Brownian Motion and Quantum Dynamics of Magnetic Monopoles in Spin Ice

Spin ice illustrates many unusual magnetic properties, including zero point entropy, emergent monopoles and a quasi liquid-gas transition. To reveal the quantum spin dynamics that underpin these phenomena is an experimental challenge. Here we show how crucial information is contained in the frequency dependence of the magnetic susceptibility and in its high frequency or adiabatic limit. These measures indicate that monopole diffusion is strictly Brownian but is underpinned by spin tunnelling and is influenced by collective monopole interactions. We also find evidence of driven monopole plasma oscillations in weak applied field, and unconventional critical behaviour in strong applied field. Our results resolve contradictions in the present understanding of spin ice, reveal unexpected physics and establish adiabatic susceptibility as a revealing characteristic of exotic spin systems.Comment: Main : 12 pages, 6 figures. Supplementary Information : 10 pages, 7 figures. Manuscript submitte

Neurophysiological correlates of excitement in men with recent-onset psychosis

Objective: Right frontal function, as indicated by the N200 component of the event-related potential during target detection, has previously been associated with excitement (excitement, impulsivity, hostility, uncooperativeness) in men with a long-term diagnosis of schizophrenia. The current study investigated excitement in relation to N200 in men who had recently experienced their first episode of psychosis. Subjects and methods: Twenty men who had recently suffered their first psychotic episode underwent a clinical interview and auditory oddball task. Results: Multiple linear regression analysis showed that 58% of the variance in the excitement symptom cluster was explained by a positive association with frontal midline N200 amplitude and an inverse association with right frontal N200 amplitude. The latter was not apparent in the initial correlation, suggesting suppression by the midline activity. These associations were not explained by drug use, medication or negative symptoms. However, the correlation between excitement and midline N200 was stronger in drug users, and that between right frontal N200 and excitement was stronger in nonusers. Conclusion: Findings support the independent contributions to excitement of mechanisms reflected in midline and right frontal N200 amplitude respectively during the early stages of psychosis

Electrophysiological study of the violence inhibition mechanism in relation to callous-unemotional and aggressive traits

The violence inhibition mechanism (VIM) proposes that observing another's distress inhibits responses that can lead to violent behaviour. Dysfunction of this system is associated with disorders characterised by aggressive and callous-unemotional traits, such as psychopathy. This study examines electrophysiological indices of face processing and motor extinction, in the context of aggressive and callous-unemotional traits. Fifty-four participants completed the inventory of callous and unemotional traits, the aggression questionnaire, and a Facial Affect Stop-Go task whereby facial distress was used as stop signals. Uncaring traits inversely associated with N170 amplitude across all facial expressions and aggressive traits inversely associated with Stop-P300 amplitude to facial distress. The N170 and Stop-P300 might provide useful electrophysiological markers for deficits across face processing and motor extinction stages of the VIM, respectively

Empathy at the heart of darkness: empathy deficits that bind the dark triad and those that mediate indirect relational aggression

The dark triad (DT) traits–psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism–have collectively been linked to reduced empathy and increased aggression; however, their association with distinct empathic subtypes remains unclear; and unique links to indirect relational aggression (IRA) have not been delineated. Moreover, whether dark traits should be conceptualized individually, as a dyad or as a triad with a dark core centered around the absence of empathy is debated. The current study examines (i) whether impaired empathy indeed represents a common “dark core” binding Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, and (ii) this core explains associations between the dark traits and IRA. Participants (N = 301, 262 F/39 M) completed measures of the DT traits, cognitive and affective empathy components and IRA (Social Exclusion, Malicious Humor and Guilt Induction). The individual traits model without links between narcissism and IRA showed the best fit, suggesting that, at least in the context of IRA, the DT traits are best viewed as three independent personality traits. Distinct cognitive and affective empathy deficits and capacities are seen in the DT. Peripheral responsivity was the only type of empathy deficit associated with all dark traits, but unrelated to IRA. Psychopathy was the strongest indicator of impaired empathy and all IRAs; however, only online simulation, an affect-related cognitive empathy facet, partially mediated the relationships of psychopathy and Machiavellianism with IRA. Whilst the unique pathways for the dark triad traits suggest stronger alignment of psychopathy and Machiavellianism in their empathic deficits and indirect aggression; the data do not support the notion that an unempathic dark core underpinning all three traits drives indirect aggression. This is the first paper delineating the specific empathic deficits involved using a facet approach and their link to indirect forms of aggression. Results therefore inform theoretical models of aggression in the DT and offer some clarity on the debates surrounding the unempathic dark core in the DT

