PCI Registered Reports

BISHOP Dorothy

Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Life Sciences
recommender

Recommendations: 3

Review: 1

Website https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2448-4033

Areas of expertise

Neuropsychology Child Language Neurodevelopmental disorders Laterality Research Integrity Fraud

Recommendations: 3

09 Jul 2024

STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

Impact of analytic decisions on test-retest reliability of individual and group estimates in functional magnetic resonance imaging: a multiverse analysis using the monetary incentive delay task

Michael I. Demidenko, Jeanette A. Mumford, Russell A. Poldrack https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.19.585755

Exploring determinants of test-retest reliability in fMRI: a study with the Monetary Incentive Delay Task

Recommended by Dorothy Bishop based on reviews by Xiangzhen Kong and 1 anonymous reviewer

Functional magnetic resonance imaging has been used to explore brain-behaviour relationships for many years, with proliferation of a wide range of sophisticated analytic procedures. However, rather scant attention has been paid to the reliability of findings. Concerns have been growing failures to replicate findings in some fields, but it is hard to know how far this is a consequence of underpowered studies, flexible analytic pipelines, or variability within and between participants.

Demidenko et al. (2024) took advantage of the availability of three existing datasets, including the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, the Michigan Longitudinal Study, and the Adolescent Risk Behavior Study, which all included a version of the Monetary Incentive Delay task measured in two sessions. These were entered into a multiverse analysis, which considered how within-subject and between-subject variance varies according to four analytic factors: smoothing (5 levels), motion correction (6 levels), task modelling (3 levels) and task contrasts (4 levels). They also considered how sample size affects estimates of reliability.

The results have important implications for the those using fMRI with the Monetary Incentive Delay Task, and also raise questions more broadly about use of fMRI indices to study individual differences. Motion correction had relatively little impact on the ICC, and the effect size of the smoothing kernel was modest. Larger impacts on reliability were associated with choice of contrast (implicit baseline giving larger effects) and task parameterization. But perhaps the most sobering message from this analysis is that although activation maps from group data were reasonably reliable, the ICC, used as an index of reliability for individual levels of activation, was consistently low. This raises questions about the suitability of the Monetary Incentive Delay Task for studying individual differences. Another point is that reliability estimates become more stable as sample size increases; researchers may want to consider whether the trade-off between cost and gain in precision is justified for sample sizes above 250.

I did a quick literature search on Web of Science: at the time of writing the search term ("Monetary Delay Task" AND fMRI) yielded 410 returns, indicating that this is a popular method in cognitive neuroscience. The detailed analyses reported here will repay study for those who are planning further research using this task.

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewer's and recommender's comments, 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/nqgeh

Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that was used to answer the research question had been accessed and partially observed by the authors prior to IPA, but the authors certify that they had not yet sufficiently observed the key variables within the data to be able to answer the research questions and they took additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

References

1. Demidenko, M. I., Mumford, J. A., & Poldrack, R. A. (2024). Impact of analytic decisions on test-retest reliability of individual and group estimates in functional magnetic resonance imaging: a multiverse analysis using the monetary incentive delay task [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.19.585755v4

09 Jul 2024

STAGE 1

Test-Retest Reliability in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Impact of Analytical Decisions on Individual and Group Estimates in the Monetary Incentive Delay Task

Michael I. Demidenko, Jeanette A. Mumford, Russell A. Poldrack https://osf.io/rv859?view_only=deaf7a8d461641749f143504b2a3150b

Exploring determinants of test-retest reliabilty in fMRI

Recommended by Dorothy Bishop based on reviews by Xiangzhen Kong and 2 anonymous reviewers

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been used to explore brain-behaviour relationships for many years, with proliferation of a wide range of sophisticated analytic procedures. However, rather scant attention has been paid to the reliability of findings. Concerns have been growing following failures to replicate findings in some fields, but it is hard to know how far this is a consequence of underpowered studies, flexible analytic pipelines, or variability within and between participants.

Demidenko et al. (2023) plan a study that will be a major step forward in addressing these issues. They take advantage of the availability of three existing datasets, the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, the Michigan Longitudinal Study, and the Adolescent Risk Behavior Study, which all included a version of the Monetary Incentive Delay task measured in two sessions. This gives ample data for a multiverse analysis, which will consider how within-subject and between-subject variance varies according to four analytic factors: smoothing (5 levels), motion correction (6 levels), task modelling (3 levels) and task contrasts (4 levels). They will also consider how sample size affects estimates of reliability. This will involve a substantial amount of analysis.

