Neuroethics (2013) 6:369–409
DOI 10.1007/s12152-012-9169-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Is There Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging
Investigations of Sex Differences?
Cordelia Fine
Received: 1 May 2012 / Accepted: 15 October 2012 / Published online: 7 December 2012
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
Abstract The neuroscientific investigation of sex dif-
ferences has an unsavoury past, in which scientific
claims reinforced and legitimated gender roles in ways
that were not scientifically justified. Feminist critics
have recently argued that the current use of functional
neuroimaging technology in sex differences research
largely follows that tradition. These charges of ‘neuro-
sexism’ have been countered with arguments that the
research being done is informative and valuable and
that an over-emphasis on the perils, rather than the
promise, of such research threatens to hinder scientific
progress. To investigate the validity of these contrast-
ing concerns, recent functional magnetic resonance
imaging (fMRI) investigations of sex differences and
citation practices were systematically examined. In
line with the notion of neurosexism, the research was
found to support the influence of false-positive claims
of sex differences in the brain, to enable the prolifer-
ation of untested, stereotype-consistent functional
interpretations, and to pay insufficient attention to
the potential plasticity of sex differences in both brain
and mind. This, it is argued, creates a literature biased
C. Fine
Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne,
Parkville, Australia
C. Fine (*)
Centre for Ethical Leadership, Melbourne Business School,
200 Leicester Street,
Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia
e-mail: cfine@unimelb.edu.au
toward the presentation of sex differences in the brain
as extensive, functionally significant, and fixed—and
therefore implicitly supportive of a gender essentialist
perspective. It is suggested that taking feminist
criticisms into account would bring about substantial
improvement in the quality of the science, as well as a
reduction in socially harmful consequences.
Keywords Sex/gender . fMRI . Gender stereotypes .
Publication bias . Gender essentialism . Citation bias
Introduction
A now notorious claim of Victorian sexual science was
that men’s intellectual superiority could be explained by
the larger male brain—a phenomenon described by one
scientist as the “missing five ounces” of female brain [1,
p. 23]. Developed under the assumption of a positive
correlation between brain size and intelligence, it was
only abandoned some time after the absence of such a
relation became clear [see 2]. Historical examples of
erroneous hypotheses regarding the neurological differ-
ences between the sexes and their functional implica-
tions are readily found [2–4], and it is not controversial
to suggest that such scientific claims had political influ-
ence. Russett, for instance, has argued that the theories
of the Victorian sexual scientists were not simply gar-
nered as support by those who opposed greater social
equality for the sexes, but were a “key source” of that
opposition [2, p. 191].
370
In recent decades, a new research tool has been
made available to those interested in neurological dif-
ferences between the sexes: functional neuroimaging
(FNI). While neuroscientists have long been able to
compare structural features of the male and female
brain, technologies such as functional magnetic reso-
nance imaging (fMRI) and (now less commonly) pos-
itron emission tomography (PET) can indirectly index
neuronal activity in the working brain. Following in-
sightful and important critiques of structural neurosci-
entific research by feminist neurobiologists [e.g., 5–8],
the use of FNI to investigate sex differences has also
recently begun to be subjected to feminist scrutiny. A
number of scholars have argued that, as in the past,
FNI research currently reinforces and legitimates tra-
ditional gender stereotypes and roles in ways that are
not scientifically justified. The growing number of
charges of ‘neurosexism’ (as it was first termed in this
journal [9]) have argued for bias in the way FNI
research on sex differences is conducted and inter-
preted, detrimental effects for understanding the com-
plex phenomenon of gender, as well as harmful social
and psychological effects from the reification of gender
roles [e.g., Fine, C. unpublished. Neurosexism in func-
tional neuroimaging: from scanner to pseudoscience to
psyche. In The Sage handbook of gender and psychol-
ogy, eds. M. Ryan and N. Branscombe. Thousand Oaks:
Sage., 10–18].
However, a stark counterpoint to this perspective is
that there are “deeply entrenched, harmful, and general-
ly implicit biases against sex influence research among
neuroscientists” [19, p. 38]. Recent criticisms of re-
search investigating neurobiological contributions to
sex differences [10, 20] have been countered with argu-
ments that there is “an overemphasis on criticism of a
few errant studies or errant interpretations”, and that
they do not make sufficient acknowledgment of the
careful and valuable neuroscientific research into sex
differences that is being conducted [21, 22, p. 3]. From
this perspective, the foremost concern is that failure to
investigate sex influences on the brain impedes scientif-
ic progress in understanding sex differences in behavior
and vulnerability to psychiatric and developmental dis-
orders [e.g., 19, 23, 24], and that an over-emphasis on
the perils, rather than the promise, of such research will
hinder scientific progress. Thus McCarthy & Ball [22,
p. 3] expressed fear that recent feminist critiques “threat-
en to severely hamper or even reverse the progress being
made in this field”. It is worth noting that a perception
C. Fine
endorsed by some within the scientific community is
that the hypothesis that there are intrinsic sex differences
in brain and behavior is ‘politically incorrect’: it has
been described by a number of scientists as “politically
dangerous” [25, p. xi], “taboo” [26, p. 19, 27] and,
politically, “not a permissible hypothesis” [Haidt, quot-
ed in 28]. In a similar vein, at a recent Social Issues
Roundtable on the ‘The Promise and Peril of Research
on Sex Differences’ at the 2011 meeting of the Society
for Neuroscience, Cahill [quoted in 29] was reported as
raising “the opposite concern [to the abuse of neurosci-
ence to justify sexism]: His colleagues are so afraid of
being called ‘neurosexists’ that they’ve refused to study
or acknowledge differences.”
This article seeks to gain insight into the validity of
these differing perspectives by using recent two year
literature samples and a case study to investigate how
researchers address three substantial obstacles to gain-
ing replicable and valuable insights into sex differ-
ences from FNI data. The first difficulty is the scope
for false-positive errors that arises when sex compar-
isons are made. The second obstacle lies in under-
standing what, if anything, a sex difference in brain
activity means in terms of differences in mental pro-
cesses. Group differences in brain activity are not
readily translated into psychological differences and
this gap in knowledge of brain-mind relations creates a
danger that, as in the past, gender stereotypes will be
drawn upon to putty-fill in the gap [6]. The third issue
is that sex differences in both brain and behavior are
potentially malleable, or plastic, meaning that insight
into the developmental or situational origins of sex
differences in the brain, and the extent to which social
factors increase, reduce, eliminate or even reverse
them, cannot be gained through single “snap-shot”
comparisons of male and female brains [18]. Inade-
quate treatment of these difficulties creates potential
for a bias toward an exaggeration of the extensiveness,
functional importance, and fixedness of sex differen-
ces in the brain. Such a presentation would implicitly
support gender essentialism; that is the notion of deep-
rooted, permanent, and distinct male versus female
“essences” that make gender divisions seem natural,
inevitable, and desirable [for overview of theory and
data on psychological essentialism, see 30]. Alterna-
tively, if charges of neurosexism are incorrect, then the
overall research picture (excepting the possibility of a
few isolated ‘bad apples’) should reveal methods and
practices that take care to reduce the influence of false-
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
positive errors on the field, that involve the systematic
testing of hypotheses about the functional implications
of sex differences in the brain in order to reduce scope
for gendered assumptions to creep into interpretations,
and that show careful attention to the influence of
gendered experiences on sex differences in brain
activity.
Exaggeration of Extent of Male/Female Brain
Activation Differences? Sex Comparisons
and False-Positive Errors
There can be legitimate reasons to compare the sexes
in FNI work [see 24]. For example, if male and female
samples differ behaviorally, for whatever reason, sex
differences in brain activity can be expected. It is also
possible that males and females may reach the same
behavioral end via different neural means [31–33]. If
so, conflating the two populations, or only investigat-
ing one sex and extrapolating to the other sex, may be
inappropriate. Indeed, one rationale for making sex
comparisons in neuroscientific research is to redress
an historical tendency for biological research to be
conducted mostly on males, with findings and impli-
cations for pathology then extrapolated, perhaps incor-
rectly, to females [24]. However, publication bias
towards statistically significant findings is a long-
noted problem within sex differences research [34].
When a single experiment establishes a “significant
difference” between the sexes, this does not necessar-
ily reflect a real and reliable result. False-positive
errors and publication bias is a major issue in behav-
ioral science generally [for recent discussions, see 35,
36]. However, this problem can be especially exacer-
bated in sex differences research. The primary reason
is the ease and obviousness of testing for sex differ-
ences, even in the absence of an a priori reason to do
so. Since by convention one in twenty “significant”
results occur by chance, if 20 researchers routinely test
for sex differences then, even if there is no real differ-
ence between the populations, one researcher will find
a statistically significant difference.
There is no way of knowing whether researchers
who do not report sex comparisons have nonetheless
tested for them, and it is not known how common such
practices are. However, Kaiser and colleagues have
argued that because sex is a primary and ubiquitous
social category, classifying participants by sex is a
371
“natural default” and “seemingly effortless and obvi-
ous in brain research” [12, p. 54]. They have also
noted that, in comparisons of pathological groups with
controls, “introducing sex/gender as a supplementary
factor augments the possibilities for differentiating the
groups from each other”, offering additional opportu-
nities for publishing.
A second reason for concern regarding false-
positive findings in FNI investigations of sex differ-
ences arises from the small sample sizes that are
common in FNI research. As Wallentin [37] has noted
in relation to sex difference findings, FNI studies are
especially vulnerable to spurious results due to the
difficulty of balancing participants on nuisance varia-
bles (like breathing rate and caffeine intake) that affect
the imaging signal, and that this is particularly an issue
when sample sizes are small. An analysis of the effect
of sample size on the reliability and sensitivity of
fMRI studies concluded that the large inter-subject
variability is a key issue, and recommended a sample
size of at least twenty for adequate reliability in group
fMRI studies [38]. To the extent that sex comparisons
are made post hoc rather than a priori, the issue of
sample size is likely to be exacerbated further, as
researchers will not have considered in advance the
number of male and female participants necessary for
adequate statistical power (sensitivity) or reliability.
In addition, the choices researchers make about
how to analyse their results can increase the scope
for false-positive errors in sex comparisons. For the
purposes of analysis, the brain is divided into tens of
thousands of tiny regions (or voxels), and tested for
blood flow changes as a function of the psychological
construct of interest. Brain regions that show changed
activity become plausible (although far from certain)
candidates for involvement in the psychological pro-
cess of interest. As Bluhm [15] and Kaiser et al. [12]
have noted, researchers may sometimes inappropriate-
ly make use of within-group analyses to make claims
about male/female difference. That is, researchers may
analyze data for males and females separately and find
that while a particular brain region was, say, significant-
ly activated in males in the experimental task (compared
with a control condition), this difference was not statis-
tically significant in females. However, within-group
analyses do not allow claims to be made about
between-group differences. (In this hypothetical exam-
ple, it is possible that male/female activity in that par-
ticular brain region does not significantly differ.)
372
Despite this, within-group analyses have been found to
be surprisingly common in neuroscience research [39].
The reality of the problem of false-positive errors in
FNI studies of sex differences is well-illustrated by
investigations of the long-standing idea that the male
brain is more lateralized than the female brain for
language processing: that is, that the male brain tends
to engage the left hemisphere when processing lan-
guage stimuli, while the female brain tends to engage
both. This alleged sex difference in lateralization is
often suggested to underlie female language superior-
ity, and a similar lateralization difference for visuo-
spatial processing to underlie male superiority in that
domain [see 8, 10, 40] In an oft-cited fMRI study of 19
men and 19 women, Shaywitz and colleagues found
that for phonological processing (although not seman-
tic or orthographic processing), neural activity in lan-
guage regions was lateralized in men but not women
[41]. Yet an investigation of the generalizability of sex
differences observed with 13 males and 13 females
found that those differences failed to generalize to
similar language tasks within a second group of 10
men and 10 women. Moreover, identical analyses of
the same participants ‘discovered’ brain activation
differences between randomly created groups matched
on sex, performance, and obvious demographic char-
acteristics [42]. Importantly, two recent large meta-
analyses of FNI studies of language lateralization
failed to find evidence overall for sex differences
[43, 44], and the earlier meta-analysis reported mark-
edly smaller sample sizes for studies reporting sex
differences (a mean of 31) than for studies reporting
no differences (a mean of 76). These findings under-
line the need for scepticism towards any one particular
finding of a sex difference, particularly when it arises
from a small sample.
The seriousness of false-positive errors was recent-
ly emphasized by Simmons et al. [45, p. 1], who
suggested that they are “[p]erhaps the most costly
error” in science. They noted that false-positive results
tend to persist because failures to replicate are incon-
clusive, and unappealing both to attempt by research-
ers and to publish by journals. In addition, they can
lead to wasted resources in fruitless research enquiries,
as well as misguided practical applications. Thus sci-
entists have general reasons to avoid false-positive
errors. If, contra claims of neurosexism, scientists
perceive additional political pressures to avoid false-
positive errors (or, indeed, true-positive results) in sex
C. Fine
differences research, then this will be reflected in the
literature. This was systematically investigated in three
ways: first, by looking at typical sample sizes in stud-
ies reporting sex differences in brain activation; sec-
ond, by assessing the standards of evidence deemed
sufficient for a hypothesis of male/female brain differ-
ence to be presented as supported in the scientific
literature; and third, by examining carefulness in citing
a potentially spurious result.
Typical Sample Sizes
Typical sample sizes for FNI studies reporting sex
differences offer an insight into the treatment of scope
for false-positive errors in this area of research. In
particular, a literature in which studies reporting pos-
itive results are predominantly underpowered, with
group sample sizes smaller than twenty [as recommen-
ded by 38] or, more liberally, sixteen [as recommen-
ded by 46] should create concern that such findings
will not prove to be replicable. Therefore to investi-
gate typical sample sizes in this area of research, the
Medline, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases
were searched for fMRI studies published in 2009
and 2010 in which sex differences were referred to in
the article title.1 Thirty-nine studies fulfilled the nec-
essary criteria (see Table 1 and Appendix for further
details).2 Over the entire sample, the mean number of
males was 19.0 (median016, sd010.6) and the mean
number of females was 18.5 (median018, sd09.5).
However, a number of the studies in the sample also
made sex-by-group or sex-by-age comparisons, both
of which require larger sample sizes than for sex-only
comparisons, for similar statistical power. For studies
that made only sex comparisons (n022) the mean
number of males was 13.5 (sd06.4) and the mean
number of females was 13.8 (sd06.5). It is worth
noting that the second largest study in this group (with
a total sample size of 50) reported a null finding [47].
For studies reporting sex-by-group comparisons (n0
1
This was done using the search terms “sex” or “gender” in
title, and “fMRI”, “functional magnetic resonance imaging” or
“functional MRI” in the title, abstract or keywords. ‘Difference’
was not included as a search term so as to not exclude studies
reporting sex/gender similarities. Studies that were not full
reports of original findings that investigated sex differences in
brain activation in humans were then excluded.
2
Excluded from the analysis was one study, referred to earlier,
that was specifically testing the generalizability of sex differ-
ences based on a total sample size of 20 [42].
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging? 373

Table 1 Numbers of male and female participants in 2009 and 2010 functional MRI studies of sex differences

Study Total Total Subgroups Mean no. males Mean no. females
(by first author name) males females in subgroups in subgroups

