Recent studies using an EEG frequency tagging approach have reported modulations of alpha, beta and theta bands at the stimulation frequency during nociceptive/painful thermal stimulation compared to non-nociceptive/non-painful vibrotactile stimulation. Prior expectations of the intensity of upcoming painful stimuli are known to strongly modulate the subjective experience of those stimuli. Thus, modulating the expectation of pain should result in a change in the modulation of oscillations if these factors are indeed linked.

 

In this study, Leu, Glineur and Liberati will modulate expectations of pain (low or high intensity) prior to delivering thermal cutaneous stimulation (low, medium or high intensity). They will record how intense participants expect the pain to be, and how intense they felt it to be, as well as record EEG to assess oscillatory differences across the expectation and intensity conditions.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed over 5 rounds by 3 reviewers. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments and edits to the Stage 1 report, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/y6fb8
 
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
• F1000Research
• Brain and Neuroscience Advances
• Cortex
• Imaging Neuroscience
• In&Vertebrates
• NeuroImage: Reports
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research and Practice
• Studia Psychologica
• Royal Society Open Science
   

References
 
1. Leu, C., Glineur, E. & Liberati, G. (2023). Cue-based modulation of pain stimulus expectation: do ongoing oscillations reflect changes in pain perception? In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/y6fb8

We may not believe what our memory tells us: Memory may deliver a compelling recollection we believe did not happen (we know we were not there at the time); and we may know an event happened that we fail to remember (even for when we were not drunk!). That is, there can be distrust in remembering and distrust in forgetting. Previous work by the authors has looked at this through a signal detection lens, reporting in separate studies that people who have distrust in remembering have either a high or low criterion for saying "old" (Zhang et al, 2023, 2024a). A plausible explanation for these contrasting results is that the criterion can either be the means by which false memories are generated enabling the distrust (low criterion); or rather, in conditions where accuracy is at stake, the means for compensating for the distrust (high criterion).

 

In the current study by Zhang et al (2024b), participants will be incentivised to be as accurate as possible, and in a memory test given feedback about commission errors or, in another group, ommission errors. As a manipulation check, the authors will test that the feedback increases distrust in remembering or distrust in forgetting, respectively, compared to a no feedback control group. Crucially, the authors hypothesize that people will adjust the criterion to say "old" in a compensatory way in each group. The study uses inference by intervals to provide a fairly severe test of this hypothesis.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over multiple 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 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/x69qt
 
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:

 

 

 

1. Zhang, Y., Qi, F., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Jelicic, M. (2023). A Tale of Two Distrusts: Memory Distrust towards Commission and Omission Errors in the Chinese Context. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000134

 

2. Zhang, Y., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Rosar, L. (2024). Time and memory distrust shape the dynamics of recollection and belief-in-occurrence. Memory, 32, 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2336166

 

3. Zhang, Y., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Li, C. (2024b). The effects of memory distrust toward commission and omission on recollection-belief correspondence and memory errors. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/x69qt

 

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 (2024) tested whether meaningful context during exposure improves the consolidation of faces into long-term memory. Participants were shown video clips from the TV series Life on Mars, either in their original chronological sequence, which provides meaningful context, or in a scrambled sequence. It was expected that the original sequence would provide a better conceptual understanding, 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 encoding. Face recognition was tested immediately after exposure and after four weeks, to allow time for consolidation. As expected, recognition memory was better for participants in the meaningful context condition, and for in-show faces. 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 found that a metric of overlap between pairs of participants’ conceptual understanding was related to overlap in the set of faces they recognised. This relationship was stronger after four weeks, which suggests increased interaction of conceptual knowledge and face recognition after 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.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/8wp6f
 
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. Noad, K. & Andrews, T. J. (2024). The importance of conceptual knowledge when becoming familiar
with faces during naturalistic viewing [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/thgrz

Many animals are increasingly reliant on living close or in urban environments. For them, neophobia – a trait that denotes the fearfulness of novelty (Mettke-Hoffmann, 2022) – may influence how well the species but also individuals of the same species adjust to the (human-induced) changes that characterise these environments (Lowry et al., 2013).

 

Typically, neophobia in non-human animals is assessed through behavioural tests, most often by measuring the time it takes an individual to approach a novel object or food that is positioned next to a novel object. Increasingly, resarchers are acknowledging that the social context may influence the behaviour of individuals in such situations, and several hypotheses have been proposed to explain a potential influence of social context on neophobic responses. 

