Impulsivity is a complex, multifaceted psychological trait which is associated with various psychopathologies, including substance dependence, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and borderline personality disorder (Bornovalova et al, 2005). Key components of impulsivity, including inhibitory control and (lack of) self-regulation, are thought to rely on pre-frontal brain regions such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC; Kim & Lee, 2012). 

The current study by Barth et al. (2026) aims to target the DLPFC via neuromodulation approaches. In a between-groups design they will randomly allocate 129 highly impulsive adults to one of three training groups (Neurofeedback +  transcranial direct current stimulation / Neurofeedback + sham transcranial direct current stimulation /  biofeedback + transcranial direct current stimulation), using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. The training will consist of 8 sessions over a 2-week period. 
 
They hypothesise that neurofeedback and transcranial direct current stimulation will lead to higher HbO (Oxygenated hemoglobin) amplitudes, indicative of greater learning (increased voluntary control of the targeted area) compared to neurofeedback with sham tDCS. They also hypothesise that successful learners in the neurofeedback groups will show reductions in impulsive behaviour as measured by self-reported impulsivity (Barratt Impulsivity Scale), Stroop interference and working memory (N-Back task). 
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by two expert reviewers across two rounds of review. Following an in-depth review and responses from the authors, the recommender judged that the Stage 1 criteria were met and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/gfnqd (under temporary private embargo)
 
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. Barth, B., Schopp, B., Kempf, N. J., Gerchen, M. F., Hofmanová, M., Schroeder, P. A., Paret, C., Kirsch, P., Cutini, S., Svaldi, J., Gharabaghi, A., & Ehlis, A.-C. (2026). Impulsivity as a transdiagnostic trait: Effects of tDCS-enhanced fNIRS-neurofeedback. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/gfnqd
 
2. Bornovalova, M. A., Lejuez, C. W., Daughters, S. B., Zachary Rosenthal, M., & Lynch, T. R. (2005). Impulsivity as a common process across borderline personality and substance use disorders. Clinical psychology review, 25, 790–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2005.05.005
 
3. Kim, S. & Lee, D. (2011). Prefrontal cortex and impulsive decision making. Biological Psychiatry, 69, 1140-1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.07.005

Yamamoto and colleagues (2025) propose to conduct an experimental study to examine how children and adults subjectively evaluate different types of rewards. They plan to present three groups of participants (preschoolers, school-aged children, and adults) with a range of social and non-social primary and secondary rewards (e.g., snacks, money, praise, and a symbolical representation of social approval using the thumbs-up symbol). In addition to a direct comparison between reward types, the stimuli would also enable comparisons between three levels of magnitude in each reward type. 

 

While the proposed study is primarily exploratory, rather than theory-driven, it has several notable strengths. First, it will allow for rigorous and systematic comparisons of the stimuli’s sociality, primacy, and magnitude factors in subjective appraisals. Second, it will look at three age groups, providing an insight into the role of developmental aspects in rewards’ perceived value. Third, it will enable a series of cluster analyses to investigate the patterns of subjective valuations of rewards, and explore how demographic factors might affect these. Finally, the present Stage 1 Registered Report is based on a pilot experiment which found no statistically significant differences in the value or primary and secondary non-social rewards in preschool children, contrary to school-aged children and adults, and aims to replicate and extend these findings.

 

The study is well positioned to make a valuable contribution to advancing our understanding of children’s and adults’ subjective value of various rewards, a question that has been under-investigated. In addition, this research will be of interest to both developmental psychologists and broadly all experimental psychologists as its results can inform the compensation related procedural decisions, as well as specific paradigms based on reward-driven decision-making. 

 

This Stage 1 manuscript underwent two rounds of in-depth review and presents a clearly defined, methodologically sound, and transparent procedure to answer the posed research questions. It meets all PCI RR Stage 1 criteria and merits an in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/uq379
 
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
• Collabra: Psychology
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

Yamamoto, N., Kajita, M., Kanazawa, H. & Moriguchi, Y. (2025). Subjective Values of Rewards in children and adults. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/uq379

This Stage 1 submission by Dalakoura et al. (2025) proposes an exciting study in the discipline of psycholinguistics, exploring bilingual language control by comparing sentence and single-word production. The focus of the investigation lies on potential qualitative and quantitative differences between the two language-switching conditions in order to shed light on language control mechanisms employed by bilingual speakers. The authors propose a novel approach for this kind of research when bilinguals have to use one language, while managing competition from the other language that cannot currently be used, with language control assessed through the blocked language order effect.
 
The revisions provided a sincere engagement with the reviews, reflected by clarifications and additional citations (without introducing any new references) that are very helpful for the reader. This included clarifying the apparent discrepancy between the focus on switch cost studies in the introduction and the move towards the blocked language order effect study proposed here, as well as being more concrete about the methodology; more reference is made at several points to Declerck (2020). The authors also saw some benefit in additional feedback provided and adapted their manuscript accordingly.
 
Regarding the network description task in Blocks 1 and 3, while the right–left discrimination is trivial for most, a substantial part of the population has difficulties distinguishing right from left (e.g., Gormley & Brydges, 2016). In their response, the authors convincingly demonstrated that mixing up left and right would not be an issue, since mix-up rates seem to be at similar rates among different bilingual language-pair participants. They had also tested the relevant Greek–English population with this task in previous work (citing in their response but not referencing Dalakoura et al., in prep.).
 
Arguably the most substantial additions concern, on the one hand, the distinction between qualitative and quantitative differences in language control, which led the authors to revise the hypotheses section. On the other hand, the authors decided to change the sentence production task in Block 2 from a movement to a transformation task to use completely different stimuli compared to Blocks 1 and 3.The resulting picture is an improved registered report that reads well, situates all hypotheses and considerations within the existing research literature, and promises a novel study to collect important data on language control by bilingual speakers during sentence production as different from single-word production.

