang Jin and I have some comments that require your consideration, and you should indicate how you have responded to these if and when you submit a revised version. As a matter of editorial guidance, please note that, because you have followed your preregistered analysis plan, you are not obliged to follow reviewer suggestions for additional exploratory analyses at this stage (though you can do so if you agree that they may be important/informative). For instance, having specified a NHST approach, you are not required to follow-up non-significant outcomes with equivalence tests, which would ask different question from the one that you preregistered (however, if you do decide to include them, then these tests should be clearly demarcated from the preregistered portions, as post-hoc).

My own main comment on reading this Stage 2 manuscript is that there may be too much emphasis given to the exploratory analyses, which have been allowed to play an undue role in driving your main conclusions from the study. It is perfectly acceptable to add exploratory analyses, but these have a subordinate status to the pre-registered analyses, which were agreed in advance to represent the most appropriate tests of your hypotheses. The pre-registered analyses and outcomes must therefore remain clearly in focus and should drive your main conclusions. If you believe, in retrospect, that these were not adequate tests of your hypotheses (not just because they did not produce expected outcomes), then you should explain why they may have been compromised, and make recommendations for how the hypotheses could be reassessed in future. You can use your exploratory analyses to support these discussion points, but you cannot implictly or explicitly swap them in for your pre-registered analyses as representing the preferred tests of your original hypotheses.

This comment relates to the framing of your results, and the relative balance between pre-planned and post-hoc parts in driving theoretical conclusions in Discussion. Although the exploratory analyses may be sensible, and suggestive, they are unconstrained in the researcher degrees of freedom available (meaning that p values lose their formal meaning), and their post-hoc nature means that any conclusions drawn from them must be highly tentative, and considered as suggesting ways to configure future hypothesis tests, rather than supporting any clear conclusions in their own right. You need to be scrupulous to avoid implying that your exploratory analyses represent the same severity of test (or even a better test) of your hypotheses than your pre-planned analyses do.

This framing is sometimes fairly overt. For instance, in Discussion, you state:

“… an individual differences approach could be a better way to explore the role of conceptual information on face recognition. Accordingly, we performed an exploratory analysis in which we compared conceptual knowledge and face recognition across all participants…. The difference between the immediate and delayed timepoints for Out of Show faces suggests that a period of consolidation may be necessary for the development of a more flexible representation that underpins face recognition.”

“Interestingly, the strength of the relationship between the conceptual knowledge and face recognition was significantly  greater   at   the   delayed   timepoint,  which   again   supports   an   important   role   for consolidation in memory. Thus, while our pre-registered analyses failed to show support for a greater effect after consolidation, our exploratory analyses show that conceptual knowledge is both quantitatively and qualitatively important in generating stable representations of people.”

The tilt towards an emphasis on exploratory outcomes can also be more subtle and stylistic. For instance, in the final conclusion (repeated in your Abstract) you state:

“While planned analyses did not reveal a greater effect of conceptual knowledge after consolidation... Exploratory analyses showed that the level of conceptual knowledge was significantly correlated with face recognition, before and after consolidation. These findings highlight the importance of non-visual, conceptual information in face recognition during natural viewing.”

This statement de-emphasises and skips over the null result of the planned analyses by placing it within a subordinate clause (“While planned analyses did not…” ), and then uses strong inferential language to interpret the exploratory results (“Exploratory analyses showed that…”).

This may seem pedantic, but it is critical to the integrity of the RR format that proper weight be given to the pre-registered hypothesis tests, and that further exploratory analyses, which are not subject to the same level of bias control, are interpreted appropriately in this context.

I also mention three other issues below:

1) In my view, you need to give a more detailed explanation both of the rationale and of the procedure for the exploratory analysis in which you “correlated the similarity of the free-recall text and the similarity in the recognition of faces across all pairs of participants”. A clear argument needs to be made that this is both a theoretically relevant and a statistically sound thing to do. Here (if you keep these analyses) and elsewhere, there should be less focus upon the significance of correlations, and more on their size. It is not surprising is a correlation with nearly 20k pairs achieves significance, and not particularly surprising if one with 200 pairs does, so it is more informative to discuss the estimated strength of correlation. This is especially so in an exploratory context, where the meaning of ‘significance’ is moot.

2) Plot style

You use different plotting styles for different outcomes. Figure 4 is a violin plot, and Figure 5 is a bar plot. If you are deciding to use different plotting styles across plots, then it should be clear to the reader why you have made this choice.

It looks like you might have used a violin plot for Figure 4 to more fully represent a non-normal distribution, but this creates concerns that the parametric t-test could be inappropriate to the data. As an aside, violin plots can be a nice way to illustrate a distribution, but as they are effectively a symmetrically-reflected density plot, you should check that they are doing a good job of representing your data (sometimes the density smoothing kernel can lead to misrepresentations). It can often be useful to overlay a jitter plot of individual observations, so that all data points are ultimately displayed.

Figure 5 is a bar plot, with what I presume are +/- 1SE error bars (but this is not stated), showing the interaction of the within-subject factor of image, and the between-subject factor of condition, with different plots for each level of the within-subject factor of time.This is fine to grasp the overall pattern (although 95% CIs might be preferable to SEs, unless you have a strong reason to prefer the latter). I also think it would be more intuitive (for me) to split the panel by the between-subjects factor, so each plot represents the experiment for a different subject group. (You could also then use within-subject error bars within each panel). But this is really a stylistic preference.

3) Plot specificity

You should be sure to include plots that specifically represent the data on which the inferential tests have actually been performed. Hypotheses 1.1 and 1.2 are tested and reported separately, but they seem to be conflated into a total score in Figure 4, for which there is no corresponding hypothesis test. For Hypothesis 2, the relevant data would be the immediate-delayed difference per group (preferably with 95% CIs); similarly you should directly represent the relevant collapsed data for H3 and H4.