Sex only comparison

Aikins 12 12
Cornier 21 22
Domes 16 17
Fine 10 10
Frank 6 6
Garn 13 13
Goldstein 13 12
Ino 10 10
Keller 24 25
Killgore 8 8
Krach 12 12
Lee 12 10
Li 30 30
Mak 12 12
Ohrman 8 12
Owens 9 10
Qiu 19 19
Riedl 10 10
Schmidta 25 25
Straube 12 12
Sveljo 6 6
Wang 10 10
Mean (sd) 13.5 (6.4) 13.8 (6.5)
Sex by group comparison
Bitan 17 22 Low/High VIQ using median split 8.5 11
Clements-Stephens 16 16 Plus/Minus 10 years of age 8 8
Coman 25 18 Genotype 9 12.5
Derntl 12 12 Luteal phase (females) 12 6
Eisenberger 18 18 Treatment versus placebo conditions 9 9
Elsabagh 30 20 Clinical status 15 10
Felmingham 42 44 Trauma exposure and clinical status 14 14.7
Gauthier 22 22 Low/High verbal fluency 11 11
Kempton 40 34 Genotype 13.3 11.3
Klucken 20 20 Awareness of conditioning contingency 10 10
Mather 24 23 Stress versus control conditions 12 11.5
Merz 20 19 Cortisol versus control conditions 10 9.5
Rumberg 12 24 Oral contraceptive status for females 12 12
Valera 46 47 ADHD versus control participants 23 23.5
Mean (sd) 11.9 (3.8) 11.4 (4.1)
Age effects
Christakou 38 25
Rubia 38 25
Zuo 22 29
374
Table 1 (continued)
Study Total Total
(by first author name) males females
Mean (sd) 32.7 (9.2) 26.3 (2.3)
Mean (sd) for entire sample 19.0 (10.6) 18.5 (9.5)
a
This study reported a null result
14) the mean number of males per subgroup was 11.9
(sd03.8), and females per subgroup was 11.4 (sd0
4.0). The largest sample sizes were observed in the
three studies exploring age effects, for which the mean
number of males was 32.7 (sd09.2) and the mean
number of females was 26.3 (sd02.3). The distribu-
tion of sample sizes is shown in Fig. 1, which shows
that the clear majority of studies had (a mean of)
fifteen or fewer participants of each sex in each of
their groups of interest, and that studies were as likely
to have fewer than ten participants as they were to
have more than twenty. It is worth emphasizing that
these are not studies in which sex differences are
mentioned incidentally, but studies in which sex dif-
ferences are the primary focus of research, as indicated
by the article title.
Case Study: Standards of Evidence
It might be objected that the above literature survey
misrepresents the situation, by looking at a sample
made up of largely exploratory and isolated findings
rather than an established research program. As a test
of the validity of this objection, a currently prominent
program of sex differences research was chosen as a
Fig. 1 Frequency of
male/female group or mean
subgroup sample sizes in
2009 and 2010 functional
MRI studies of sex
Frequency of 30
differences
male/female
group or
subgroup sample 20
sizes
C. Fine
Subgroups Mean no. males Mean no. females
in subgroups in subgroups
case study to assess the standards of evidence required
to claim a neurological sex difference as supported.
This program investigates the proposal that there is a
sex difference in the modulation of memory consoli-
dation by the amygdala for emotionally salient mate-
rial [see 19, 48]. Specifically, Cahill and colleagues
have suggested that there is sex-dependent lateraliza-
tion of this modulation effect, with the right amygdala
more strongly involved in men, and the left in women.
Further theorizing and empirical work has suggested
functional implications, such as more enhanced mem-
ory for the ‘gist’ of events in males, but of peripheral
information in females [see 19]. For three reasons, this
claim would appear to be an appropriate and fair test-
case. First, the hypothesis is based on a well-
developed neurocognitive model of emotional memo-
ry enhancement, and predictions regarding sex-
modulation have been tested in numerous studies. In
other words, it is one of the few examples of a claim of
a sex difference from FNI data that is not based on an
isolated or post hoc finding. Second, Cahill and col-
leagues have concluded that there is “no reasonable
doubt about the existence” of this sex-related laterality
in humans [49, p. 262]. Additionally, the finding has
been cited without caveat in some subsequent general
45 Male
40 Female
35
25
15
10
5
0
<10 10 to 16 to 21 to 26 to 31 to 36 to
15 20 25 30 35 40
Male/female group or mean group sample size
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
reviews of emotional memory as well those concerned
specifically with sex influences [e.g., 19, 50–52], al-
though there are also more cautious review references
[e.g., 53]. Finally, this research program was described
as an example of “high quality research by scientists
who take care in … the scope of their claims”, for
which feminist criticisms of the field are misplaced
[21, p. 1321], reflecting its status as an apparently
well-supported finding. It would therefore appear to
be well-positioned in the literature to have gained
good empirical support, and thus to be a fair test case
study for standards of evidence required to claim a
finding as supported.
The claim for humans is principally based on FNI
research showing stronger correlations between en-
hanced emotional memory assessed at a delay (gener-
ally 2–3 weeks) and right amygdala activity in males,
but left amygdala activity in females. Cahill and col-
leagues’ (2004) conclusion that no reasonable doubt
that this sex-related laterality exists was based on the
finding of the study reported in that article, together
with six previous studies [54–59]. These seven studies
are summarized in Table 2, and there are a number of
observations to be made. The first point is that four of
the seven studies included only one sex [54, 56, 58,
59]. Further, given that the methodologies of these
four studies differed in a number of ways (such as
imaging technology, stimuli, length of delay to mem-
ory test, and construction of the dependent variable),
these studies cannot provide solid insights into sex
differences since there may be methodological reasons
for different findings. A fifth study provided only
within-group analyses which, as noted earlier, also
do not enable statements about between-sex differen-
ces to be made [55].
The last two studies provided direct statistical tests of
sex differences in laterality of amygdala modulation of
emotional memory [49, 57], but the dependent variable
used to compare laterality in the sexes was constructed
differently in the two studies (although the analysis of
[49] was repeated on [57], see last column of Table 2).
This is not surprising since it is currently unclear how
lateralization should be assessed [12]. However, the lack
of established techniques increases researcher degrees
of freedom [see 45], and it has been found that different
techniques and thresholds for testing laterality differ-
ences can yield markedly different results [12, 60].
The final point to be made concerns sample sizes.
The largest sample (24 participants in total) introduced
375
selection bias by including the data of ten female
participants from a previous (female only) study
[58]. Thus, the sample was biased towards supporting
the hypothesis, since it was in part on the basis of
those data that the hypothesis under test was derived.
This was also the case for the next largest study [55]:
again, data for eight of the 22 participants came from
an earlier (male only) study [54] from which the
hypothesized sex difference was partially derived.
The one remaining study that included both males
and females [49] had only eight men and seven
women.
Casting further reasonable doubt on the hypothesis
is the absence of evidence of sex differences in the
effects of right versus left amygdala damage on emo-
tional memory in a small patient study [61], and null
findings in some recent FNI studies of this phenome-
non [62, 63]. Interestingly, Ritchey and colleagues
[63, p. 2502] argued that their null finding for sex
(noted briefly in the Discussion) “should be treated
with caution … due to relatively small sample sizes for
males [n06] and females [n07].” This is a valid point,
but as noted earlier, such caution is also appropriately
applied to positive FNI findings from small samples.
It may be worth stating explicitly that the points
made here should not be taken to imply that the
possibility of a sex difference, suggested by the earlier
findings with male-only and female-only samples,
should not have been investigated at all. Rather the
issue is that the hypothesis arguably remains to be put
to fully rigorous testing and so, despite the costs of
false-positive errors, the confidence with which it is
presented by some experts seems premature.
Care in Citations of Potentially Spurious Results
Once a reported sex difference is in the published
literature, the manner in which it is cited reflects the
extent to which the scientific community is sensitive
to the possibility of false-positive results. Two basic
ways in which scientists can demonstrate carefulness
in their treatment of findings of sex differences are to
acknowledge any similarities also observed, and to
take care to cite larger studies or meta-analyses that
failed to demonstrate a particular sex difference in
favour of (or at the very least as well as) smaller
studies with positive findings. Recent (2009 and
2010) citations of Shaywitz et al. [41] were chosen
to investigate this, by assessing how many noted the
Table 2 Studies presented in support of a sex difference in the modulation of memory consolidation by the amygdala for emotionally salient material
376

Study PET/fMRI Males Females Stimuli Memory test/delay Reported correlations between
amygdala activity and delayed
enhanced emotional memory
measures

Cahill et al. (1996) PET
Hamann et al. (1999) PET
Canli et al. (1999) fMRI
Canli et al. (2000) fMRI
Cahill et al. (2001) PET
8 0 Emotional (-ve) vs neutral Recall at 3 weeks Positive correlation found between
films right amygdala activity and number
of emotional (but not neutral) films
recalled.
10 0 Emotional (+ve and -ve) Recall and recognition at No findings for recall (possibly due
versus control (neutral 4 weeks to restricted range). Positive
and interesting) pictures correlations found between
bilateral amygdala activity and
recognition memory enhancement
for both positive and negative
pictures. For negative pictures,
this was described as “more
right-lateralized”, although no
statistical comparisons were
presented.
0 10 Positive and negative Recognition memory Left amygdala activity correlated
pictures 2–14 months later with both positive and negative
recognition memory, right
amygdala activity correlated with
only negative recognition
memory.
0 10 Negative and neutral Recognition memory at Positive correlation between left
pictures 3 weeks amygdala activation and
recognition memory for pictures
rated as highly emotional. Data for
other trials not included in the
analysis.
11 11 Emotional (-ve) versus Recall at 3 weeks Within-group conjunction analyses
8 previously reported in neutral films identified regions showing
Cahill et al. (1996) increased activity for emotional
compared with neutral films that
correlated with enhanced
emotional memory. In men, the
right amygdala was identified. In
women, the left amygdala activity
was identified.
C. Fine
Table 2 (continued)

Study PET/fMRI Males Females Stimuli Memory test/delay Reported correlations between
amygdala activity and delayed
enhanced emotional memory
measures

Canli et al. (2002) fMRI 12 12 Negative and neutral Recognition memory at Analyses were performed for highly
10 previously reported in pictures 3 weeks emotionally arousing pictures only.
Canli et al. (2000) Within-group analyses found a
positive correlation between right
amygdala activity and recognition
memory in men, and between left
amygdala activity and memory in
women. The significance levels of
the correlations were then used to
construct a “laterality index”
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?

based on maximal amygdala

activity-memory correlations, used
to statistically test for the effects
of sex on laterality. This found a
significant group difference.
Cahill et al. (2004) fMRI 8 7 Negative and neutral Recognition memory at Within-group conjunction analysis
pictures 2 weeks identified regions where greater
activity was associated with both
better memory performance and
increasing arousal ratings. In men,
the right amygdala was identified.
In females, the left amygdala was
identified. Between-sex laterality
compared by using β representing
the modulation of memory by
arousal for the voxel of maximal
activation in the amygdala and β
for activation in the homotopic
voxel of the opposite hemisphere
as the dependent variables in a
sex-by-hemisphere ANOVA. The
significant sex x hemisphere
interaction was ‘replicated’ using
data from Canli et al. 2002.
377
378
sex similarities in brain activity observed for semantic
and orthographic processing and how many also noted
the existence of contradictory evidence. This study
was chosen due to the considerable counter-evidence
to the positive Shaywitz finding including the pub-
lication of two meta-analyses [43, 44], and the time
period was one for which (at time of analysis)
citing authors would have had the greatest opportu-
nity to become apprised of those meta-analyses and
the data included in them. The Medline, Web of
Science and PsycINFO databases were searched for
all citations of the Shaywitz paper in 2009 and
2010, and these were assessed to see how many
researchers citing that study: first, did so in a way
that acknowledged the absence of sex differences in
brain activation for two of the three language tasks;
and second, acknowledged subsequent null findings
(see Table 3 and Appendix for details).
There were 92 citations of the article during the
2 year time period. Non-English language articles
were excluded from the sample (n04), as were cita-
tions that were erroneous (e.g., relating to the comor-
bidity of language disorders and ADHD), inaccurate
or vague (e.g., misrepresenting the finding as being in
a non-language domain, or as providing a possible
neurobiological explanation for greater numbers of
boys having reading difficulties), or that referenced
the findings of the article in a non-gender-specific
way (n012). In addition, a book chapter by Sommer
(2010) was excluded for obvious reasons. Citations
that referred to the findings as being in the wrong
language domain (e.g., “listening to speech”) or in a
non-specific way (e.g., “high-level cognitive process-
ing”) were included. This resulted in a sample of 75
citations of the Shaywitz study as demonstrating a
neurological sex difference in brain activation either
during language processing or in processing in gener-
al. Of these 75 citations, only three referred explicitly
to the absence of findings of sex differences in brain
activity for orthographic and semantic processing
within the Shaywitz study itself [12, 42, 64],3 al-
though several other citations noted more generally
that lateralization differences applied specifically to
phonological processing.
3
It’s noteworthy (or at least footnoteworthy) that two of these
three articles are specifically concerned with problems arising
from neuroimaging studies of sex differences in language
lateralization.
C. Fine
Each citation was then categorized according to
whether, and how, it referenced the existence of con-
tradictory findings (see Table 3 and Fig. 2). Forty-
three of the seventy-five (57 %) cited the Shaywitz
study without referring to the existence of any contra-
dictory data. Of the remaining 21 citations, eleven
(15 % of the total) either failed to cite Sommer and
colleagues’ work or did so in a way that was mislead-
ing, for example, describing the findings as showing
more bilateral activation in women [65]. A further
nine studies cited one or both meta-analyses, but in a
way that gave no indication that, through virtue of its
status as a meta-analytic study, it lay claim to being a
more reliable source of information than Shaywitz et
al. Thus, just twelve of the 74 (16 %) studies that cited
the Shaywitz finding also cited the work of Sommer
and colleagues in a fully informative way (even if the
latter’s conclusions were disputed).
Exaggeration of Functional Significance
of Male/Female Brain Activation Differences?
Functional Obscurity
A second major difficulty for neuroscientists is to con-
duct research in ways that can yield understanding of the
functional implications, if any, of sex differences in
brain activation [see 10]. FNI can be used to make
‘forward inferences’ about which regions of the brain
are candidates for involvement in a particular psycho-
logical process. Sex comparisons can then further estab-
lish whether and how these neural correlates differ
between the sexes. Making further inferences about
mental processes from differences in neural activity
between experimental and control conditions requires
making ‘reverse inferences’; that is, claims of the form
‘Brain Region X showed increased activation therefore
Mental State Y was present.’ However, mental process-
es arise from the complex and dynamic interaction of
multiple brain regions that themselves comprise a stag-
gering complexity of connections. Conversely, any par-
ticular population of neurons will be recruited by
multiple mental processes [see 66]. The absence of neat
one-to-one mapping between brain regions and mental
processes renders reverse inferences logically invalid
(although the probability that brain activity in region X
indicates the presence of mental state Y increases to the
extent that X is exclusively activated by Y [67, 68]).
Also, not only can activity be linked only extremely
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging? 379

Table 3 Studies citing Shaywitz et al. (1995) in 2009 and 2010, categorized according to the extent to which contradictory data are also
cited, including two meta-analyses

Context in which Shaywitz et al. (1995) is cited Studies (by first author)

