Jyoti Mishra [jymishra@health.ucsd.edu] suggested: Ellen Lee eel013@health.ucsd.edu, Bastian Schiller suggested: Review Registered Report Stage 1
, Bastian Schiller suggested: “Loneliness in the Brain: Distinguishing Between Hypersensitivity and Hyperalertness” (Bathelt et al.)
, Bastian Schiller suggested: 1A. The scientific validity of the research question(s).
, Bastian Schiller suggested: The authors apply a new roving oddball paradigm in combination with ERP analysis to distinguish between hypersensitivity and hyperalertness to social stimuli in lonely individuals. This research question is scientifically justifiable and derived from existing theories. Furthermore, it is defined with sufficient precision as to be answerable through quantitative research. It also falls within established ethical norms.
, Bastian Schiller suggested: 1B. The logic, rationale, and plausibility of the proposed hypotheses, as applicable.
, Bastian Schiller suggested: The authors state clear, directional hypotheses which are based on empirical findings from a first study in individuals with “normal loneliness”. I was wondering whether the authors do expect individual differences in the extent of lonely individuals displaying hypersensitivity and/or hyperalertness? Maybe the authors could clarify this issue.
, Bastian Schiller suggested: 1C. The soundness and feasibility of the methodology and analysis pipeline (including statistical power analysis or alternative sampling plans where applicable).
, Bastian Schiller suggested: In total, I found the methodology and analysis pipeline sound and feasible. The authors have provided a reasonable justification for choosing this sample size. Although the authors explain why they plan to include individuals with mood disorders, I remain skeptical as to whether this approach could confound potential findings. The authors may also consider to include the Brief Symptom Inventory to check the effect of comorbid mental health issues, as well as questionnaires on current stress levels (e.g. Perceived Stress Scale; Cohen et al., 1983).
, Bastian Schiller suggested: 1D. Whether the clarity and degree of methodological detail is sufficient to closely replicate the proposed study procedures and analysis pipeline and to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the procedures and analyses.
, Bastian Schiller suggested: In general, methodological details are described sufficiently. However, I had some problems to understand the averaging of ERP trials (2.4.2). Why were the ERPs averaged over the 5th repetition (and not the 6th)? How many trials were available for averaging? Finally, I wonder whether the authors may consider to conduct ERP analyses which analyze all available temporal and spatial information (conducting TANOVAs or analyzing GFP; for details, see, e.g., Murray et al., 2008, Brain Topography; Cacioppo et al., 2015, Journal of Neuroscience Methods; Schiller et al., 2023, Brain Topography) rather than a priori disregarding specific spatial and temporal information. Having that said, the approach proposed by the authors seems valid, controlling for multiple testing (but why was alpha set to 0.02?).
, Bastian Schiller suggested: 1E. Whether the authors have considered sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. absence of floor or ceiling effects; positive controls; other quality checks) for ensuring that the obtained results are able to test the stated hypotheses or answer the stated research question(s).
, Bastian Schiller suggested: Not applicable.
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
