Why open research is important for understanding how eye-tracking technology can be used as a tool to evaluate social cognition in intellectual disability

Eye-tracking technology can provide information about social-cognitive processes, without the need for explicit responses or verbal demands. In this pre-publication, written for the BPS Developmental Psychology Forum Newsletter (Issue 95), I introduce our systematic review investigating how eye-tracking technology has been used as a tool to evaluate social cognition among individuals with an intellectual disability, in which we took an Open Research approach. When I came to pre-register the review, I noticed popular guidance were more focused on intervention and outcome, rather than detailed description of methodology. As the purpose of pre-registration is to facilitate transparency and robustness, whilst constraining reporting bias, I wanted to follow a framework that best suited our review. I used the Non-Interventional, Reproducible, and Open Systematic Reviews (NIRO-SR; Topor et al., 2021) guidelines and framework – a 68-item checklist supporting planning, pre-registering, and reporting of non-interventional studies in systematic reviews. Being able to address each item not only maximised transparency of our review processes, but also meant we begun the review with a comprehensive protocol written – supporting efficient and reliable data extraction and synthesis across reviewers. Searches were conducted in PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, and through mailing lists (ID-Research-UK, COGDEVSOC, Dev-Europe). We included both grey literature and peer-reviewed research, as we did not want to overlook the risk of publication bias, and consequently, over-estimate the effectiveness of eye-tracking technology. The review identifies a relatively substantial amount of research; yet variability in eye-tracking protocol and heterogeneity of stimuli used. In addition, studies were often limited by sample size and at times ran exploratory analyses - increasing the potential for sample dependent results and Type 1 error. We recommend presenting protocols transparently, and developing a bank of open-access, validated eye-tracking stimuli, to encourage replication of findings and opportunities for data sharing. Collaborative and open methods will strengthen theoretical and clinical implications regarding social cognition in intellectual disability.