Excluded: incorrect/inaccurate/non-gender specific
citations (n012)a
No contradictory data cited (n043)
Contradictory data cited
No citation of Sommer/Sommer cited incorrectly (n011)
Sommer as if of equivalent warrant (n09)
Sommer cited as holding greater warrant (n012)
a
Also excluded were four non-English articles and a book chapter by Iris Sommer (see main text)
Asterisked (*) studies cite a critical review paper [37]
Binder, Boyd, Chen, Gillies, Hansen, Hazlett, Limbrick, Locascio,
Maruyama, Merz, Ohuchida, Stevens-Smith
Allez, Badcock, Blakemore, Breier, Brugger, Byrnes, Caparelli, Capone,
Costafreda (a), Cousin, Draca, Feinstein, Fink, Ford, Galambos, Gorbet,
Hartwigsen, Henderson, Hines, Hockenbury, Isman, Iwabuchi, Jahanshad,
James, Kempe, Lenroot, Lopes, Lv, Majovski, Sereno, Sousa, Sternadori,
Strong, Tong, Tranel, Van Dyke, Van Strien, de Vries, Van Wormer, Weis,
Wheldall, Wilde, Yousem
Cahill*, Darlington, Gauthier, Kivilevitch, Li, Logan*, Lyttelton, Rumberg,
Semrud-Clikeman, Jancke, Mbwana
Bitan, Costafreda (b), Geary, Gordon, Hausmann, Lebel, Liu, Sava, Reiterer
Andreano, Chiarello, Cowell, Garn, Ihnen, Kaiser, Kherif, McManus,
Pinel, Stelnikov, Wallentin, Zaehle

speculatively with a particular mental process, but cor-
relation does not demonstrate causation. A number of
studies have shown significant activity in regions that,
from other techniques, appear not to be crucially in-
volved in task performance [e.g., 69, 70]. Moreover,
greater activation doesn’t imply ‘more’ mental process,
since development or practice can lead to ‘streamlining’
of neural activation [71–73].
How, then, to interpret sex differences in brain
activity in a particular region? As Bluhm [15] has
noted, researchers interested in sex differences have
to interpret “a difference in a difference” in the brain
No contradictory
data
16%
No (or incorrect)
12% Sommer citation
57%
15% Sommer cited as
equivalent warrant
Fully informative
Sommer citation
Fig. 2 Studies citing Shaywitz et al. (1995) in 2009 and 2010,
categorized according to citation of contradictory data
activity associated with a psychological function com-
pared with a control task, the psychological meaning
of which is even more obscure than the difference
itself. For example, a sex difference in brain activity
could reflect a difference in either degree of activation
of the same neural circuitry, or the use of different
neural circuitry to perform the same task. It is also
possible that sex differences in brain activity have no
functional significance, and merely reflect a different
neural means to the same behavioral ends [31]. The
danger to researchers is that gender stereotypes can be
readily drawn upon to interpret these highly ambigu-
ous data. For example, it has been noted [10] that the
absence of empirical or theoretical grounding for spec-
ulations about brain-mind relations in visuo-spatial
processing means that precisely opposite hypotheses
can be equally plausible [74], and that hypotheses can
be revised post hoc in ways that maintain the over-
riding assumption that the male brain is superior [75,
76]. Bluhm [14] has likewise documented how three
studies respectively showing greater [77], lesser [78],
and similar [79] activity in the male prefrontal cortex
were all interpreted as suggesting greater cognitive
control of emotion in males, in line with a long-
standing gender stereotype.
Poldrack [68] has argued that reverse inferences are
a useful research tool when used to generate hypoth-
eses to put to test in further empirical work. Thus
while there is certainly arguably a place for post hoc
380
speculation based on exploratory research, it should
form part of a larger strategy of the systematic devel-
opment and testing of predictions derived from in-
creasingly well-specified neurocognitive accounts of
the sex-modulated processes involved in the behavior
under investigation. This would reduce the scope for
false-positive errors, as well as the scope for untested
stereotype-infused speculations about the functional
significance of neurological findings. The importance
of such an empirically and theoretically grounded
approach was recently stressed by Park and Huang
[80] in their discussion of the perils of investigating
cultural influences on the brain, noting that it is “crit-
ical that specific hypotheses grounded in knowledge
of neural structures and behavioral data be tested. …
[This enables us] to test specific hypotheses in regions
of interest and limit the amount of neural “real estate”
under investigation, increasing the prospects of find-
ing interpretable, replicable differences that are related
to cultural values and beliefs [rather than other factors
not of interest].”
To what extent, then, does recent FNI research on
sex differences, through the use of research driven by
well-specified neurocognitive models, constrain the
potential for neurosexist speculations? This question
was investigated with the set of thirty-nine 2009 and
2010 fMRI studies described previously (see Table 4).
First, studies were examined for the presence or ab-
sence of a prediction regarding expected sex differ-
ences in brain activity. Studies categorised as
‘exploratory’ presented no such predictions. Studies
categorised as ‘empirically-driven-vague’ made im-
precise predictions of the brain regions in which they
expected sex differences to be observed, based on
previous empirical findings. Studies categorised as
‘empirically-driven-precise’ made more precise pre-
dictions of this kind. A liberal definition was used, in
which even very broad-brush predictions of differen-
ces in large regions of the brain (e.g., “parietal lobe”)
were categorised as precise, so long as the direction of
difference was specified. Studies categorised as ‘hy-
pothesis-driven’ drew on neurocognitive models to
make precise predictions of the brain regions in
which they expected sex differences to be observed,
corresponding to specific mental processes thought to
differ between the sexes. Where a study included
predictions of more than one type (e.g., both ‘vague’
and ‘precise’ empirically-derived predictions), they
were placed in the more precise category. Eight of
C. Fine
the studies were exploratory. A further eight studies
were categorised as ‘empirically-derived-vague’, and
the remaining twenty-three were categorised as
empirically-derived-precise. No study was categorised
as ‘hypothesis-driven.’
Second, studies were examined for the presence of
reverse inferences in interpretation of findings: that is,
speculations about the psychological meaning of ob-
served sex differences in brain activity. If reverse
inferences were made, it was noted first whether any
relevant behavioral data were available. If so, it was
then noted whether those data were consistent or in-
consistent with the reverse inference. Twenty-seven of
the 39 studies (69 %) suggested reverse inferences,
speculating either a quantitative difference in male/
female responsiveness to the experimental stimuli
(e.g., “greater, more widespread activation may sug-
gest that males recruit less expert neural systems when
processing emotional stimuli” [81, p. 143]), and/or a
qualitative difference in mental processing (e.g., the
“pattern of findings is consistent with the higher emo-
tional reactivity and emotion-focused coping style com-
monly observed among females … [observed male
neural activity] is probably related to the cognitive effort
and specific regulatory strategies that they had
employed.” [82, p. 2907]). Behavioral data relevant to
the reverse inference (e.g., performance data if greater
male/female expertise was speculated from brain acti-
vation differences, or behavioral measures of strategy
differences if those were inferred) were available in 14
of the 29 studies in which reverse inferences were made.
Strikingly, however, in 11 of these 14 studies the
relevant available behavioral data were inconsistent
with, or unsupportive of, a reverse inference made
(see last column of Table 4). For example, Klucken
et al. [83] looked at brain responses to conditioned
sexual stimuli, and found greater neural response in
males in the amygdala, brainstem, thalamus and oc-
cipital cortex. They suggested that these neural differ-
ences reflect the greater capacity of men to be
conditioned for sexual arousal. However, their behav-
ioral data contradicted this suggestion. Despite the fact
that the female participants found the unconditioned
stimuli (erotic pictures) less positive and sexually
arousing than did men, they nonetheless rated the
sexually conditioned stimuli similarly to men on
arousal, valence and sexual arousal. If anything, this
indicates a greater female capacity for sexual condi-
tioning. Similarly, Lee and colleagues speculated that
Table 4 Predictions, reverse inferences and consistency with available behavioral data for 2009 and 2010 fMRI studies of sex differences

Study (by first Title Prediction Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
author) available? with reverse inference?

Aikins Sex-related differences in
amygdala activity influences “examined whether the
immediate memory
Bitan Bidirectional connectivity
between hemispheres occurs
Empirically-based-vague:
[predicted] relationship
between lateralized amygdala
activation and false-positive
rate differed as a function of
participant sex” (273).
Exploratory. Notably, findings
are directly contradictory with
Suggest that increased amygdala False positive rates Inconsistent in that false
activation increases long-term measured. No measures of positive rates did not differ
retention of arousing material semantic encoding. between the sexes at the
in men, but produces increased group level.
coherence in unpleasant pic-
tures in women due to semantic
encoding, that may result in
difficulty discriminating be-
tween unpleasant pictures in
women.
– – –
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?

at multiple levels in language standard accounts of the

processing but depends on sex functional effects of sex
differences in language
lateralization.
Christakou Sex-dependent age modulation Empirically-driven-vague: “we “the superior reliance on functional No measures of –
of fronto-striatal and hypothesised that gender frontal mechanisms in females, hypothesised strategy
temporo-parietal activation would affect prefrontal, striatal and on functional parietal differences (e.g., visual-
during cognitive control and parietal brain activation, mechanisms in males may spatial strategies in males
as well as the age modulation underlie aspects of the well- versus top-down inhibi-
of these regions.” (224) documented differences in cog- tion strategies in females).
nitive strategies and relative abil-
ities between the sexes.” (234)
Clements-Stephens Developmental sex differences Empirically-driven-precise: The differences in activation No measures tapping –
in basic visuospatial “hypothesized that with patterns in females “could be strategies, no sex
processing: Differences in increasing age, males would mediated by a verbal strategy difference in performance
strategy use? develop a bilateral used early in development. on task, nor male
representation of visuospatial Additionally, differences seen advantage on other
processing in parietal regions in males are consistent with visuospatial tasks
shown by the utilization of right visually based strategy use in established for this
hemisphere regions in younger- which it is suggested that sample.
aged participants and the en- males rely on imagery and are
gagement of left hemisphere ‘more hands-on’ during task
regions later in adolescent completion. Moreover, males’
males. For females, we pre- reliance on a visuomotor net-
dicted that we would see a con- work could account for the
sistent right hemisphere network traditional advantage on
in frontal and parietal regions visuospatial tasks.” (160, all
regardless of age.” (156). references removed)
381
Table 4 (continued)
Study (by first Title
author)
Coman The effects of gender and
catechol O-methyltransferase hypothesize that COMT
(COMT) Val108/158Met
polymorphism on emotion
regulation in velo-cardio-
facial syndrome (22q11.2
deletion syndrome): An
fMRI study
Cornier Sex-based differences in the
behavioral and neuronal
responses to food
Derntl Multidimensional assessment Empirically-based-precise: “we Emotion recognition: “females
of empathic abilities: Neural assume that during emotional
correlates and gender
differences
382
Prediction Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
available? with reverse inference?
Empirically-driven-vague: “we – – –
genotype will have a sexually
dimorphic effect on brain
activation, especially in areas
such as the amygdala and other
limbic structures that have been
previously shown to have
differential activation during
emotional processing in the
general population.” (1044)
Empirically-based-vague: “women are more sensitive or Some loosely relevant Consistent. Women showed
“hypothesized that women would ‘reactive’ to food-related cues measures. increased post-meal satiety
have a greater cognitive or frontal than men … have greater at- ratings, and were more
response to food-related visual tention (parietal response) and likely to maintain isocaloric
stimuli than men which would be cognitive processing (prefron- intake during ad libitum
related to the behavioral meas- tal response) related to food feeding, which was corre-
ures [greater sensitivity to hunger stimuli. The greater DLPFC lated with DLPFC response
and satiety responses, resulting in activation in women may also to visual food cues.
greater capacity to maintain en- suggest a greater inhibitory re-
ergy balance].” (539) sponse to the food cues.” (542)
No measures of ‘emotional’
rely on autobiographical versus ‘cognitive’
perspective taking and memory to correctly label the strategies to the various
emotion recognition females emotional expressions.” (77) tasks. No measures of
will recruit more emotion- Emotional perspective-taking: tendency to share
related regions such as the in- “males might rely more strongly emotions with others.
ferior frontal and superior on a perceptual-analyzing net-
temporal gyrus, while males work and mentalizing abilities
will exhibit stronger activation than do females who rather re-
in the temporo-parietal junc- cruit regions associated with
tion. Finally, for affective re- emotional contagion and affec-
sponsiveness we hypothesize tive responsiveness when
overall stronger neural activa- assessing the emotional expres-
tion in female subjects, and sion of another person support-
particularly in the superior ing the view that men probably
temporal and medial-frontal have a lower tendency to share
regions as well as the their emotions with others than
amygdala.” females.” (77–8, reference
removed)
C. Fine
Table 4 (continued)

Study (by first Title Prediction Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
author) available? with reverse inference?

“we also conducted exploratory Affective responsiveness:

analyses concerning the “females relied more on
influence of cycle phase on the emotional regions to
activation pattern and experience the emotion, while
suggested more pronounced males show a different neural
responses in emotional strategy … supporting
networks during the follicular assumptions of a more
phase.” (69) cognitive route.” (78)
Empathy network: While females
recruited regions “associated
with emotion imitation and
evaluation, males rather relied
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?

Domes The neural correlates of sex
differences in emotional
reactivity and emotion
regulation
on a region known to be
involved in semantic retrieval
… thus indicating a rather
cognitive approach.” (79)
“we also observed a strong trend No behavioral sex Inconsistent. No performance
towards a significant general differences observed on differences between women
task independent impact of any task (other than self- in different menstrual
menstrual cycle phase on report). phases.
amygdala activation further
supporting the assumption
that the hormone status during
the follicular phase facilitates
sensitivity and behavior in
socio-emotional-situations.
This may be traced back to the
evolutionary advantage of
higher attention and respon-
siveness to social-emotional
interactions thereby improv-
ing mating chances during
times of increased fertility.”
(78, references removed)
Empirically-derived-precise: “the recruitment of prefrontal areas Post-scan valence and Inconsistent. No sex
“We hypothesized that women during the initial processing [in arousal ratings of stimuli differences in post-scan va-
show enhanced initial women] might reflect effortful measured, as well as lence and arousal ratings of
emotional responding to cognitive processing, such as the subclinical symptoms of stimuli. No sex differences
aversive stimuli compared to allocation of attentional resources depression and trait
383
Table 4 (continued)
Study (by first Title Prediction
author)
men, associated with enhanced to the emotional aspects of the
activity in emotionally
relevant brain areas, in
particular the amygdala. In
addition, women were
expected to show attenuated
activity in the areas subserving aversive stimuli appeared.
the cognitive regulation of
emotional responses, namely
in the dlPFC, OFC, and ACC
when attempting to decrease
their initial emotional
reactions to negative stimuli.”
(760)
384
Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
available? with reverse inference?
anxiety. No measures of on subclinical symptoms of
stimulus, which have been emotional response post- depression and trait anxiety.
enhanced in women compared to regulation taken. No
men. Alternatively, women measures of attention to
might have attempted to decrease emotional stimuli or ag-
their emotions as soon as the gressive tendencies taken.
However, as women showed
enhanced amygdala responding
in the initial viewing phase, these
attempts might have been less
effective compared to men.”
(767)
“our data in part support the idea
that women may be more
vulnerable to depression
because they tend to be more
reactive to emotional stimuli and
are less effective in regulating
their emotional response.” (767)
“increased amygdala activity to
negative stimuli in men during
cognitively increasing
emotional responses might
also have implications for the
neural basis of maladaptive
behaviors associated with
enhanced emotional
responding to aversive
interpersonal stimuli that is
more prevalent in men, e.g.,
aggressive behavior. The
present results suggest that
emotionally laden aggressive
behavior might not only be
due to difficulties in impulse
control, but might also be
promoted by the relative ease
of voluntary emotional up-
regulation in men.” (767)
C. Fine
Table 4 (continued)
Study (by first Title Prediction
author)
Eisenberger An fMRI study of cytokine-
induced depressed mood and
social pain: The role of sex
differences
Elsabagh A longer duration of
schizophrenic illness has
sex-specific associations
within the working memory
neural network in
schizophrenia
Felmingham Neural responses to masked
fear faces: Sex differences
and trauma exposure in
posttraumatic stress disorder greater activity in fear and
Fine Gender differences in BOLD Empirically-based-precise:
activation to face
photographs and video
vignettes
Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
available? with reverse inference?
Exploratory – – –
Empirically-based-precise: – – –
“hypothesised that a longer
illness duration would be
associated with decreased
activation of the PFC during
performance of a WM task
and may be accompanied by
compensatory effects in other
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
brain regions. Furthermore,
we hypothesized that these
effects would be more
pronounced in male patients
than in female patients.”
(42)
Empirically-based-precise: “greater brainstem activation to No measures of arousal or –
“predicted that (a) trauma- fear may contribute to the orienting to threat, or
exposed women would have greater prevalence of PTSD in capacity to contextualise
women [through heightened fear-related stimuli
arousal networks than would arousal and orienting to
non-trauma-exposed women, threat], greater hippocampal
trauma-exposed men, and activation in men may
non-trauma-exposed men; subserve an enhanced capacity
(b) both PTSD men and for contextualizing fear-
women would display great- related stimuli.” (246).
er fear and arousal network
activation than trauma-
exposed and non-trauma-
exposed women and men;
(c) women with PTSD
would display greater activi-
ty in fear networks than
would PTSD men.” (242)
Two “plausible” inferences are No behavioral measures –
“hypothesized greater right that “the males in our study taken
lateralization in males interpreted the stimuli
compared to females to photos differently than did the
385
Table 4 (continued)
Study (by first Title
author)
Frank Processing of food pictures:
Influence of hunger, gender
and calorie content
Garn An fMRI study of sex
differences in brain
activation during object
naming
Prediction
in the social network formed
by the amygdala, frontal gyri
and anterior cingulate. …
hypothesized gender
differences in the right and left
temporal regions that process
the various aspects of
language [specifically greater
left lateralization in males].”
(138)
Exploratory
Empirically-driven-vague: that
“men and women might differ
in terms of hemispheric
processing distribution during
object naming” (611) and that
there may be sex differences in
regions related to either choice
selection or word retrieval,
corresponding to contrasting
hypotheses about the reason
for behavioral sex differences
in naming living versus non-
living objects.
386
Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
available? with reverse inference?
females” or “that males are
actually less efficient at
processing the stimuli …
greater, more widespread
activation may suggest that
males recruit less expert
neural systems when
processing emotional stimuli.”
(143). Also speculate that
“male responses included ad-
ditional checking to be sure
that the positive stimuli were
genuine and without threat at
the preconscious level”, in
reference to supposed greater
male responsiveness to threat-
ening stimuli (143–4)
“higher [superior medial No measures of self –
frontal lobe] activation in perception concerning
women while viewing high- food.
caloric pictures when hun-
gry compared to being not
hungry. … These might be
related to different self per-
ception of men and women
concerning food processing”.
(164)
Suggest that activation No behavioral measures –
differences may be due to taken (silent naming task).
differential lexical selection
versus retrieval demands for
men versus women, stemming
from sex differences in
vocabulary size.
C. Fine
Table 4 (continued)

Study (by first Title Prediction Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
author) available? with reverse inference?

