DIENES Zoltan's profile
avatar

DIENES ZoltanORCID_LOGO

  • School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
  • Social sciences

Recommendations:  3

Reviews:  2

Areas of expertise
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

19 Jun 2024
STAGE 1

Do error predictions of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure?

Does running pleasure result from finding it easier than you thought you would?

Recommended by based on reviews by Jasmin Hutchinson and 1 anonymous reviewer
The reward value of a stimulus is based on an error in prediction: Things going better than predicted. Could this learning principle, often tested on short acting stimuli, also apply to a long lasting episode, like going for a run? Could how rewarding a run is be based on the run going better than predicted?
 
Understanding the conditions under which exercise is pleasurable could of course be relevant to tempting people to do more of it! Brevers et al. (2023) will ask people before a daily run to predict the amount of perceived exertion they will experience; then just after the run, to rate the retrospective amount of perceived exertion actually experienced. The difference between the two ratings is the prediction error.
 
Participants will also rate their remembered pleasure in running and the authors will investigate whether running pleasure depends on prediction error.
 
The study plan was refined across four rounds of review, with input from two external reviewers and the recommender, after which it was judged to satisfy the Stage 1 criteria for in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/xh724
 
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. Brevers, D., Martinent, G., Oz, I. T., Desmedt, O. & de Geus, B. (2023). Do error predictions of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure? In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xh724
19 Jun 2024
STAGE 1

The effects of memory distrust toward commission and omission on recollection-belief correspondence and memory errors

Manipulating what is believed about what is remembered

Recommended by based on reviews by Dan Wright, Romuald Polczyk, Iwona Dudek , Greg Neil and 1 anonymous reviewer
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:
 
 
References
 
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
 
19 Jun 2024
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

Do prediction errors of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure?

Running pleasure results from finding it easier than you thought you would

Recommended by based on reviews by Jasmin Hutchinson and 1 anonymous reviewer
The reward value of a stimulus is based on an error in prediction: Things going better than predicted. Could this learning principle, often tested on short acting stimuli, also apply to a long lasting episode, like going for a run? Could how rewarding a run is be based on the run going better than predicted?
 
Understanding the conditions under which exercise is pleasurable could of course be relevant to tempting people to do more of it! In the current study, Brevers et al. (2024) asked people before a daily run to predict the amount of perceived exertion they would experience; then just after the run, to rate the retrospective amount of perceived exertion actually experienced. The difference between the two ratings was the prediction error. Participants also rated their remembered pleasure in running. As hypothesized, the authors found that running pleasure increased linearly with how much retrospective exertion was than predicted.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript received one round of review from two external reviewers, then some minor comments from the recommender, after which it was judged to satisfy the Stage 2 criteria and was awarded a positive recommendation.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/xh724
 
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. Brevers, D., Martinent, G., Oz, I. T., Desmedt, O. & de Geus, B. (2024). Do prediction errors of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure? [Stage 2]. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xfgqp

Reviews:  2

19 Jun 2024
STAGE 1

Cue-based modulation of pain stimulus expectation: do ongoing oscillations reflect changes in pain perception?

Understanding oscillatory correlates of pain expectation

Recommended by based on reviews by Zoltan Dienes, Chris Chambers and Markus Ploner
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:
 
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
19 Jun 2024
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

Cue-based modulation of pain stimulus expectation: do ongoing oscillations reflect changes in pain perception? A Registered Report

Understanding oscillatory correlates of pain expectation

Recommended by based on reviews by Zoltan Dienes, Chris Chambers and Markus Ploner
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 modulated expectations of pain (low or high intensity) in 40 participants prior to delivering thermal cutaneous stimulation (low, medium or high intensity). They recorded how intense participants expected the pain to be, and how intense they felt it to be, as well as EEG to assess oscillatory differences across the expectation and intensity conditions.
 
The results confirmed that there was a strong effect of expectation on the perceived stimulus intensity. However, contrary to the hypotheses, this was not reflected in the cortical oscillations. Overall this indicates a possible dissociation between perceived pain and modulation of ongoing oscillations in the theta, alpha and beta bands. 
 
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 awarded a positive recommendation.
 
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 was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
References
 
1. Leu, C., Glineur, E. & Liberati, G. (2023). Cue-based modulation of pain stimulus expectation: do ongoing oscillations reflect changes in pain perception? [Stage 2] Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/awrge
avatar

DIENES ZoltanORCID_LOGO

  • School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
  • Social sciences

Recommendations:  3

Reviews:  2

Areas of expertise
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/