 

In the current study, Allaert et al. (2024) will use a within-subject design to test three hypotheses with juvenile herring gulls (Larus argentatus): 1) the risk dilution hypothesis, accoding to which gulls will exhibit smaller neophobic responses when tested in a group than when tested alone, 2) the negotiation hypothesis, according to which gulls will exhibit stronger neophobic responses when tested in a group than when tested alone, and 3) the social conformity hypothesis, according to which those more neophobic individuals will show a smaller neohobic response when tested in a group than when tested alone while less neophobic individuals will exhibit the opposite pattern.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by two reviewers over two rounds of revisions. During the revisions, the authors clarified the conceptual arguments of the manuscript (including why juveniles are being tested), and edited the methods, including timing of testing, adjustments to the way that the experimental and control conditions will be run, how the planned sample size will be ensured given that at the time of testing, some chicks may be of a different species (this will become evident later on), how relatedness between the chicks will be dealt with, as well as how the behavioural coding will be conducted. Thus, 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/u4b7q
 
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. 

 

 

 

 

1. Mettke-Hofmann, C. (2022). Neophobia. In: Vonk, J., Shackelford, T.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55065-7_908

 

2. Lowry, H., Lill, A., & Wong, B. B. (2013). Behavioural responses of wildlife to urban environments. Biological Reviews, 88, 537-549. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12012

 

3.  Allaert, R., Knoch, S., Braem, S., Debeer, D, Martel, A., Müller, W., Stienen E., Lens, L., & Verbruggen. F. (2024) In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/u4b7q

How do emotions interact with cognition? The last 40 years has witnessed the rise of cognitive-appraisal theories, which propose that emotions can be differentiated along an axis of cognitive dimensions such as certainty, pleasantness, attentional activity, control, anticipated effort, and responsibility (Smith and Ellsworth, 1985). Early tests of such theories focused especially on the impact of the valence – pleasantness/unpleasantness – of emotions on judgment and decision-making, finding, for instance, that negative mood induction can heighten pessimistic estimates of risk (Johnson & Tversky, 1983).

 

The Appraisal-Tendency Framework proposed by Lerner and Keltner (2000) refined cognitive-appraisal theory by proposing that specific emotions trigger a predisposition to appraise future (or hypothetical) events in line with the central appraisal dimensions that triggered the emotion, even when the emotion and the judgment are unrelated. For example, an individual who is triggered to become fearful of a heightened risk, such as nuclear war, may then exhibit heightened pessimism about risks unrelated to war. The Appraisal-Tendency Framework also predicts relationships between traits, such as fear, anger and risk-taking/risk-seeking tendencies. In an influential paper, Lerner and Keltner (2001) reported direct empirical support for the Appraisal-Tendency Framework, which aside from its influence in cognitive/affective psychology has had considerable impact in behavioural economics, moral psychology, and studies of consumer behaviour.

 

In the current study, Lu et al. (2024) replicated three key studies from Lerner and Keltner (2001) in a large online sample. Through a combination of replication and extension, the authors probed the relationship between various trait emotions (including fear, anger, happiness, and hope) and trait characteristics of risk seeking and optimistic risk assessment. The authors also examined how the ambiguity of triggering events moderates the relationship between specific emotions and risk judgments.

 

Overall, the results provide mixed support for the predictions of the Appraisal-Tendency Framework. Trait anger and trait happiness were positively associated with risk-seeking and optimistic risk estimates, while trait fear was negatively associated with optimistic risk assessment (although a reliable association between fear and risk-seeking was not observed). The original finding of Lerner and Keltner (2001) that the valence-based approach applied to risk optimism for unambiguous events was not supported. In addition, there was no reliable evidence for a positive relationship between hope and risk-seeking preference or optimistic risk estimates. The authors conclude that future research should consider a wider range of emotions to develop a more complete understanding of the link to risk-related judgment and decision-making.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and therefore awarded a positive recommendation.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/8yu2x

 

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. Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813-838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.813

 

2. Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.20

 

3. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14, 473-493. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402763 

 

4. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146

  
5. Lu, S., Efendić, E., & Feldman, G. (2024). Associations of fear, anger, happiness, and hope with risk judgments: Revisiting appraisal-tendency framework with a replication and extensions Registered Report of Lerner and Keltner (2001) [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xytsw