Gauthier Sex and performance level
effects on brain activation
during a verbal fluency task: test whether (1) difference in than the usual phonological
A functional magnetic
resonance imaging study
Empirically-based-vague: “men seem to make greater use No measures of strategy –
“The aim of this study was to of visual mental strategies … taken.
neural correlates between and semantic strategies”
sexes exist in a covert fluen- (175).
cy task, irrespective of high
or low level performance, (2)
performance differences are
related to neural activity re-
gardless of sex for this same
task and (3) sex and levels of
performance act in an addi-
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?

tive or interactive manner on

Goldstein Sex differences in stress
response circuitry activation “predicted that men would
dependent on female
hormonal cycle
neural area activation … our
attention was drawn to un-
derstanding (4) whether the
precuneus, occipital gyri and
cerebellum would be differ-
entially engaged to resolve
the task according to perfor-
mance and/or sex factors”
(165).
Empirically-based-precise:
look more similar to women in female during midcycle to
[early follicular] than during have a heightened cortical
[late follicular/midcycle
phase], given the greater
similarity of men’s hormonal
status to women’s hormonal
status at [early follicular]
compared to [late follicular/
midcycle phase].” (432).
“From an evolutionary point of No measures of judgment of Inconsistent. No group
view, it is important for the threat level of relevant differences in mood or
stimuli taken. anxiety measures before or
after viewing aversive
capacity, unencumbered by images. See main text for
excessive arousal, to further discussion.
optimally judge whether a
potentially threatening
stimulus, such as an
approaching male, is an
opportunity for successful
mating or for fight or flight.
Thus, females have been
endowed with a natural
hormonal capacity to
regulate the stress response
that differs from males.”
(437)
387
Table 4 (continued)
Study (by first Title
author)
Ino Gender differences in brain
activation during encoding
and recognition of male and
female faces
Keller Gender differences in the
functional and structural
neuroanatomy of
mathematical cognition
Kempton The effects of gender and
COMT Val158Met
polymorphism on fearful
facial affect recognition: a
fMRI study
388
Prediction Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
available? with reverse inference?
Exploratory “the reduced activation observed Facial recognition Inconsistent. No sex
in women compared to men performance measured. differences in performance
during encoding suggests that (although this is attributed
the relevant cerebral regions to a ceiling effect).
were recruited more efficiently
in women. Therefore, this
fMRI finding provides the
neuronal basis for the
superiority of women over men
regarding facial recognition,
which has been indicated by
previously behavioral studies
but was not duplicated in the
present study, probably due to
the ceiling effect.” (2)
Empirically-based-precise: “we – – –
predicted that … (2) gender
differences in brain responses
would exist even in the absence
of overt gender differences in
behavior, (3) males and females
would show extensive overlap
in activation of the left and right
IPS and angular gyrus … and
(4) males would show greater
activation in the PPC whereas
females would show greater
responses in the left and right
frontal cortex.” (343)
Empirically-based-precise: “that Findings suggest that No relevant behavioral –
females homozygotes for the “emotional mimicry is measures taken.
Met allele, would … show perhaps minimal in males
amplified task-induced activa- whereas in females there may
tions within limbic regions … be increased inhibition in this
possible that a genotype- region” (377).
associated prefrontal-
associated mechanism can
override the effect of the
genotype within the limbic
regions.” (372)
C. Fine
Table 4 (continued)
Study (by first Title
author)
Killgore Sex differences in cerebral
responses to images of high
versus low-calorie food
Klucken Neural activations of the
acquisition of conditioned
sexual arousal: Effects of
contingency awareness and
sex
Krach Are women better Empirically-based-precise: “we
mindreaders? Sex differences expected … that women
in neural correlates of
mentalizing detected with
functional MRI
Lee Sex-related differences in Empirically-based-precise:
neural activity during risk “hypothesized that the male and stronger activation in the OFC measures other than risk-
taking: An fMRI study
Prediction Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
available? with reverse inference?
Empirically-based-precise: “Though speculative, [greater Self-reported appetite and Inconsistent. No sex
“hypothesized that females activation patterns in control of eating behavior differences in self-reported
would show greater overall particular regions in women in measured. No other appetite or control of eating
activation in response to high- response to calorie-rich food] relevant behavioral behavior.
calorie food images, particu- may reflect increased engage- measures taken.
larly within prefrontal inhibi- ment of prefrontal evaluative,
tory and self-monitoring decision-making, inhibitory,
regions compared with males. and self-referential cognitive
Furthermore … it was hy- systems” (357). Other sex
pothesized that women would differences in activation
show greater activation than “reinforces the notion that
men within [the insula and women may process food im-
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
amygdala].” (354) agery at a more complex cog-
nitive/somatic level, whereas
men may process food stimuli
at a less complex hedonic
approach-withdrawal level.”
(358)
Empirically-based-vague: Results “in line with current Subjective sexual arousal Inconsistent. No sex
“hypothesized that … men findings suggesting that men ratings of conditioned differences in subjective
would show increased are more receptive to stimuli measured, as well arousal ratings of
responses” to conditioned conditioning of sexual arousal as skin conductance conditioned stimuli. (No
stimuli relative to neutral stimuli, than women” (3081), responses (SCRs). effect of conditioning on
compared with women (3072). SCRs.)
– – –
would be better perspective
takers and therefore display
stronger signal changes in the
medial prefrontal cortex.” (2)
“Our findings regarding the No relevant behavioral Inconsistent. No sex differences
in either rate of making risky
female participants would show for the female participants taking itself. responses, or response time to
differential patterns of neural than for the male participants make risky responses.
activation associated with risk suggests that women need to
taking. … that when the female partake in a higher degree of
and male participants showed mental consideration before
comparable rates of risky making a risky response.”
selection, the neural activations (1308)
in the insula and the OFC
389
Table 4 (continued)
Study (by first Title Prediction
author)
Li Gender differences in
cognitive control: An
extended investigation of the
stop signal task
would be stronger for the
female participants than for the
male participants. … We
hypothesized that stronger
correlations [between right
insula and the OFC with the rate male participants when
of risky selection and
punishment] would be obtained subsequent actions during the
for the female participants than
for the male participants.”
(1304)
Exploratory
390
Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
available? with reverse inference?
Greater “responsiveness [in
particular brain regions in
females] may arise because
the female participants are
more mentally alert than the
updating and valuating their
task.” (1308)
“it is likely that the male
participants, relative to their
female counterparts, were more
active in encoding the positive
experience from the reward
feedback. The encoded positive
experience may render men
than women more ready for
committing to subsequent risk-
taking behaviors.” (1310)
“The stronger OFC and insula
activities in women than in
men may reflect the sensitivity
of women to situations of
ambiguity … [This] could
make women more risk averse
than men.” (1310).
“These opposite patterns of No relevant behavioral –
cerebral responses between [stop measures taken, and no
success] and [stop error] trials behavioral differences on
suggested there were perhaps the task.
fundamental differences in the
way men and women perform
the stop signal task.” (270).
“This [neurological] gender
difference … along with
greater error-related activity in
women, as compared to men,
may indicate fundamental dif-
ferences in the temporal
C. Fine
Table 4 (continued)
Study (by first Title
author)
Mak Sex-related differences in
neural activity during
emotion regulation
Mather Sex differences in how stress
affects brain activity during
face viewing
Prediction Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
available? with reverse inference?
dynamics with which men and
women respond to errors dur-
ing a cognitive task that
requires moment-to-moment
monitoring of performance.”
(270)
“PCC activity may also reflect
that, compared to men,
women were involved to a
greater extent in ‘mental
reflection’” (270).
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
Empirically-based-precise: “we The “pattern of findings is Self-reported regulatory Consistent. Marginally
hypothesized that during consistent with the higher strategies measured. significant (p0.066) trend
emotion regulation, males emotional reactivity and for females to report more
would mainly recruit the emotion-focused coping style emotion-focused regulatory
dorsolateral prefrontal regions commonly observed among strategies and males to re-
that are implicated in cognitive females. … [Observed male port more cognitive-
processes, while females would activity] is probably related to focused strategies.
mainly recruit the orbitofrontal the cognitive effort and spe-
regions that are implicated in cific regulatory strategies that
affective processes.” (2901). they had employed.” (2907).
Empirically-based-precise: “for “it seems that coordination of No relevant behavioral –
men observing other’s emotions, basic face processing by the measures taken, such as
stress will decrease interactions FFA and interpretation and tendency to social
between the amygdala and brain simulation of emotional affiliation in response to
regions such as the insula and expressions by the extended stress.
temporal pole that help people temporal pole region
understand others’ state of mind increased under stress for
and simulate others’ emotions, women but decreased for men.
whereas for women, stress will This pattern is consistent with
increase interactions among behavioral findings that stress
these regions. In addition, it is promotes social affiliation for
hypothesized that, for men, women but disrupts it for
stress will decrease coordination men.” (936, reference
between a brain region engaged removed)
in basic visual processing of
faces (the fusiform face area or
FFA) and regions engaged in
simulating and interpreting
391
Table 4 (continued)
Study (by first Title
author)
Merz Investigating the impact of sex
and cortisol on implicit fear
conditioning with fMRI
Ohrmann Effect of gender on processing
threat-related stimuli in
patients with panic disorder:
Sex does matter
Owens An fMRI study of self-
reflection about body image:
Sex differences
Prediction Reverse inference
facial emotions (the temporal
pole and insula) whereas, for
women, stress will increase
coordinated activities among
these regions.” (933, references
removed)
Empirically-based-precise:
“predicted that cortisol would
reduce the CS+/CS-
differentiation in men, while
enhancing them in women in
[the amygdala, the
hippocampus, or the thalamus] cues in a stressful situation.”
and additionally in the frontal
cortex.” (35)
Empirically-based-precise:
“postulated a stronger
activation of the neural fear
circuitry in response to threat-
related stimuli in female [panic facial expressions are the most
disorder] patients, as com-
pared to the male patient
group.” (1035)
Empirically-based-precise: that “when females [but not males]
“females might show stronger
activation in mPFC when
engaged in self-reflection
about their bodies” (850).
392
Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
available? with reverse inference?
“Women were more prone to a SCRs measured. Consistent. Cortisol
facilitation of [the insula] during enhanced mean SCR to the
enhanced [glucocorticoid] levels conditioned stimulus in
possibly revealing an women but reduced it in
unconscious shift towards the men.
acquisition of potential danger
(42)
“strongest amygdala activation No threat judgment –
in women was observed after measures taken.
exposure to angry and neutral
faces, implying that these two
threatening to women.”
(1041)
Measures of body image Inconsistent. Both sexes
are confronted with fat images concern and post- scored extremely low on a
and asked to apply this criterion experiment reports of self- measure of body image
to their own bodies, they are reflection taken. concern.
more inclined to seriously
engage processes of self-
reflection and (re)evaluate rel-
evant self-representations given
the cultural directive of thin-
ness for female bodies.” (853)
“results provide converging
evidence of a stronger
relationship between body
size and self-representation for
women than for men and they
provide further support for the
hypothesis of a number of
C. Fine
Table 4 (continued)
Study (by first Title
author)
Qiu The effects of acupuncture on
the brain networks for
emotion and cognition: An
observation of gender
differences
Reidl Are there neural gender
differences in online trust?
An fMRI study on the
perceived trustworthiness of
eBay offers
Prediction
Empirically-based-vague: “we
hypothesize that women and
men may have different brain
activation/deactivation
patterns at the [limbic–
paralimbic–neocortical
network] and the [default
mode network] in response to
acupuncture procedure.” (57)
Empirically-based-precise: eight “Our fMRI data (i.e., the
specific hypotheses made.
Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
available? with reverse inference?
theorists that a typical, non
eating disordered woman in
US society shows a relatively
high level of concern for body
shape.” (853)
– – –
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
Perceived trustworthiness Inconsistent. Women gave
striatum activation) provide of offers measured, but no higher ratings of
empirical support that women behavioral measures of trustworthiness than men.
consider socio-psychological functional versus social/
and emotional concerns most emotional motivations in
relevant in both conventional shopping, of emotional
shopping and online shop- versus cognitive
ping.” (416) processing, or of
Larger cluster size of dorsal perception of uncertainty
anterior cingulate cortex or risk.
activation in men “supports
the notion that men, in
contrast to women, usually
process information in a
cognitive rather than affective
manner” (417, references
removed).
Task “triggered activation in
more brain areas for females
than for males … This pattern
of female brain activation may
occur because women
perceive greater levels of
uncertainty and risk” (419,
reference removed).
393
Table 4 (continued)
Study (by first Title
author)
Rubia Effects of age and sex on
developmental neural
networks of visual-spatial at- enhanced frontal activation
tention allocation
Rumberg Cycle and gender-specific ce- Empirically-based-precise:
rebral activation during a
verb generation task using
fMRI: Comparison of wom-
en in different cycle phases, dependent on their hormonal
under oral contraception, and status, leading to significant
men
394
Prediction Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
available? with reverse inference?
Empirically-based-precise: “Males seem thus to have relied No behavioral measures of Inconsistent. Males and
“expected to observe more on bottom-up parietal processing style females did not differ in
visual-spatial perception differences. Mean mean reaction time on
in females and enhanced mechanisms for stimulus sa- reaction time and error either congruent or oddball
parietal activation in males liency processing, while rates measured. trials, although the increase
during visuospatial attention females appear to have relied in reaction time on oddball
allocation. Furthermore, … more on top-down fronto- trials compared to
we hypothesised that brain striato-temporal executive congruent trials was greater
regions that differed in control of selective attention, for females than for males.
activation between males and which may be slower and less
females would be related to effective than more automatic
underlying sex differences bottom-up processes used by
in the neurofunctional males.” (824).
maturation of these brain
regions, with more
pronounced maturation of
parietal regions in males and
frontal regions in females.”
(818).
– – –
“hypothesize that the
lateralization of the activation
patterns will differ in women
activation in the frontal and/or
temporal areas for women
under oral contraception
compared to women without
oral contraception in two
different cycle phases.
Concerning the gender
differences, we assume that
the previously described
differences between men and
women in the temporal cortex
[higher in males] will be
verified, but hypothesize that
this finding will also depend
on the cycle time.” (367).
C. Fine
Table 4 (continued)
Study (by first Title
author)
Schmidt No gender differences in brain Empirically-based-precise:
activation during the N-back
task: An fMRI study in
healthy individuals
Straube Sex differences in brain
activation to anticipated and
experienced pain in the
medial prefrontal cortex
Sveljo Gender differences in brain
areas involved in silent
counting by means of fMRI
Valera Sex differences in the
functional neuroanatomy of
working memory in adults
with ADHD
Prediction Reverse inference Relevant behavioral data Behavioral data consistent
available? with reverse inference?
– – –
“initial tentative hypothesis
was that men would show
greater activation in frontal
and parietal regions than
women [in a verbal working
memory task].” (3610)
Exploratory “On the basis of the putative No relevant behavioral –
role of the anterior MPFC, measures taken.
increased activation in this
area [in females] suggests
stronger self-related process-
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
ing of anticipated and experi-
enced, clearly painful stimuli
in women, as compared to
men.” (697).
Exploratory “Our results may suggest that No behavioral measures –
gender related differences in taken. Silent counting
language processing reflect task.
specific cognitive and
executive strategies as a
response to certain stimuli”
(7).
Empirically-based-precise: – – –
“predicted that … functional
differences [between adults
with ADHD and comparison
subjects, including frontal
hypofunction and right frontal-
striatal-cerebellar abnormali-
ties] would be smaller for the
women with ADHD than for
the men” … “we also con-
ducted exploratory analyses to
assess the correlation between
ADHD symptoms and neural
activation associated with per-
formance on the working
memory task for men and
women separately.” (87)
395
396 C. Fine

observed male/female brain activation differences

Behavioral data consistent suggested that women “need to partake in a higher
with reverse inference? degree of mental consideration before making a
risky response, and render women more risk
–