A pre-registered, multi-lab non-replication of the Action-sentence Compatibility Effect (ACE)

The Action-sentence Compatibility Effect (ACE) is a well-known demonstration of the role of motor activity in the comprehension of language. Participants are asked to make sensibility judgments on sentences by producing movements toward the body or away from the body. The ACE is the finding that movements are faster when the direction of the movement (e.g., toward) matches the direction of the action in the to-be-judged sentence (e.g., Art gave you the pen describes action toward you). We report on a pre- registered, multi-lab replication of one version of the ACE. The results show that none of the 18 labs involved in the study observed a reliable ACE, and that the meta-analytic estimate of the size of the ACE was essentially zero

A pre-registered, multi-lab non-replication of the Action-sentence Compatibility Effect (ACE)

The Action-sentence Compatibility Effect (ACE) is a well-known demonstration of the role of motor activity in the comprehension of language. Participants are asked to make sensibility judgments on sentences by producing movements toward the body or away from the body. The ACE is the finding that movements are faster when the direction of the movement (e.g., toward) matches the direction of the action in the to-be-judged sentence (e.g., Art gave you the pen describes action toward you). We report on a pre-registered, multi-lab replication of one version of the ACE. The results show that none of the 18 labs involved in the study observed a reliable ACE, and that the meta-analytic estimate of the size of the ACE was essentially zero.Fil: Morey, Richard. Cardiff University; Reino UnidoFil: Kaschak, Michael. Florida State University; Estados UnidosFil: Díez Álamo, Antonio. Universidad de Salamanca; España. Arizona State University; Estados UnidosFil: Glenberg, Arthur. Arizona State University; Estados Unidos. Universidad de Salamanca; EspañaFil: Zwaan, Rolf A.. Erasmus University Rotterdam; Países BajosFil: Lakens, Daniël. Eindhoven University of Technology; Países BajosFil: Ibáñez, Santiago Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de San Andrés; Argentina. University of San Francisco; Estados Unidos. Universidad Adolfo Ibañez; Chile. Trinity College Dublin; IrlandaFil: García, Adolfo Martín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de San Andrés; Argentina. University of San Francisco; Estados Unidos. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Educación Elemental y Especial; Argentina. Universidad de Santiago de Chile; ChileFil: Gianelli, Claudia. Universitat Potsdam; Alemania. Scuola Universitaria Superiore; ItaliaFil: Jones, John L.. Florida State University; Estados UnidosFil: Madden, Julie. University of Tennessee; Estados UnidosFil: Alifano Ferrero, Florencia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Bergen, Benjamin. University of California at San Diego; Estados UnidosFil: Bloxsom, Nicholas G.. Ashland University; Estados UnidosFil: Bub, Daniel N.. University of Victoria; CanadáFil: Cai, Zhenguang G.. The Chinese University; Hong KongFil: Chartier, Christopher R.. Ashland University; Estados UnidosFil: Chatterjee, Anjan. University of Pennsylvania; Estados UnidosFil: Conwell, Erin. North Dakota State University; Estados UnidosFil: Wagner Cook, Susan. University of Iowa; Estados UnidosFil: Davis, Joshua D.. University of California at San Diego; Estados UnidosFil: Evers, Ellen R. K.. University of California at Berkeley; Estados UnidosFil: Girard, Sandrine. University of Carnegie Mellon; Estados UnidosFil: Harter, Derek. Texas A&m University Commerce; Estados UnidosFil: Hartung, Franziska. University of Pennsylvania; Estados UnidosFil: Herrera, Eduar. Universidad ICESI; ColombiaFil: Huettig, Falk. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics; Países BajosFil: Humphries, Stacey. University of Pennsylvania; Estados UnidosFil: Juanchich, Marie. University of Essex; Reino UnidoFil: Kühne, Katharina. Universitat Potsdam; AlemaniaFil: Lu, Shulan. Texas A&m University Commerce; Estados UnidosFil: Lynes, Tom. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Masson, Michael E. J.. University of Victoria; CanadáFil: Ostarek, Markus. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics; Países BajosFil: Pessers, Sebastiaan. Katholikie Universiteit Leuven; BélgicaFil: Reglin, Rebecca. Universitat Potsdam; AlemaniaFil: Steegen, Sara. Katholikie Universiteit Leuven; BélgicaFil: Thiessen, Erik D.. University of Carnegie Mellon; Estados UnidosFil: Thomas, Laura E.. North Dakota State University; Estados UnidosFil: Trott, Sean. University of California at San Diego; Estados UnidosFil: Vandekerckhove, Joachim. University of California at Irvine; Estados UnidosFil: Vanpaeme, Wolf. Katholikie Universiteit Leuven; BélgicaFil: Vlachou, Maria. Katholikie Universiteit Leuven; BélgicaFil: Williams, Kristina. Texas A&m University Commerce; Estados UnidosFil: Ziv Crispel, Noam. BehavioralSight; Estados Unido

Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p <.05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δr =.002 or.014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r =.05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r =.04) and the original RP:P replications (r =.11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r =.37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r =.07, range =.00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r =.37, range =.19–.50)

Many Labs 5:Testing pre-data collection peer review as an intervention to increase replicability

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3?9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276?3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (?r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00?.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19?.50)

To which world regions does the valence–dominance model of social perception apply?

Over the past 10 years, Oosterhof and Todorov’s valence–dominance model has emerged as the most prominent account of how people evaluate faces on social dimensions. In this model, two dimensions (valence and dominance) underpin social judgements of faces. Because this model has primarily been developed and tested in Western regions, it is unclear whether these findings apply to other regions. We addressed this question by replicating Oosterhof and Todorov’s methodology across 11 world regions, 41 countries and 11,570 participants. When we used Oosterhof and Todorov’s original analysis strategy, the valence–dominance model generalized across regions. When we used an alternative methodology to allow for correlated dimensions, we observed much less generalization. Collectively, these results suggest that, while the valence–dominance model generalizes very well across regions when dimensions are forced to be orthogonal, regional differences are revealed when we use different extraction methods and correlate and rotate the dimension reduction solution.C.L. was supported by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF VRG13-007); L.M.D. was supported by ERC 647910 (KINSHIP); D.I.B. and N.I. received funding from CONICET, Argentina; L.K., F.K. and Á. Putz were supported by the European Social Fund (EFOP-3.6.1.-16-2016-00004; ‘Comprehensive Development for Implementing Smart Specialization Strategies at the University of Pécs’). K.U. and E. Vergauwe were supported by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (PZ00P1_154911 to E. Vergauwe). T.G. is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). M.A.V. was supported by grants 2016-T1/SOC-1395 (Comunidad de Madrid) and PSI2017-85159-P (AEI/FEDER UE). K.B. was supported by a grant from the National Science Centre, Poland (number 2015/19/D/HS6/00641). J. Bonick and J.W.L. were supported by the Joep Lange Institute. G.B. was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency (APVV-17-0418). H.I.J. and E.S. were supported by a French National Research Agency ‘Investissements d’Avenir’ programme grant (ANR-15-IDEX-02). T.D.G. was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. The Raipur Group is thankful to: (1) the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, India for the research grants received through its SAP-DRS (Phase-III) scheme sanctioned to the School of Studies in Life Science; and (2) the Center for Translational Chronobiology at the School of Studies in Life Science, PRSU, Raipur, India for providing logistical support. K. Ask was supported by a small grant from the Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg. Y.Q. was supported by grants from the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (5184035) and CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology. N.A.C. was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (R010138018). We acknowledge the following research assistants: J. Muriithi and J. Ngugi (United States International University Africa); E. Adamo, D. Cafaro, V. Ciambrone, F. Dolce and E. Tolomeo (Magna Græcia University of Catanzaro); E. De Stefano (University of Padova); S. A. Escobar Abadia (University of Lincoln); L. E. Grimstad (Norwegian School of Economics (NHH)); L. C. Zamora (Franklin and Marshall College); R. E. Liang and R. C. Lo (Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman); A. Short and L. Allen (Massey University, New Zealand), A. Ateş, E. Güneş and S. Can Özdemir (Boğaziçi University); I. Pedersen and T. Roos (Åbo Akademi University); N. Paetz (Escuela de Comunicación Mónica Herrera); J. Green (University of Gothenburg); M. Krainz (University of Vienna, Austria); and B. Todorova (University of Vienna, Austria). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.https://www.nature.com/nathumbehav/am2023BiochemistryGeneticsMicrobiology and Plant Patholog