DIENES Zoltan's profile
avatar

DIENES Zoltan

  • School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
  • Social sciences
  • administrator, recommender, manager, developer

Recommendations:  3

Reviews:  0

Educational and work
Professor of Psychology website: http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Zoltan_Dienes/ I joined the first Registered Reports editorial team at Cortex in 2013 (and the team for Exploratory Reports at Cortex when it was set up in 2018); and in 2019 I became an associate editor for Registered Reports for Neuroscience of Consciousness and for Royal Society Open Science. I resigned my positions at Cortex in 2021 because of deciding to have no more dealings, as author, reviewer or editor for journals run by for-profit companies (except society journals because there is some minimal trickle down), despite the fact I felt Cortex had been involved in ground breaking work in scientific publishing. My philosophical and practical approach to Registered Reports is described here: Dienes, Z. (draft). The inner workings of Registered Reports. In Austin Lee Nichols & John E. Edlund (Eds), Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yhp2a This is my first Registered Report seen through to publication: Palfi, B., Parris, B. A., McLatchie, N., Kekecs, Z., & Dienes, Z. (2021). Can unconscious intentions be more effective than conscious intentions? Test of the role of metacognition in hypnotic response. Registered Report. Cortex, 135, 219-239. https://psyarxiv.com/x982m/ I am also interested in how Bayes factors can improve scientific inferences. For an online calculator see: http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Zoltan_Dienes/inference/Bayes.htm and a practical introduction to the issues: Dienes, Z. (2021). How to use and report Bayesian hypothesis tests. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 9–26 https://psyarxiv.com/bua5n/

Recommendations:  3

26 Apr 2022
STAGE 1
toto

Do task-irrelevant cross-modal statistical regularities induce distractor suppression in visual search?

Learning cross-modally to suppress distractors

Recommended by based on reviews by Miguel Vadillo and 1 anonymous reviewer
There are two fundamental processes that the brain engages in: statistical learning and selection. Indeed, past work has shown these processes often come together: People can use a task-irrelevant stimulus to predict a target stimulus even in different modalities (crossmodal statistical learning), thereby enhancing the processing of the target stimulus (selection). Further, people can learn where a distractor will be in order to efficiently suppress it (selecting out), using task irrelevant stimuli in the same modality (within-modality statistical learning).
 
In the current study, Jagini and Sunny will test whether people can learn where a distractor stimulus is, in order to suppress it (selecting out), using a task-irrelevant stimulus from a different modality (cross modal statistical learning). They will also test whether people can express awareness of the relation between the predictor task-irrelevant stimulus and the location of the distractor on a forced choice test. On some (but not other) theories of consciousness, such a test measures conscious knowledge of the association.
 
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/qjbmg
 
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. Jagini, K. K. & Sunny, M. M. (2022). Do task-irrelevant cross-modal statistical regularities induce distractor suppression in visual search? Stage 1 Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/qjbmg
08 Feb 2022
STAGE 1
article picture

Arithmetic deficits in Parkinson's Disease? A registered report

Getting the numbers right in Parkinson's disease?

Recommended by based on reviews by Ann Dowker, Stephanie Rossit, Pia Rotshtein and 1 anonymous reviewer

Everyday life, including for patients taking different types of medicine, involves dealing with numbers. Even though Parkinson's disease may ordinarily be thought of as primarily being a motor disorder, there is evidence that numerical abilities decline as Parkinson's disease progresses. Further, the brain areas involved in arithmetic operations overlap with the areas that degenerate in Parkinson's disease.

In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Loenneker et al. (2022) will test healthy  controls, Parkinson disease patients with normal  cognition, and Parkinson disease patients with mild cognitive impairment on general working memory tasks as well as arithmetic performance on the four basic  operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division). The study aims to test whether or not there is a deficit in each operation, and the relation of any deficits to general working memory capacity.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over four rounds of review (including two rounds of in-depth specialist review). Based on comprehensive 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/nb5fj

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

Loenneker, H. D., Liepelt-Scarfone, I., Willmes, K., Nuerk, H.-C., & Artemenko, C. (2022). Arithmetic deficits in Parkinson’s Disease? A Registered Report. Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/nb5fj

25 Jan 2022
STAGE 1
toto

To help or hinder: Do the labels and models used to describe problematic substance use influence public stigma?

Understanding the role of health condition, aetiological labels, and attributional judgements in public stigma toward problematic substance use

Recommended by based on reviews by Roger Giner-Sorolla and Nicholas Sinclair-House

People suffering from substance misuse problems are often stigmatised. Such public stigma may impair such people obtaining help and the quality of help that they receive. For this reason, previous research has investigated the factors that may reduce stigma. Evidence has been found, but not consistently, for the claim that labelling the condition as "chronically relapsing brain disease" vs a "problem" reduces stigma; as does "a health concern" vs " drug use". Another potentially relevant difference that may explain different previous results is describing how effective treatment can be.

In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Pennington et al. (2022) describe how they will investigate if any of these factors affect two different measures of stigma used in previous work, with a study well powered for testing whether the 99% CI lies outside or inside an equivalence region. While the CI being outside the region will straightforwardly justify concluding an effect of interest, a CI within the region will need to be interpreted with due regard to the fact that some effects within the region may be interesting.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of review (including one round of in-depth specialist review). Based on comprehensive 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/4vscg

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

Pennington, C. R., Monk, R. L., Heim, D., Rose, A. K., Gough, T., Clarke, R., Knibb, G.,  & Jones, A. (2022). To help or hinder: Do the labels and models used to describe problematic substance use influence public stigma? Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/4vscg

avatar

DIENES Zoltan

  • School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
  • Social sciences
  • administrator, recommender, manager, developer

Recommendations:  3

Reviews:  0

Educational and work
Professor of Psychology website: http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Zoltan_Dienes/ I joined the first Registered Reports editorial team at Cortex in 2013 (and the team for Exploratory Reports at Cortex when it was set up in 2018); and in 2019 I became an associate editor for Registered Reports for Neuroscience of Consciousness and for Royal Society Open Science. I resigned my positions at Cortex in 2021 because of deciding to have no more dealings, as author, reviewer or editor for journals run by for-profit companies (except society journals because there is some minimal trickle down), despite the fact I felt Cortex had been involved in ground breaking work in scientific publishing. My philosophical and practical approach to Registered Reports is described here: Dienes, Z. (draft). The inner workings of Registered Reports. In Austin Lee Nichols & John E. Edlund (Eds), Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yhp2a This is my first Registered Report seen through to publication: Palfi, B., Parris, B. A., McLatchie, N., Kekecs, Z., & Dienes, Z. (2021). Can unconscious intentions be more effective than conscious intentions? Test of the role of metacognition in hypnotic response. Registered Report. Cortex, 135, 219-239. https://psyarxiv.com/x982m/ I am also interested in how Bayes factors can improve scientific inferences. For an online calculator see: http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Zoltan_Dienes/inference/Bayes.htm and a practical introduction to the issues: Dienes, Z. (2021). How to use and report Bayesian hypothesis tests. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 9–26 https://psyarxiv.com/bua5n/