–
averse” [84, p. 1308], even though they found no
sex differences in either response time to make, or
number of, risky responses. In both cases, it
appears that, in interpreting their highly ambiguous
neurological data, assumptions about likely sex dif-
Relevant behavioral data

ferences in behavior (in sexual conditionability and

taste for risk) had greater influence than the similarity
actually observed.
–

Other interesting examples of psychological spec-

available?

ulations unsupported by behavioral data were provid-

ed by two studies investigating hormonal influences
on female brain activity. Derntl et al. [85] looked at
brain activity during the performance of a number of
empathy tasks and found a non-significant trend for
greater amygdala activity in six women in the follicu-
lar phase of the menstrual cycle, compared with six
Reverse inference

women in the luteal phase. Given the role of the

amgydala in socio-emotional processing they sug-
gested that “the follicular phase facilitates sensitivity
–

and behavior in socio-emotional situations [references

removed]” and that this facilitation “may be traced
back to the evolutionary advantage of higher attention
related lateralization of amyg-

dependent in [emotional en-

hancement of memory]” (2)

and responsiveness to social-emotional interactions

Empirically-based-precise: to
“explore whether the sex-

thereby improving mating chances during times of

dala function is time-

increased fertility.” [85, p. 78]. However, no differ-

ences in empathizing ability were observed between
women in different phases of their cycle. A second
Growing together and growing Exploratory

study investigated the effect of menstrual cycle phase

Prediction

on brain responses to aversive stimuli [86]. The

authors reported greater attenuation of brain activity
in subcortical regions, including the amygdala, rela-
developmental trajectories of
enhancement-related effects
of emotional memory time-

tive to males, in twelve women when in the late

differences in the lifespan
amygdala to the sex- and

follicular/mid-cycle phase compared with the early

apart: Regional and sex
Is the contribution of the

functional homotopy

follicular phase. From this finding the authors sug-

gested that hormonal changes in women may influ-
ence stress responses such that the mid-cycle female
dependent?

can “optimally judge whether a potentially threaten-

ing stimulus, such as an approaching male, is an
Title

opportunity for successful mating or for fight or

Table 4 (continued)

flight.”[86, p. 437] However, if the neural changes

wrought by mid-cycle hormonal status reduce stress
Study (by first

responses in a way that has behavioral influence,

one would expect these women to have displayed
author)