 

Two expert reviewers pointed out several minor issues, requests and suggestions for clarification, and small typos, all of which were addressed. They also had a number of more substantial questions and suggestions, which the authors picked up and responded to professionally. 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/z5uty
 
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. Dalakoura, A., Kirk, N. W., & Declerck, M. (2025). Bilingual language control during sentence vs. single word production – A Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/z5uty

 

2. Declerck, M. (2020). What about proactive language control? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01654-1

 

3. Gormley, G. & Brydges, R. (2016). Difficulty with right-left discrimination: A clinical problem? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 188, 98–99. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.150577

Can we predict who will notice an unexpected object and who will miss it entirely? Despite decades of research on inattentional blindness, the answer has remained surprisingly unclear, mostly because the existing evidence comes from small samples with heterogeneous methods. In this registered report, Simons, Ding, Hults, and Roberts (2025) set out to settle this question with two studies, each testing 1,000 participants on three different inattentional blindness tasks. Study 1 additionally measured cognitive ability (matrix reasoning, OSpan, Rotation Span) and Study 2 added personality measures (Big Five, absorption, ADHD inattention, obsessive-compulsive traits).

 

Neither cognitive ability nor personality reliably predicted who noticed unexpected objects. The few associations that reached statistical significance were small, inconsistent across tasks, and often did not hold up with alternative noticing criteria. When all cognitive or personality measures were entered simultaneously as predictors, pseudo-R-squared values remained below 0.04 for every inattentional blindness task.

 

One additional question the multi-task design could address is whether people who notice changes with greater likelihood on one task also tend to notice changes on others. The cross-task correlations were positive but small (mean r = 0.13, range 0.097-0.211). In addition, internal consistency of the three tasks was low (alpha around 0.30). As the authors discuss, these weak associations do not necessarily point to an underlying "noticing ability." They could reflect shared task demands, momentary attentional states, or simply the fact that all three tasks involve focused attention on a computer screen. Even after disattenuating for the low reliability, the implied latent correlations remained small.

 

A secondary finding worth noting is that the difficulty manipulation in the sustained inattentional blindness task (easy vs. hard counting) did not produce the expected reduction in noticing rates, contrary to prior evidence from Simons and Chabris (1999) and others. The authors considered possible explanations, including near-ceiling accuracy in both conditions, suggesting that the hard task may not have been hard enough.

 

The report meets all Stage 2 criteria. The authors followed the approved Stage 1 protocol closely, documented all deviations transparently, and clearly separated preregistered from exploratory analyses. All data, code, and materials are available at https://osf.io/z2fdu.

 

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

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra: Psychology
• Cortex
• Experimental Psychology
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Personality Science
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open 

 

1. Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28, 1059-1074. https://doi.org/10.1068/p281059

 

2. Simons, D. J., Ding, Y., Hults, C. M., & Roberts, B. W. (2026). Registered Report: Do individual differences in cognitive ability or personality predict noticing in inattentional blindness tasks? [Stage 2] Recommendation of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/z2fdu/files/yh4t2

Loneliness is a global public health concern due to its links to ill health and wider societal implications (WHO Commission on Social Connection, 2025). It can be assessed with long-form self-report instruments as well as shortened ones for faster completion in monitoring surveys. However, psychometric properties of short instruments have been reported for only some countries. This leaves governments, health systems, and researchers with incomplete information regarding which instruments are appropriate for multi-nation surveys of loneliness. Given the need for rigourous assessment, this topic is well-suited to the Registered Report format.

 

In the current study, Paris et al. (2026) report results from an EU-wide evaluation of three short instruments: the 6-item De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (DJGLS-6), the three-item UCLA Loneliness Scale (T-ILS), and a single-item measure of loneliness (“How much of the time, during the past 4 weeks, have you been feeling lonely?”). Participants completed online surveys in national languages. A total of 25,646 participants across 27 countries responded to the three loneliness scales as well as questions covering participant demographics, social connections, health, and emotional states. Data were collected prior to Stage 1 IPA; half the data were used to make predictions in an exploratory fold at Stage 1, and the other half were used to test those predictions in the confirmatory fold at Stage 2. For the DJGLS-6 and T-ILS, factor structure, internal consistency, and measurement invariance were assessed; and the construct validity of all three instruments was assessed using nomological networks. The researchers evaluated which measures met set thresholds across both folds. One minor deviation between Stage 1 in-principle acceptance and Stage 2 was reported, in which an update to a statistical package resulted in a change to the clusters of countries showing invariance for the DJGLS-6. This change was justified and is reported in the manuscript.

 

To summarise the results, the DJGLS-6 showed sufficient construct validity and internal consistency across most countries but limited cross-country invariance. The T-ILS showed sufficient construct validity in most countries and internal consistency and scalar invariance across all countries. The single-item measure showed construct validity in a smaller number of countries. The results of this comprehensive investigation give current and future researchers insight into the performance of all three instruments across the EU, and facilitate selection of short loneliness measurements based on a study’s requirements, such as which countries will be surveyed. 

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth peer review by two reviewers who had reviewed the Stage 1 report and one new reviewer. Based on the authors' comprehensive responses to the 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/2s38v

 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that was used to the answer the research question had been accessed by the authors prior to Stage 1 in-principle acceptance (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., Ropovik, I., Silan, M. A., d'Hombres, B., Casabianca, E., & IJzerman, H. (2026). Evaluating Loneliness Measurements across the European Union [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tk68s_v5

 

2. WHO Commission on Social Connection (2025). From loneliness to social connection - charting a path to healthier societies: report of the WHO Commission on Social Connection. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/978240112360