The study is essentially focused on estimation, although specific predictions are presented regarding the combinations of factors expected to give optimal reliability. The outcome will be a multiverse of results which will allow us to see how different pipeline decisions for this task affect reliability. In many ways, null results – finding that at least some factors have little effect on reliability – would be a positive finding for the field, as it would mean that we could be more relaxed when selecting an analytic pathway. A more likely outcome, however, is that analytic decisions will affect reliability, and this information can then guide future studies and help develop best practice guidelines. As one reviewer noted, we can’t assume that results from this analysis will generalise to other tasks, but this analysis with a widely-used task is an important step towards better and more consistent methods in fMRI.

The researchers present a fully worked out plan of action, with supporting scripts that have been developed in pilot testing. The Stage 1 manuscript received in-depth evaluation from three expert reviewers and the recommender. 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/nqgeh

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 sufficiently observed the key variables within the data to be able to answer the research questions AND they have taken additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

References

1. Demidenko, M. I., Mumford, J. A., & Poldrack, R. A. (2023). Test-Retest Reliability in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Impact of Analytical Decisions on Individual and Group Estimates in the Monetary Incentive Delay Task. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/nqgeh

19 Jan 2024

STAGE 1

A systematic review of social connection inventories

Bastien Paris, Debora Brickau, Tetiana Stoianova, Maike Luhmann, Christopher Mikton, Julianne Holt-Lunstad, Marlies Maes, Hans IJzerman https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/6ueyd

Improving the measurement of social connection

Recommended by Dorothy Bishop based on reviews by Jacek Buczny, Richard James and Alexander Wilson

This is an ambitious systematic review that uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to make the measurement of the construct of social connection more rigorous. Social connection is a heterogeneous construct that includes aspects of structure, function and quality. Here, Paris et al. (2024) will use predefined methods to create a database of social connection measures, and will assess heterogeneity of items using human coders and ChatGPT. This database will form the basis of a second systematic review which will look at evidence for validity and measurement properties. This study will also look at the population groups and country of origin for which different measures were designed, making it possible to see how far culturally specific issues affect the content of measures in this domain.

The questions asked by this study are exploratory and descriptive and so the importance of pre-registration is in achieving clear criteria for how each question is addressed, rather than evidential criteria for hypothesis-testing.

The authors responded comprehensively to three reviewer reports. This study will provide a wealth of useful information for those studying social connection, and should serve to make the literature in this field more psychometrically robust and less fragmented.

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/796uv

Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they have not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence.

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

References

1. Paris, B., Brickau, D., Stoianova, T., Luhmann, M., Mikton, C., Holt-Lunstad, J., Maes, A., & IJzerman, H. (2024). A systematic review of social connection inventories. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/796uv

Review: 1

04 Dec 2023

STAGE 1

Cerebral laterality as assessed by functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound in left-and right-handers: A comparison between handwriting and writing using a smartphone

Christos Samsouris, Nicholas A. Badcock, Filippos Vlachos, Marietta Papadatou-Pastou https://osf.io/sxhvk?view_only=11f338100ce84a088900a04af325b7ea

Does typing on a smartphone involve the same neural mechanisms as writing by hand?

Recommended by D. Samuel Schwarzkopf based on reviews by Todd Richards and Dorothy Bishop

Language production is associated with a distinct lateralised pattern of brain activation biased toward the left cerebral hemisphere. This also applies to writing. It has also been shown to be modulated by handedness, with less pronounced lateralisation in left-handers. However, in recent decades the use of handwriting has declined significantly while the use of smartphones has exploded. To date, no study has explored whether the same neural correlates of written language production found for handwriting also hold for typing on a smartphone.

In the current study, Samsouris et al. (2023) will use functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound (fTCD) to measure blood flow velocity within cerebral hemispheres to investigate this question. This technique is particularly suited for this purpose because it provides better control for the movement confounds associated with a writing task and the technical challenges of using a smart device than other neuroimaging techniques like fMRI or M/EEG. The authors hypothesise that there will be no difference in left cerebral lateralisation for handwriting and typing on a smartphone. They also expect to replicate previous findings of weaker lateralisation in left-handers in written language production when typing on a smartphone. To isolate the effect of written language production, both these conditions will be corrected for their corresponding motor component using control conditions without a linguistic component.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over 6 rounds of in-depth review by the recommender and two expert reviewers, before issuing in-principle acceptance.

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/j7egz

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. Samsouris, C., Badcock, N. A., Vlachos, F., & Papadatou-Pastou, M. (2023). Cerebral laterality as assessed by functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound in left-and right-handers: A comparison between handwriting and writing using a smartphone. In principle acceptance of Version 7 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/j7egz

BISHOP Dorothy

Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Life Sciences
recommender

Recommendations: 3

Review: 1

Website https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2448-4033

Areas of expertise

Neuropsychology Child Language Neurodevelopmental disorders Laterality Research Integrity Fraud