Wang

less anxiety or other negative emotions than when in

Zuo

the early follicular phase. Yet this was not the case,
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
either before or after viewing seventy-two highly
arousing aversive pictures.
These two speculations, both based on extremely
small sample sizes, are of particular note given the
long history of prejudice against women based on the
supposed psychological effects of their hormones [8].
Considered together, they also illuminate the problem-
atic nature of a piecemeal approach to research. How,
for example, would the amygdala of the fertile hetero-
sexual female be expected to respond to an attractive
but potentially dangerous male? Would it be predicted
to show a greater response to facilitate more effective
flirtation, or reduced response to facilitate boldness in
the social interaction?
Exaggeration of Fixedness? Plasticity of Brain
and Mind
A third important issue when it comes to interpreting
sex differences in the brain is the potential plasticity of
sex differences in both brain and mind. Neural circuit-
ry develops through, and is altered by, experience
[e.g., 87–90], and this has been shown to be the case
even for low-level sex differences in the rat brain [91,
for discussion of this point and its neglect in research,
see 92]. As a number of feminist scientists have point-
ed out, gendered life experiences and social construc-
tions of gender (such as leisure activities, educational
interests, poverty and status) have material effects on
the body, including the brain [e.g., 12, 93–95]. Mean-
while, behavioral sex differences have often been
shown to vary by historical period, culture, demo-
graphic factors, ethnicity, and even in response to
subtle social cues. To take the example of mathemat-
ics, in the United States the gender gap in mean
mathematical performance at school has reduced and
closed over the past few decades, while the sex differ-
ence at very high levels of mathematical performance
has been found to vary across time and place as well as
across ethnicities within North America [96–98]. In
addition, social psychological research indicates that
mathematical performance can vary within the same
individual across different social contexts. For exam-
ple, investigations of the ‘stereotype threat’ phenome-
non find that female mathematical performance is
improved when, for instance, tests are presented in a
way that de-emphasizes or makes irrelevant the ste-
reotype that females are poor at maths [99, 100,
397
although for a third meta-analytic study that eliminates
all studies without male comparisons and/or that use
preexisting mathematics scores as a covariate, and
comes to a different conclusion, see 101]. This is just
one example of the general phenomenon that social
context affects gendered behavior in myriad ways [for
numerous other examples, see 10]. Clearly, such social
influences have neural correlates.
The implication of this for researchers is that the
effects of gendered experiences or situations on brain
development or function are (literally) incorporated
into a sex difference in neural activity. Thus a single
‘snap-shot’ comparison of male/female brain activity
is uninformative as to the extent to which any neuro-
logical sex differences (and any concomitant behav-
ioral differences) are due to the effects of experience
on brain development and function, versus the mani-
festation of fixed, stable and universal male/female
neural signatures [18]. Importantly, while a ‘snap-
shot’ approach to research doesn’t explicitly endorse
the idea of fixed sex differences in the brain (and
behavior), such an approach can neither produce data
to challenge such an interpretation, nor illuminate or
support any other account of how behavioral sex dif-
ferences might arise. Conversely, a ‘plasticity’ ap-
proach that devotes attention to the neural correlates
of the known malleability of sex differences in behav-
ior could potentially do so. Thus, if charges of neuro-
sexism are incorrect, researchers should avoid over-
reliance on simple ‘snap-shot’ comparisons.
To investigate whether this was the case, each study
from the previously used sample was categorised as
taking a ‘plasticity’ approach if it examined whether
potentially relevant gender-related experiences (such as
masculine or feminine occupations, educational history
or past-times), social factors (such as socio-economic
background or marital status) or context (such as pres-
ence or absence of stereotype threat in the portrayal of
the task) moderated sex differences in brain activity.
Otherwise, it was categorised as ‘snap-shot’. All 39
studies took a ‘snap-shot’ approach to research.
Discussion
The brain science of male/female difference has an
unfortunate history of neurosexism, in which scientif-
ically unjustified claims furnished support for tradi-
tional gender stereotypes and roles. Some have
398
recently argued that FNI investigations of sex differ-
ences largely follow that tradition. Conversely, others
have responded to such criticisms with claims that
they over-emphasize the peril of such research, at the
expense of the current and future promise. This article
examined the navigation of three obstacles to obtain-
ing valuable information about sex differences, as a
way of illuminating the validity of these two differing
perspectives.
First, treatment of the scope for false-positive errors
in FNI sex differences research was systematically
explored in three ways: typical sample sizes, a case
study, and citation practices. Analysis of a recent two
year (2009 and 2010) sample found that findings of
sex differences in fMRI investigations are predomi-
nantly reported in studies with inadequate sample
sizes. Nearly three quarters of studies had 15 or fewer
participants of each sex in each of their subgroups of
interest, and for approximately a fifth of the studies
there were fewer than ten. Empirically based analyses
of group differences arising from samples of this size
indicate low reliability, sensitivity, and generalizability
[38, 42], a point underlined by the example of reports
of sex differences in language lateralization discussed
previously [37, 43, 44]. That the majority of reported
sex differences involve studies with low statistical
power that compare groups with fewer than 16 partic-
ipants suggests that there is not great concern, in
general, as to the possibility that claims of sex differ-
ences in brain activations may be spurious. Second,
treatment of the scope for false positive errors was also
investigated with an examination of standards of evi-
dence for a recent claim of sex differences in the brain
described as responsibly made [21], beyond reason-
able doubt [49] and of sufficient warrant to be cited
without caveat in some expert reviews [e.g., 52]. This
found that only two supporting studies directly com-
pared the sexes, and one of these suffered from sample
selection bias. Both had small sample sizes and
reflected ambiguity as to how to construct the depen-
dent variable. Finally, concern with respect to false-
positive errors was investigated in a third way by
looking at recent citations of a sex difference in lan-
guage lateralization for which considerable contradic-
tory data exists, including two meta-analyses. Fifty-
seven per cent of citing authors did not refer to the
presence of any contradictory data, and fewer than a
third cited one or both meta-analyses, approximately
half doing so in a way that did not indicate its greater
C. Fine
scientific warrant. In short, the picture revealed from
these three investigations was one in which evidentia-
ry standards are tolerant of both the production and
persistence of false-positive claims of sex differences.
The second approach to judging the validity of the
two perspectives of the literature looked at how
researchers typically navigate the functional obscurity
of brain differences, and the room for gender
stereotype-infused speculations this allows. The extent
to which researchers speculated on, rather than sys-
tematically investigated, the psychological signifi-
cance of sex differences in brain activity was
investigated in the same recent sample of FNI studies.
None of the thirty-nine studies tested a prediction
based on an explicit neurocognitive model of sex-
modulated mental processes subserving the behavior
of interest. Over two-thirds of the studies speculated
on psychological differences in the sexes on the basis
of neurological findings, all but three doing so either
in the absence of supporting behavioral data or in the
presence of contradictory data. While caution and
restraint were in evidence in a number of studies, it
was still the case that post hoc reverse inferences were
more common than not. This is not surprising since,
ultimately, such research is intended to illuminate psy-
chological differences between the sexes. Yet when
such speculative reverse inferences are not part of
systematic model building, the scope for influence of
erroneous gender stereotypes is high. This was espe-
cially clear in cases in which speculations were con-
sistent with gender stereotypes but inconsistent with
the researchers’ own behavioral data.
Finally, using the same sample, researchers’ atten-
tion to the potential plasticity of sex differences in
brain and mind was investigated. Studies were cate-
gorised on the basis of whether they explored the
potential plasticity of sex differences in brain activity
by looking at how factors such as systematically gen-
dered experiences, demographic factors or social con-
text might contribute to, or moderate, sex difference in
brain activation; or whether they relied on a single
‘snap-shot’ of male/female difference. All 39 studies
took a ‘snap-shot’ approach.
These findings seem to render untenable claims that
charges of neurosexism in scientific research are mis-
placed; at least with regards to the FNI literature. The
long-noted publication bias toward positive findings
of sex differences is exacerbated by tolerance for
positive findings from sample sizes that yield low
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
reliability and generalizability, as well as less than
ideal citation practices. While a report of a sex differ-
ence in the brain, even if erroneous, does not neces-
sarily support gender stereotypes (particularly given
the possibility that neural differences may have no
behavioral significance), functional interpretations of
apparent neurological sex differences are common,
and little effort appears to be devoted to the develop-
ment of neurocognitive models to constrain and test
such speculations to avoid gender stereotype-infused
interpretations. Lastly, a predominantly static ‘snap-
shot’ approach to research guarantees that no data that
challenge the implicit assumption of fixed male/fe-
male neural signatures will be found, and that the
processes underlying experiential contributions to,
and plasticity of, neurological or behavioral gender
differences remain unexplored. Together, these com-
mon neuroscientific research practices bias the scien-
tific literature toward a presentation of sex differences
in the brain as “essential”; that is extensive, function-
ally significant in gender stereotypically consistent
ways, and fixed.
It might be objected that the conclusion to be drawn
from the information presented here is that cognitive
neuroimaging, like all science, is imperfect—not that
it is sexist. It is certainly true that issues such as false-
positive errors, within-group analyses, citation bias,
and logically and empirically unpersuasive reverse
inferences are hardly unique to sex differences re-
search [39, 45, 102, 103]. However, that these prob-
lems affect FNI investigations and behavioral science
more generally is not grounds to dismiss charges of
neurosexism. The reason this objection fails is a fea-
ture of the research so obvious that it is all-but invis-
ible: theoretically, the science could carry exactly the
same flaws but be biased in precisely the opposite
way. Thus, in theory, it could be false-positive claims
of the effects of gender socialization (rather than
biological sex) on brain activity that are facilitated
through common research practices. Similarly
researchers could, on the basis of ambiguous neuro-
logical findings, frequently speculate about the psy-
chological effects of socialization or context on
gendered behavior in a piecemeal fashion that is not
developed into explicit neurocognitive models and
systematically tested. Lastly, researchers could rou-
tinely neglect to investigate the influence of biological
sex on neural activity during the performance of gen-
dered tasks, guaranteeing that no data are produced
399
that could contradict the notion that gender is entirely
socially constructed.
There are social, as well as scientific, reasons for
the neuroscientific community to acknowledge the
validity of feminist criticisms of the research: argu-
ably, the relatively subtle forms of neurosexism iden-
tified here contribute to the more egregious versions
that appear in the popular literature. Recently, a num-
ber of scientists have drawn attention to the harmful
effects of popular neurosexism in reinforcing gender
stereotypes [e.g., 9, 10, 21, 104, 105]. Yet research is
currently being conducted in a way that biases the
literature towards presenting neurological sex differ-
ences as numerous, functionally significant, and fixed.
Thus, even adequately accurate popular dissemination
of the neuroscientific research literature would be
biased towards interpretations that implicitly reify the
status quo.
Moreover, neuroscientists could also usefully con-
sider other ways in which research may contribute to,
and license, popular forms of neurosexism. First, the
greater the volume of false-positive errors that exist in
the literature, the more scope there is for popular
writers to make claims about sex differences in the
brain that will ultimately prove to be false. Clearly,
false-positive results are inevitable, but the scope for
them is greatly increased by current common practi-
ces. In addition, the scientific community itself does
not always set a good example in terms of how such
findings should be treated. Eliot [104], for example,
has recently rightly criticized popular writers for
cherry-picking spurious findings, using as an example
references in the popular media to Shaywitz et al.’s
finding of greater male lateralization, despite the null
conclusion of the two meta-analytic investigations of
the hypothesis. Yet as noted earlier, the same phenom-
enon is present in more than half of recent citations in
the scientific literature itself. A similar argument
applies to functional interpretations of supposed
male/female brain differences. While some claims
made by popular writers appear to be the products of
enviably potent imaginations, in other instances
they are recognisable (albeit exaggerated and over-
confident) versions of hypotheses, interpretations and
speculations made by researchers themselves [see 10].
Anecdotally, scientists have a reputation for over-
cautiousness in the statements they are prepared to
make, thus it seems plausible that the propensity of
scientists to make such speculations, to draw on
400
gender stereotypes to do so, and to fail to test them
systematically (and thus potentially reject them), will
increase the ease and apparent appropriateness for
popular commentators to make such speculations
themselves. Finally, a number of scientists have ap-
propriately criticized popular writers for false asser-
tions that any sex differences observed in the brain
must be ‘innate’ or fixed [e.g., 10, 21, 104]. Yet the
‘snap-shot’ research approach implicitly reinforces—
or at the very least fails to challenge—the notion of
fixed male/female neural signatures. If the neuroscien-
tific literature were full of studies exploring the
plasticity of sex differences in the brain—how, for
example, they vary across time, culture, socioeconomic
status, gendered experience, social context, and so on—
popular writers would be less able to assume or assert
that supposed neurological differences are ‘hardwired’.
In line with this point, Eliot [105] has recently argued
that neuroscientists should pay more attention to gender
enculturation processes in the brain. The current find-
ings strongly reinforce this suggestion.
It is of course not suggested that scientists bear
blanket responsibility for popular representations of
their work, and their responsibility at the popular
interface is a difficult question beyond the scope of
this article. However, in the face of evidence of the
manifestation of neurosexism in the scientific research
itself, it behoves the scientific community to consider
their contribution to popular scientific understanding
of gender through the proliferation of false-positive
errors [see also 106], untested stereotype-consistent
reverse inferences, and lack of attention to the poten-
tial plasticity of sex differences.
Then, there are scientific reasons for the neurosci-
entific community to acknowledge the validity of
feminist critiques. Concerns that the influence of such
criticisms on neuroscientists may “hinder” or even
“reverse” [22] scientific progress seem entirely mis-
placed. FNI investigations of sex differences can im-
prove in their service of the internal goal of science,
which is to establish reliable and valuable knowledge
about nature. It is worth noting that none of the fem-
inist critics cited here have suggested, as a solution to
this, the termination of such research: to argue that the
research is often flawed is not equivalent to arguing
that it should not be done at all. To the contrary, taking
heed of charges of neurosexism in each of the three
domains discussed would serve to improve the quality
of the science.
C. Fine
First, scientific progress is not served by the prolif-
eration of false-positive errors, the premature accep-
tance of hypotheses, or the perpetuation of false-
positive findings through citing practices. Second, al-
though exploratory research and post hoc speculation
clearly have important roles in science, to reduce
scope for unsubstantiated reverse inferences and, more
generally, better serve scientific progress, this should
lead to the systematic development and testing of
neurocognitive models of sex differences. In an inter-
esting observation that spans both these issues, Bluhm
[14] has pointed out that a statistical technique known
as region-of-interest (ROI) analysis, in which brain
activity differences are sought in pre-specified regions
of the brain, is common in this area of research.
Because ROI analyses involve far fewer comparisons
than whole brain analyses, researchers are able to
lower statistical thresholds for significance. While
the aim is to increase the chance of finding a group
difference, it also increases the risk of false-positive
error. Moreover, because ROI analyses examine only
isolated regions of the brain, Bluhm notes that they
serve to act against the development of sophisticated
neurocognitive models, which require an understand-
ing of the functional relationships of the entire brain
network involved in such tasks, and the relation of
different parts of the network to differences in behav-
ior. Thus, the decision to use this analysis technique
implicitly prioritizes the finding of a sex difference
over theoretical advance and the avoidance of false-
positive errors.
Third, similar arguments can be made as to the
benefit of taking into account criticism of the lack of
attention to the plasticity of sex differences. In humans
especially, gendered behavior shows substantial
within-group variation that is influenced by factors
such as historical period, nationality, experience and
social context. Neuroscientific research will only con-
tribute to rich explanations of gender if research is
guided by a sophisticated conceptual understanding
of the phenomenon. As Springer, Stellman and
Jordan-Young have recently argued, “measures of
sex are not pristine, but include effects of gender”
[93, p. 1] meaning that insights into gender differences
require going “[b]eyond a catalogue of differences” to
instead investigate the biological mechanisms that in-
teract with gendered experiences, by which differen-
ces between sexes arise. Jordan-Young & Rumiati [13]
have recently made recommendations along such lines
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
for brain research, suggesting greater exploration of
neural plasticity, as well as into the ways variation
arising from other social categories—such as social
class, occupation, and nationality—impact gender
differences. As they point out, such a research
approach “might provide much more illumination
on the concrete mechanisms through which the
social world shapes behavior, and even becomes
embodied (brain) difference” (p. 23).
In short, it is hard to see how taking heed of charges
of neurosexism could possibly impede scientific prog-
ress in this area. To the contrary, it should hasten it. In
the absence of changes in current practices, FNI inves-
tigations of sex differences will continue to under-
perform in service of the internal goal of science, at
the cost of contributing to erroneous and socially
harmful scientific and pseudo-scientific claims and
speculations. It is hoped that the neuroscientific com-
munity will respond to the arguments presented here,
and other such critiques, with openness as to how
research practices might be changed so as to improve
the quality of the science in this important and socially
sensitive area of research.
Acknowledgments My warmest thanks to Martha Farah,
Fiona Fidler, Kit Fine, Nick Haslam, Anelis Kaiser, Neil Levy,
Carsten Murawski, and Danielle Pogos for their very helpful
feedback on earlier versions of this paper. This research was
supported in part by an Australian Research Council Future
Fellowship.
Appendix
2009 and 2010 fMRI studies of sex differences
Aikins, D.E., A. Anticevic, K.A. Kiehl, and J.H. Krystal.
2010. Sex-related differences in amygdala activ-
ity influences immediate memory. NeuroReport
21(4): 274–276.
Bitan, T., A. Lifshitz, Z. Breznitz, and J.R. Booth. 2010.
Bidirectional connectivity between hemispheres
occurs at multiple levels in language processing
but depends on sex. Journal of Neuroscience 30
(35): 11576–11585.
Christakou, A., Halari, R., Smith, A. B., Ifkovits, E.,
Brammer, M., and Rubia, K. 2009. Sex-depen-
dent age modulation of frontostriatal and
temporo-parietal activation during cognitive con-
trol. NeuroImage 48: 223–236.
401
Clements-Stephens, A.M., S.L. Rimrodt, and L.E.
Cutting. 2009. Developmental sex differences
in basic visuospatial processing: Differences in
strategy use? Neuroscience Letters 449(3):
155–160.
Coman, I.L., M.H. Gnirke, F.A. Middleton, K.M.,
Antshel, W. Fremont, A.M. Higgins, et al.
2010. The effects of gender and catechol O-
methyltransferase (COMT) Val108/158Met
polymorphism on emotion regulation in
velo-cardio-facial syndrome (22q11.2 dele-
tion syndrome): An fMRI study. Neuro-
Image 53(3): 1043–1050.
Cornier, M.-A., Salzberg, A.K., Endly, D.C., Bessesen,
D.H., and Tregellas, J.R. 2010. Sex-based dif-
ferences in the behavioral and neuronal
responses to food. Physiology & Behaviour
99: 538–543.
Derntl, B., A. Finkelmeyer, S. Eickhoff, T. Kellermann,
D.I. Falkenberg, F. Schneider, et al. 2010. Mul-
tidimensional assessment of empathic abilities:
Neural correlates and gender differences. Psy-
choneuroendocrinology 35(1): 67–82.
Domes, G., L. Schulze, M. Böttger, A. Grossmann, K.
Hauenstein, P.H. Wirtz, et al. 2010. The
neural correlates of sex differences in emo-
tional reactivity and emotion regulation.
Human Brain Mapping 31(5): 758–769.
Eisenberger, N.I., T.K. Inagaki, L.T. Rameson, N.M.
Mashal, and M.R. Irwin. 2009. An fMRI
study of cytokine-induced depressed mood
and social pain: The role of sex differences.
NeuroImage 47(3): 881–890.
Elsabagh, S., Premkumar, P., Anilkumar, A.P.P., and
Kumari, V. 2009. A longer duration of
schizophrenic illness has sex-specific asso-
ciations within the working memory neural
network in schizophrenia. Behavioural
Brain Research 201: 41–47.
Felmingham, K., Williams, L.M., Kemp, A.H., Liddell,
B., Falconer, E., and Peduto, A., et al. 2010.
Neural responses to masked fear faces: Sex
differences and trauma exposure in posttrau-
matic stress disorder. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology 119: 241–247.
Fine, J.G., M. Semrud-Clikeman, and D.C. Zhu. 2009.
Gender differences in BOLD activation to
face photographs and video vignettes. Behav-
ioural Brain Research 201(1): 137–146.
402
Frank, S., N. Laharnar, S. Kullmann, R. Veit, C. Canova,
Y.L. Hegner, et al. 2010. Processing of food
pictures: Influence of hunger, gender and cal-
orie content. Brain Research 1350: 159–166.
Garn, C.L., M.D. Allen, and J.D. Larsen. 2009. An fMRI
study of sex differences in brain activation
during object naming. Cortex 45(5): 610–618.
Gauthier, C.T., M. Duyme, M. Zanca, and C. Capron.
2009. Sex and performance level effects on
brain activation during a verbal fluency task:
A functional magnetic resonance imaging
study. Cortex 45(2): 164–176.
Goldstein, J.M., M. Jerram, B. Abbs, S. Whitfield-
Gabrieli, and N. Makris. 2010. Sex differ-
ences in stress response circuitry activation
dependent on female hormonal cycle. Jour-
nal of Neuroscience 30(2): 431–438.
Ino, T., Nakai, R., Azuma, T., Kimura, T., and
Fukuyama, H. 2010. Gender differences in
brain activation during encoding and recog-
nition of male and female faces. Brain Im-
aging and Behaviour 4: 55–67.
Keller, K., and V. Menon. 2009. Gender differences in
the functional and structural neuroanatomy
of mathematical cognition. NeuroImage 47
(1): 342–352.
Kempton, M.J., M. Haldane, J. Jogia, T. Christodoulou,
J. Powell, D. Collier, et al. 2009. The effects
of gender and COMT Val158Met polymor-
phism on fearful facial affect recognition: A
fMRI study. The International Journal of
Neuropsychopharmacology 12(03): 371–381.
Killgore, W.S., and Yurgelun-Todd, D. 2010. Sex differ-
ences in cerebral responses to images of high
versus low-calorie food. NeuroReport 21:
354–358.
Klucken, T., Schweckendiek, J., Merz, C. J., Tabbert,
K., Walter, B., and Kagerer, S., et al. 2009.
Neural activations of the acquisition of con-
ditioned sexual arousal: Effects of contingen-
cy awareness and sex. Journal of Sexual
Medicine 6:3071–3085.
Krach, S., I. Blumel, D. Marjoram, T. Lataster, L.
Krabbendam, J. Weber, et al. 2009. Are wom-
en better mindreaders? Sex differences in neu-
ral correlates of mentalizing detected with
functional MRI. BMC Neuroscience 10(1): 9.
Lee, T.M.C., C.C.H. Chan, A.W.S. Leung, P.T. Fox, and
J.-H. Gao. 2009. Sex-related differences in
C. Fine
neural activity during risk taking: An fMRI
study. Cerebral Cortex 19(6): 1303–1312.
Li, T., Q. Luo, and H. Gong. 2010. Gender-specific
hemodynamics in prefrontal cortex during a
verbal working memory task by near-infrared
spectroscopy. Behavioural Brain Research
209(1): 148–153.
Mak, A.K.Y., Z-g Hu, J.X.X. Zhang, Z. Xiao, and
T.M.C. Lee. 2009. Sex-related differences in
neural activity during emotion regulation. Neu-
ropsychologia 47(13): 2900–2908.
Mather, M., Lighthall, N.R., Nga, L., and Gorlick,
M.A. 2010. Sex differences in how stress
affects brain activity during face viewing.
NeuroReport 21: 933–937.
Merz, C.J., K. Tabbert, J. Schweckendiek, T. Klucken,
D. Vaitl, R. Stark, et al. 2010. Investigating
the impact of sex and cortisol on implicit fear
conditioning with fMRI. Psychoneuroendoc-
rinology 35(1): 33–46.
Ohrmann, P., Pedersen, A., Braun, M., Bauer, J., Kugel,
H., and Kersting, A., et al. 2010. Effect of
gender on processing threat-related stimuli in
patients with panic disorder: Sex does matter.
Depression and Anxiety 27: 1034–1043.
Owens, T.E., M.D. Allen, and D.L. Spangler. 2010. An
fMRI study of self-reflection about body image:
Sex differences. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences 48(7): 849–854.
Qiu, W.Q., J. Claunch, J. Kong, E.E. Nixon, J. Fang,
M. Li, et al. 2010. The effects of acupuncture
on the brain networks for emotion and cogni-
tion: An observation of gender differences.
Brain Research 1362: 56–67.
Riedl, R., M. Hubert, and P. Kenning. 2010. Are there
neural gender differences in online trust? An
fMRI study on the perceived trustworthiness of
eBay offers. MIS Quarterly 34(2): 397–428.
Rubia, K., Hyde, Z., Halari, R., Giampietro, V., and
Smith, A. 2010. Effects of age and sex on de-
velopmental neural networks of visual-spatial
attention allocation. NeuroImage 51: 817–827.
Rumberg, B., A. Baars, J. Fiebach, M.E. Ladd, M.
Forsting, W. Senf, et al. 2010. Cycle and
gender-specific cerebral activation during a verb
generation task using fMRI: Comparison of
women in different cycle phases, under oral
contraception, and men. Neuroscience Re-
search 66(4): 366–371.
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
Schmidt, H., Jogia, J., Fast, K., Christodoulou, T.,
Haldane, M., and Kumari, V., et al. 2009. No
gender differences in brain activation during the
N-back task: An fMRI study in healthy individ-
uals. Human Brain Mapping 30: 3609–3615.
Straube, T., Schmidt, S., Weiss, T., Mentzel, H.-J., and
Miltner, W.H.R. 2009. Sex differences in
brain activation to anticipated and experi-
enced pain in the medial prefrontal cortex.
Human Brain Mapping 30: 689–698.
Sveljo, O.B., Koprivsek, K.M., Lucic, M.A., Prvulovic,
M.B., and Culic, M. 2010. Gender differences in
brain areas involved in silent counting by means
of fMRI. Nonlinear Biomedical Physics 4: 52.
Valera, E.M., A. Brown, J. Biederman, S.V. Faraone,
N. Makris, M.C. Monuteaux, et al. 2010. Sex
differences in the functional neuroanatomy of
working memory in adults with ADHD. The
American Journal of Psychiatry 167(1): 86–94.
Wang, H.-B., N. Ma, Y.-Q. Yu, Y.-R. Chen, K. Wang, and
D.-R. Zhang. 2010. Is the contribution of the
amygdala to the sex- and enhancement-related
effects of emotional memory time-dependent?
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 93(1): 1–7.
Zuo, X.-N., Kelly, C., Di Martino, A., Mennes, M.,
Margulies, D.S., and Bangaru, S., et al. 2010.
Growing together and growing apart: Regional
and sex differences in the lifespan developmen-
tal trajectories of functional homotopy. Journal
of Neuroscience 30(45): 15034–15043.
2009 and 2010 citations of Shaywitz et al. (1995)
Allez, G. 2009. Infant losses; adult searches; A neural and
developmental perspective on psychopathology
and sexual offending. London: Karnac Books.
Andreano, J.M., and L. Cahill. 2009. Sex influences
on the neurobiology of learning and memory.
Learning & Memory 16(4): 248–266.
Badcock, C. 2009. The imprinted brain: How genes
set the balance between autism and psycho-
sis. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Binder, J.R. 2010. fMRI of language systems: Methods
and applications.
Bitan, T., Lifshitz, A., Breznitz, Z., and Booth, J.R. 2010.
Bidirectional connectivity between hemi-
spheres occurs at multiple levels in language
processing but depends on sex. Journal of Neu-
roscience 38(35): 11576–11585.
403
Blakemore, J., S.A. Berenbaum, and L. Liben. 2009.
Gender development. New York: Psycholo-
gy Press.
Boyd, E. 2010. “Voice entitlement” narratives in super-
vision: Cultural and gendered influences on
speaking and dilemmas in practice. In Mirrors
and reflections: Processes of systemic super-
vision, ed. C. Burck and G. Daniel, 203–223.
London: Karnac Books.
Breier, J.I., J. Juranek, L.M. Maher, S. Schmadeke, D.
Men, and A.C. Papanicolaou. 2009. Behav-
ioral and neurophysiologic response to thera-
py for chronic aphasia. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation 90(12): 2026–
2033.
Brugger, P., M. Schubiger, and T. Loetscher. 2010.
Leftward bias in number space is modulated
by magical ideation. Cognitive and Behav-
ioral Neurology 23(2): 119–123.
Byrnes, J., and B. Wasik. 2009. Language and literacy
development: What educators need to know.
New York: Guilford Press.
Cahill, L. 2010. Sex influences on brain and emotional
memory: The burden of proof has shifted. In
Sex differences in the human brain, their
underpinnings and implications, vol. 186,
ed. I. Savic, 29–40. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Caparelli-Daquer, E.M., R. Oliveira-Souza, and P.F.
Moreira Filho. 2009. Judgment of line ori-
entation depends on gender, education, and
type of error. Brain and Cognition 69(1):
116–120.
Capone, A. 2010. A companion to linguistic anthro-
pology [book review]. Intercultural Prag-
matics 7(2): 401–417.
Chen, Y., M. Yan, D. Chen, M. Hamsch, H. Liu, H.
Jin, et al. 2010. Imaging hemorrhagic stroke
with magnetic induction tomography: Real-
istic simulation and evaluation. Physiologi-
cal Measurement 31(6): 809–827.
Chiarello, C., S.E. Welcome, L.K. Halderman, S.
Towler, J. Julagay, R. Otto, et al. 2009. A
large-scale investigation of lateralization in
cortical anatomy and word reading: Are
there sex differences? Neuropsychology 23
(2): 210–222.
Costafreda, S.G., A.S. David, and M.J. Brammer.
2009a. A parametric approach to voxel-based
meta-analysis. NeuroImage 46(1): 115–122.
404
Costafreda, S.G., C.H.Y. Fu, M. Picchioni, F. Kane, C.
McDonald, D.P. Prata, et al. 2009b. Increased
inferior frontal activation during word gener-
ation: A marker of genetic risk for schizophre-
nia but not bipolar disorder? Human Brain
Mapping 30(10): 3287–3298.
Cousin, E., M. Perrone, and M. Baciu. 2009. Hemi-
spheric specialization for language according
to grapho-phonemic transformation and gen-
der. A divided visual field experiment. Brain
and Cognition 69(3): 465–471.
Cowell, P. 2010. Auditory laterality: Recent findings
in speech perception. In The two halves of the
brain: Information processing in the cere-
bral hemispheres, ed. K. Hugdahl and R.
Westerhausen, 349–377. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Darlington, C. (2009). The female brain 2nd ed. Boca
Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
de Vries, G.J., and P. Sodersten. 2009. Sex differences
in the brain: The relation between structure
and function. Hormones and Behavior 55(5):
589–596.
Draca, S. 2010. Gender-specific functional cerebral
asymmetries and unilateral cerebral lesion se-
quelae. Reviews in the Neurosciences 21(6):
421–425.
Feinstein, S. 2009. Secrets of the teenage brain:
Research-based strategies for reaching and
teaching today’s adolescents, 2nd ed. Thou-
sand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Fink, M., W. Wadsak, M. Savli, P. Stein, U. Moser, A.
Hahn, et al. 2009. Lateralization of the
serotonin-1A receptor distribution in language
areas revealed by PET. NeuroImage 45(2):
598–605.
Ford, A., K. McGregor, K. Case, B. Crosson, and K.
White. 2010. Structural connectivity of Bro-
ca’s area and medial frontal cortex. Neuro-
Image 52: 1230–1237.
Galambos, N., S.A. Berenbaum, and S. McHale. 2009.
Gender development in adolescence. In Hand-
book of adolescent psychology, vol 1: Individual
bases of adolescent development, vol 1, 3rd ed,
ed. R. Lerner and L. Steinberg, 305–357 Hobo-
ken: John Wiley.
Garn, C.L., M.D. Allen, and J.D. Larsen. 2009. An fMRI
study of sex differences in brain activation during
object naming. Cortex 45(5): 610–618.
C. Fine
Gauthier, C.T., M. Duyme, M. Zanca, and C. Capron.
2009. Sex and performance level effects on
brain activation during a verbal fluency task:
A functional magnetic resonance imaging
study. Cortex 45(2): 164–176.
Geary, D.C. 2010. Male, female: The evolution of
human sex differences, 2nd ed. Washington:
American Psychological Association.
Gillies, G.E., and S. McArthur. 2010. Estrogen actions
in the brain and the basis for differential action
in men and women: A case for sex-specific
medicines. Pharmacological Reviews 62(2):
155–198.
Gorbet, D.J., L.B. Mader, and W.R. Staines. 2010.
Sex-related differences in the hemispheric
laterality of slow cortical potentials during
the preparation of visually guided move-
ments. Experimental Brain Research 202
(3): 633–646.
Gordon, E., D. Palmer, and N. Cooper. 2010. EEG
alpha asymmetry in schizophrenia, depres-
sion, PTSD, panic disorder, ADHD and con-
duct disorder. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience
42(4): 178–183.
Hansen, S., and D. Elliott. 2009. Three-dimensional
manual responses to unexpected target pertur-
bations during rapid aiming. Journal of Motor
Behavior 41(1): 16–29.
Hartwigsen, G., H. Siebner, and C. Stippich. 2010.
Preoperative functional magnetic resonance
imaging (fMRI) and transcranial magnetic
stimulation (TMS). Current Medical Imaging
Reviews 6(4): 220–231.
Hausmann, M., and U. Bayer. 2010. Sex hormonal
effects on hemispheric asymmetry and inter-
hemispheric interaction. In The two halves of
the brain: Information processing in the cere-
bral hemispheres, ed. K. Hugdahl and R.
Westerhausen, 253–285. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Hazlett, E.A., W. Byne, A.M. Brickman, E.M. Mitsis,
R. Newmark, M.M. Haznedar, et al. 2010.
Effects of sex and normal aging on regional
brain activation during verbal memory perfor-
mance. Neurobiology of Aging 31(5): 826–838.
Henderson, V. 2009. Dementia. CONTINUUM: Life-
long Learning in Neurology 15(2): 91–107.
Hines, M. 2010. Gendered behavior across the life span.
In The handbook of life-span development, Vol 2:
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
Social and emotional development, vol. 2, ed.
M.E. Lamb, A. Freund, and R. Lerner, 341–
378. Hoboken: John Wiley.
Hockenbury, D., and S. Hockenbury. 2010. Psycholo-
gy, 5th ed. New York: Worth Publishers.
Ihnen, S.K.Z., J.A. Church, S.E. Petersen, and B.L.
Schlaggar. 2009. Lack of generalizability of sex
differences in the fMRI BOLD activity associat-
ed with language processing in adults. Neuro-
Image 45(3): 1020–1032.
Isman, C.A., and N.U. Gundogan. 2009. The influ-
ence of digit ratio on the gender difference in
learning style preferences. Personality and In-
dividual Differences 46(4): 424–427.
Iwabuchi, S.J., and I.J. Kirk. 2009. Atypical inter-
hemispheric communication in left-handed
individuals. NeuroReport 20(2): 166–169.
Jahanshad, N., A.D. Lee, M. Barysheva, K.L. McMahon,
G.I. de Zubicaray, N.G. Martin, et al. 2010. Ge-
netic influences on brain asymmetry: A DTI
study of 374 twins and siblings. NeuroImage 52
(2): 455–469.
James, A. 2009. Teaching the female brain: How girls
learn math and science. Thousand Oaks: Corwin
Press.
Jancke, L. 2009. The cognitive neuroscience of human
communication [book review]. Laterality 14
(2): 214–216.
Kaiser, A., S. Haller, S. Schmitz, and C. Nitsch. 2009.
On sex/gender related similarities and differ-
ences in fMRI language research. Brain Re-
search Reviews 61(2): 49–59.
Kempe, V., P.J. Brooks, and S.D. Christman. 2009.
Inconsistent handedness is linked to more suc-
cessful foreign language vocabulary learning.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16(3): 480–
485.
Kherif, F., G. Josse, M.L. Seghier, and C.J. Price.
2009. The main sources of intersubject vari-
ability in neuronal activation for reading
aloud. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21
(4): 654–668.
Kivilevitch, Z., R. Achiron, and Y. Zalel. 2010. Fetal
brain asymmetry: In utero sonographic study
of normal fetuses. American Journal of Ob-
stetrics and Gynecology 202(4).
Lebel, C., and C. Beaulieu. 2009. Lateralization of the
arcuate fasciculus from childhood to adult-
hood and its relation to cognitive abilities in
405
children. Human Brain Mapping 30(11):
3563–3573.
Lenroot, R.K., and J.N. Giedd. 2010. Sex differences
in the adolescent brain. Brain and Cognition
72(1): 46–55.
Li, T., Q. Luo, and H. Gong. 2010. Gender-specific
hemodynamics in prefrontal cortex during a
verbal working memory task by near-infrared
spectroscopy. Behavioural Brain Research 209
(1): 148–153.
Limbrick, L., K. Wheldall, and A. Madelaine. 2010.
Estimating gender ratios of poor reading using
large-scale assessments. Australian Journal of
Education 54(2): 109–222.
Liu, H., S.M. Stufflebeam, J. Sepulcre, T. Hedden, and
R.L. Buckner. 2009. Evidence from intrinsic
activity that asymmetry of the human brain is
controlled by multiple factors. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 106(48): 20499–20503.
Locascio, G., Mahone, E., Eason, S., and Cutting, L.
2010. Executive dysfunction among children
with reading comprehension deficits. Journal
of Learning Disabilities 43: 441–454.
Logan, S., and R. Johnston. 2010. Investigating gender
differences in reading. Educational Review 62
(2): 175–187.
Lopes, A.M., C.A. Sargent, N.A. Affara, and A.
Amorim. 2009. Sex chromosomes and the
genetics of gender differences. Hauppauge:
NY Nova Science Publishers.
Lv, B., J. Li, H. He, M. Li, M. Zhao, L. Ai, et al. 2010.
Gender consistency and difference in healthy
adults revealed by cortical thickness. Neuro-
Image 53(2): 373–382.
Lyttelton, O.C., S. Karama, Y. Ad-Dab’bagh, R.J.
Zatorre, F. Carbonell, K. Worsley, et al.
2009. Positional and surface area asymmetry
of the human cerebral cortex. NeuroImage 46
(4): 895–903.
Majovski, L.V., and D. Breiger. 2009. Development of
higher brain functions: Birth through adoles-
cence. In Handbook of clinical child neuropsy-
chology, 3rd ed, ed. C. Reynolds and E.
Fletcher-Janzen, 67–116. New York: Springer
Science + Business Media.
Maruyama, K. 2009. Arcuate fasciculus tractography
integrated into gamme knife surgery. Journal
of Neurosurgery 111: 520–526.
406
Mbwana, J., M.M. Berl, E.K. Ritzl, L. Rosenberger, J.
Mayo, S. Weinstein, et al. 2009. Limitations to
plasticity of language network reorganization
in localization related epilepsy. Brain 132:
347–356.
McManus, I.C. 2010. Precisely wrong? The problems
with the Jones and Martin genetic model of sex
differences in handedness and language laterali-
sation. Cortex 46(5): 700–702.
Merz, C.N.B., S. Mark, B.D. Boyan, A.K. Jacobs, P.K.
Shah, L.J. Shaw, et al. 2010. Proceedings from
the scientific symposium: Sex differences in
cardiovascular disease and implications for
therapies. Journal of Womens Health 19(6):
1059–1072.
Ohuchida, K., H. Kenmotsu, A. Yamamoto, K.
Sawada, T. Hayami, K. Morooka, et al. 2009.
The frontal cortex is activated during learning
of endoscopic procedures. Surgical Endosco-
py and Other Interventional Techniques 23
(10): 2296–2301.
Pinel, P., and S. Dehaene. 2009. Beyond hemispheric
dominance: Brain regions underlying the joint
lateralization of language and arithmetic to the
left hemisphere. Journal of Cognitive Neuro-
science 22(1): 48–66.
Reiterer, S.M. 2009. Brain and language talent: A
synopsis. Language Talent and Brain Activity
1: 155–191.
Rumberg, B., A. Baars, J. Fiebach, M.E. Ladd, M.
Forsting, W. Senf, et al. 2010. Cycle and
gender-specific cerebral activation during a
verb generation task using fMRI: Comparison
of women in different cycle phases, under oral
contraception, and men. Neuroscience Re-
search 66(4): 366–371.
Sava, S., A. McCaffrey, and D. Yurgelun-Todd. 2009.
Gender, cognition, and addiction. In Women
and addiction: A comprehensive handbook,
ed. K. Brady, S. Back, and S. Greenfield,
133–146. New York: Guilford Press.
Semrud-Clikeman, M., J.G. Fine, and J. Bledsoe. 2009.
Neuroimaging in Women. In The neuropsychol-
ogy of women, ed. E. Fletcher-Janzen, 31–67.
New York: Springer.
Sereno, S.C., and P.J. O’Donnell. 2009. Participant
and word gender in age of acquisition effects:
The role of gender socialization. Sex Roles 61
(7–8): 510–518.
C. Fine
Sousa, D. 2009. How the gifted brain learns, 2nd ed.
Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Sternadori, M., and K. Wise. 2010. Men and women
read news differently: The effects of story
structure on the cognitive processing of text.
Journal of Media Psychology: Theories,
Methods, and Applications 22(1): 14–25.
Stevens-Smith, D. 2009. Profiles of dominance in
physical education. Kinesiology 41(1): 40–
51.
Strelnikov, K., J. Rouger, S. Lagleyre, B. Fraysse, O.
Deguine, and P. Barone. 2009. Improvement in
speech-reading ability by auditory training:
Evidence from gender differences in normally
hearing, deaf and cochlear implanted subjects.
Neuropsychologia 47(4): 972–979.
Strong, J., T. Mathews, R. Sussex, F. New, S. Hoey,
and G. Mitchell. 2009. Pain language and
gender differences when describing a past
pain event. Pain 145(1–2): 86–95.
Tong, F., B.J. Irby, R. Lara-Alecio, M. Yoon, and P.G.
Mathes. 2010. Hispanic English learners’
responses to longitudinal English instructional
intervention and the effect of gender: A multi-
level analysis. The Elementary School Journal
110(4): 542–566.
Tranel, D., and A. Bechara. 2009. Sex-related func-
tional asymmetry of the amygdala: Prelimi-
nary evidence using a case-matched lesion
approach. Neurocase 15(3): 217–234.
Van Dyke, S.A., V. Zuverza, L.A. Hill, J.B. Miller, L.J.
Rapport, and R.D. Whitman. 2009. Gender dif-
ferences in lateralized semantic priming. Devel-
opmental Neuropsychology 34(4): 381–392.
Van Strien, J.W., and D. Van Kampen. 2009. Positive
schizotypy scores correlate with left visual field
interference for negatively valenced emotional
words: A lateralized emotional Stroop study.
Psychiatry Research 169(3): 229–234.
van Wormer, K. 2010. Working with female offenders:
A gender-sensitive approach. Hoboken: John
Wiley.
Wallentin, M. 2009. Putative sex differences in verbal
abilities and language cortex: A critical review.
Brain and Language 108(3): 175–183.
Weis, S., and M. Hausmann. 2010. Sex hormones:
Modulators of interhemispheric inhibition in
the human brain. The Neuroscientist 16(2):
132–138.
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
Wheldall, K., and L. Limbrick. 2010. Do more boys
than girls have reading problems? Journal of
Learning Disabilities 43(5): 418–429.
Wilde, E.A., S.R. McCauley, Z. Chu, J.V. Hunter, E.D.
Bigler, R. Yallampalli, et al. 2009. Diffusion
tensor imaging of hemispheric asymmetries in
the developing brain. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology 31(2): 205–
218.
Yousem, D.M., M.A. Yassa, C. Cristinzio, I. Kusevic,
M. Mohamed, B.S. Caffo, et al. 2009. Intelli-
gence and medial temporal lobe function in
older adults: A functional MR imaging-based
investigation. American Journal of Neurora-
diology 30(8): 1477–1481.
Zaehle, T., L. Jancke, C.S. Herrmann, and M. Meyer.
2009. Pre-attentive spectro-temporal feature
processing in the human auditory system. Brain
Topography 22(2): 97–108.
References
1. Romanes, G. 1887/2001. Mental differences between men
and women. In Education papers: Women’s quest for equality
in Britain, 1850–1912, ed. D. Spender. Routledge: London.
2. Russett, C. 1989. Sexual science: The Victorian construc-
tion of womanhood. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
3. Shields, S. 1982. The variability hypothesis: The history of
a biological model of sex differences in intelligence.
SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture & Society 7(4):
769–797.
4. Shields, S. 1975. Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psy-
chology of women: A study in social myth. American
Psychologist 30: 739–754.
5. Bleier, R. 1984. Science and gender: A critique of biology
and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon Press.
6. Fausto-Sterling, A. 2000. Sexing the body: Gender politics
and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
7. Rogers, L. 1999. Sexing the brain. London: Weidenfeld &
Nicolson.
8. Fausto-Sterling, A. 1992. Myths of gender: Biological
theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books.
9. Fine, C. 2008. Will working mothers’ brains explode?
The popular new genre of neurosexism. Neuroethics 1:
69–72.
10. Fine, C. 2010. Delusions of gender: How our minds,
society, and neurosexism create difference. New York:
WW Norton.
11. Fine, C. 2010. From scanner to sound bite: Issues in inter-
preting and reporting sex differences in the brain. Current
Directions in Psychological Science 19(5): 280–283.
12. Kaiser, A., et al. 2009. On sex/gender related similarities
and differences in fMRI language research. Brain
Research Reviews 61(2): 49–59.
407
13. Jordan-Young, R. and R. Rumiati. 2012. Hardwired for
sexism? Approaches to sex/gender in neuroscience. Neuro-
ethics 5(3): 305–315.
14. Bluhm, R. 2012. Self-fulfilling prophecies: The influ-
ence of gender stereotypes on functional neuroimaging
research on emotion. Hypatia. doi:10.1111/j.1527-
2001.2012.01311.x.
15. Bluhm, R. 2011. New research, old problems: Methodo-
logical and ethical issues in fMRI research examining sex/
gender differences in emotion processing. Neuroethics.
doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9143-3.
16. Fine, C. 2012. Explaining, or sustaining, the status
quo? The potentially self-fulfilling effects of ‘hard-
wired’ accounts of sex differences. Neuroethics 5(3):
285–294.
17. Bluhm, R. 2011. Beyond neurosexism: Is it possible to
defend the female brain? In Neurofeminism: Issues at the
intersection of feminist theory and cognitive science, ed. R.
Bluhm, A. Jacobson, and H. Maibom, 230–245. Basing-
stoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
18. Schmitz, S. 2010. Sex, gender, and the brain - biological
determinism versus socio-cultural constructivism. In Sex and
gender in biomedicine: Theories, methodologies, results, ed.
I. Klinge and C. Wiesemann, 57–76. Göttingen: Univ.-Verl.
Göttingen.
19. Cahill, L. 2010. Sex influences on brain and emotional
memory: The burden of proof has shifted. In Sex differ-
ences in the human brain, their underpinnings and impli-
cations, ed. I. Savic, 29–40. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
20. Jordan-Young, R. 2010. Brain storm: The flaws in the
science of sex differences. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
21. Halpern, D.F. 2010. How neuromythologies support sex
roles stereotypes. Science 330: 1320–1321.
22. McCarthy, M. and G. Ball. 2011. Tempests and tales:
Challenges to the study of sex differences in the brain.
Biology of Sex Differences 2(4): 1–5.
23. Cahill, L. 2006. Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience 7(6): 477–484.
24. McCarthy, M., et al. 2012. Sex differences in the brain:
The not so inconvenient truth. Journal of Neuroscience 32
(7): 2241–2247.
25. Baron-Cohen, S. 2003. The essential difference: Men,
women and the extreme male brain. London: Allen Lane.
26. Lawrence, P. 2006. Men, women, and ghosts in science.
PLoS Biology 4(1): e19.
27. Pinker, S. 2005. Sex ed. In The new republic. http://
www.tnr.com/article/sex-ed. Accessed 18 Nov 2009.
28. Tierney, J. 2011. Social scientist sees bias within. In New
York Times. New York. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/
08/08tier.html. Accessed 27 Oct 2012.
29. Saletan, W. 2011. Sex on the brain: Are boys’ brains
different from girls’ brains? Scientists debate the question.
In Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/
human_nature/2011/11/boys_brains_and_girls_brains_
how_to_think_about_sex_differences_in_psychology_html.
Accessed 27 Oct 2012.
30. Haslam, N., and J. Whelan. 2008. Human natures:
Psychological essentialism in thinking about differences
between people. Social and Personality Psychology Com-
pass 2/3: 1297–1312.
408
31. De Vries, G. 2004. Sex differences in adult and developing
brains: Compensation, compensation, compensation.
Endocrinology 145(3): 1063–1068.
32. Hoffman, G. 2011. What, if anything, can neuroscience tell
us about gender differences? In Neurofeminism: Issues at
the intersection of feminist theory and cognitive science,
ed. R. Bluhm, A. Jacobson, and H. Maibom, 30–55.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
33. Moore, C. 1995. Maternal contributions to mammalian
reproductive development and the divergence of males
and females. Advances in the Study of Behavior 24: 47–
118.
34. Maccoby, E.E., and C.N. Jacklin. 1974. The psychology of
sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
35. Yong, E. 2012. Bad copy. Nature 485: 298–300.
36. Fanelli, D. 2012. Negative results are disappearing from
most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90: 891–904.
37. Wallentin, M. 2009. Putative sex differences in verbal
abilities and language cortex: A critical review. Brain
and Language 108(3): 175–183.
38. Thirion, B., et al. 2007. Analysis of a large fMRI cohort:
Statistical and methodological issues for group analyses.
NeuroImage 35(1): 105–120.
39. Nieuwenhuis, S., B.U. Forstmann, and E.-J. Wagenmakers.
2011. Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience:
A problem of significance. Nature Neuroscience 14(9):
1105–1107.
40. McGlone, J. 1980. Sex differences in human brain
asymmetry: A critical survey. The Behavioral and Brain
Sciences 3: 215–263.
41. Shaywitz, B., et al. 1995. Sex differences in the functional
organization of the brain for language. Nature 373: 607–
609.
42. Ihnen, S.K.Z., et al. 2009. Lack of generalizability of sex
differences in the fMRI BOLD activity associated with
language processing in adults. NeuroImage 45(3): 1020–
1032.
43. Sommer, I., et al. 2004. Do women really have more
bilateral language representation than men? A meta-
analysis of functional imaging studies. Brain 127: 1845–
1852.
44. Sommer, I., et al. 2008. Sex differences in handedness,
asymmetry of the Planum Temporale and functional
language lateralization. Brain Research 1206: 76–88.
45. Simmons, J., L. Nelson, and U. Simonsohn. 2011. False-
positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collec-
tion and analysis allows presenting anything as significant.
Psychological Science 22(11): 1359–1366.
46. Friston, K. 2012. Ten ironic rules for non-statistical
reviewers. NeuroImage 61(4): 1300–1310.
47. Schmidt, H., et al. 2009. No gender differences in brain
activation during the N-back task: An fMRI study in
healthy individuals. Human Brain Mapping 30: 3609–
3615.
48. Cahill, L. 2003. Sex-related influences on the neurobiolo-
gy of emotionally influenced memory. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences 985: 163–173.
49. Cahill, L., et al. 2004. Sex-related hemispheric lateraliza-
tion of amygdala function in emotionally influenced mem-
ory: An fMRI investigation. Learning & Memory 11: 262–
266.
C. Fine
50. LaBar, K.S., and R. Cabeza. 2006. Cognitive neuroscience
of emotional memory. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 7(1):
54–64.
51. Dolcos, F., A.D. Iordan, and S. Dolcos. 2011. Neural
correlates of emotion–cognition interactions: A review of
evidence from brain imaging investigations. Journal of
Cognitive Psychology 23(6): 669–694.
52. Hamann, S. 2005. Sex differences in the responses of the
human amygdala. The Neuroscientist 11(4): 288–293.
53. Phelps, E. 2004. Human emotion and memory: Interac-
tions of the amygdala and hippocampal complex. Current
Opinion in Neurobiology 14(2): 198–202.
54. Cahill, L., et al. 1996. Amygdala activity at encoding
correlated with long-term, free recall of emotional infor-
mation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
93: 8016–8021.
55. Cahill, L., et al. 2001. Sex-related difference in amygdala
activity during emotionally influenced memory storage.
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 75: 1–9.
56. Canli, T. 1999. fMRI identifies a network of structures
correlated with retention of positive and negative emotion-
al memory. Psychobiology 27: 441–452.
57. Canli, T., et al. 2002. Sex differences in the neural basis of
emotional memories. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 99(16): 10789–10794.
58. Canli, T., et al. 2000. Event-related activation in the
human amygdala associates with later memory for
individual emotional experience. Journal of Neuroscience
20(RC99): 1–5.
59. Hamann, S., et al. 1999. Amygdala activity related to
enhanced memory for pleasant and aversive stimuli.
Nature Neuroscience 2(3): 289–293.
60. Harrington, G., and S. Farias. 2008. Sex differences in
language processing: Functional MRI methodological
considerations. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
27: 1221–1228.
61. Buchanan, T.W., et al. 2001. Verbal and nonverbal
emotional memory following unilateral amygdala damage.
Learning & Memory 8(6): 326–335.
62. Wang, H.-B., et al. 2010. Is the contribution of the
amygdala to the sex- and enhancement-related effects of
emotional memory time-dependent? Neurobiology of
Learning and Memory 93(1): 1–7.
63. Ritchey, M., F. Dolcos, and R. Cabeza. 2008. Role of
amygdala connectivity in the persistence of emotional
memories over time: An event-related fMRI investigation.
Cerebral Cortex 18: 2494–2504.
64. Cousin, E., M. Perrone, and M. Baciu. 2009. Hemispheric
specialization for language according to grapho-phonemic
transformation and gender. A divided visual field experi-
ment. Brain and Cognition 69(3): 465–471.
65. Li, T., Q.M. Luo, and H. Gong. 2010. Gender-specific
hemodynamics in prefrontal cortex during a verbal
working memory task by near-infrared spectroscopy.
Behavioural Brain Research 209(1): 148–153.
66. Friston, K., and C. Price. 2001. Dynamic representations
and generative models of brain function. Brain Research
Bulletin 54(3): 275–285.
67. Poldrack, R. 2006. Can cognitive processes be inferred
from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences
10(2): 59–63.
Is there Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging?
68. Poldrack, R. 2008. The role of fMRI in cognitive
neuroscience: Where do we stand? Current Opinion in
Neurobiology 18(2): 223–227.
69. Buracas, G.T., I. Fine, and G.M. Boynton. 2005. The
relationship between task performance and functional
magnetic resonance imaging response. Journal of Neuro-
science 25(12): 3023–3031.
70. Bird, C., et al. 2004. The impact of extensive medial
frontal lobe damage on ‘Theory of Mind’ and cognition.
Brain 127: 914–928.
71. Blakemore, S.-J., et al. 2007. Adolescent development of
the neural circuitry for thinking about intentions. Social
Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 2: 130–139.
72. Haier, R., et al. 1992. Regional glucose metabolic changes
after learning a complex visuospatial/motor task: A positron
emission tomographic study. Brain Research 570: 134–143.
73. Petersson, K.M., C. Elfgren, and M. Ingvar. 1997. A
dynamic role of the medial temporal lobe during retrieval
of declarative memory in man. NeuroImage 6(1): 1–11.
74. Halari, R., et al. 2006. Comparable fMRI activity with
differential behavioural performance on mental rotation
and overt verbal fluency tasks in healthy men and women.
Experimental Brain Research 169: 1–14.
75. Gur, R., et al. 2000. An fMRI study of sex differences in
regional activation to a verbal and a spatial task. Brain and
Language 74(2): 157–170.
76. Gur, R., et al. 1999. Sex differences in brain gray and
white matter in healthy young adults: Correlations with
cognitive performance. Journal of Neuroscience 19(10):
4065–4072.
77. Shirao, N., et al. 2005. Gender differences in brain activity
generated by unpleasant word stimuli concerning body
image: an fMRI study. The British Journal of Psychiatry
186(1): 48–53.
78. McRae, K., et al. 2008. Gender differences in emotion
regulation: An fMRI study of cognitive reappraisal. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations 11(2): 143–162.
79. Koch, K., et al. 2007. Gender differences in the cognitive
control of emotion: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia 45
(12): 2744–2754.
80. Park, D.C., and C.-M. Huang. 2010. Culture wires the brain.
Perspectives on Psychological Science 5(4): 391–400.
81. Fine, J.G., M. Semrud-Clikeman, and D.C. Zhu. 2009.
Gender differences in BOLD activation to face photo-
graphs and video vignettes. Behavioural Brain Research
201(1): 137–146.
82. Mak, A.K.Y., et al. 2009. Sex-related differences in neural
activity during emotion regulation. Neuropsychologia 47
(13): 2900–2908.
83. Klucken, T., et al. (2009). Neural activations of the acquisi-
tion of conditioned sexual arousal: Effects of contingency
awareness and sex. Journal of Sex Medicine 6: 3071–3085.
84. Lee, T.M.C., et al. 2009. Sex-related differences in neural
activity during risk taking: An fMRI study. Cerebral
Cortex 19(6): 1303–1312.
85. Derntl, B., et al. 2010. Multidimensional assessment of
empathic abilities: Neural correlates and gender differen-
ces. Psychoneuroendocrinology 35(1): 67–82.
86. Goldstein, J.M., et al. 2010. Sex differences in stress
response circuitry activation dependent on female hormonal
cycle. Journal of Neuroscience 30(2): 431–438.
409
87. Draganski, B., et al. 2004. Neuroplasticity: Changes in grey
matter induced by training. Nature 427(6972): 311–312.
88. Maguire, E.A., et al. 2000. Navigation-related structural
change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 97(8): 4398–4403.
89. Joel, D. 2011. Male or female? Brain are intersex.
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience. 5(Article 57).
90. Jäncke, L. 2009. The plastic human brain. Restorative
Neurology and Neuroscience 27: 521–538.
91. Moore, C., H. Dou, and J. Juraska. 1992. Maternal
stimulation affects the number of motor neurons in a
sexually dimorphic nucleus of the lumbar spinal cord.
Brain Research 572: 52–56.
92. Kaplan, G., and L. Rogers. 2003. Gene worship: Moving
beyond the nature/nurture debate over genes, brain, and
gender. New York: Other Press.
93. Springer, K., J. Stellman, and R. Jordan-Young. 2012. Be-
yond a catalogue of differences: A theoretical frame and
good practice guidelines for researching sex/gender in hu-
man health. Social Science & Medicine 74(11): 1817–1824.
94. Fausto-Sterling, A. 2003. The problem with sex/gender
and nature/nurture. In Debating biology: Sociological
reflections on health, medicine and society, ed. S.
Williams, L. Birke, and G. Bendelow, 123–132. Routledge:
London.
95. van Anders, S., and N. Watson. 2006. Social neuroendo-
crinology: Effects of social contexts and behaviors on sex
steroids in humans. Human Nature 17(2): 212–237.
96. Hyde, J., et al. 2008. Gender similarities characterize math
performance. Science 321: 494–495.
97. Hyde, J., and J. Mertz. 2009. Gender, culture, and mathe-
matics performance. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 106(22): 8801–8807.
98. Kane, J., and J. Mertz. 2011. Debunking myths about
gender and mathematics performance. Notices of the
American Mathematical Society 59(1): 10–21.
99. Walton, G., and S. Spencer. 2009. Latent ability: Grades
and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectu-
al ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological
Science 20(9): 1132–1139.
100. Nguyen, H., and A. Ryan. 2008. Does stereotype threat
affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-
analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied
Psychology 93(6): 1314–1334.
101. Stoet, G., and D.C. Geary. 2012. Can stereotype threat
explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and
achievement? Review of General Psychology 16(1):
93–102.
102. Malle, B. 2006. The actor-observer asymmetry in attribu-
tion: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin
132(6): 896–919.
103. Miller, G. 2008. Growing pains for fMRI. Science 320
(5882): 1412–1414.
104. Eliot, L. 2011. Single-sex education and the brain. Sex
Roles. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0037-y.
105. Eliot, L. 2011. The trouble with sex differences. Neuron
72: 895–898.
106. Bishop, K., and D. Wahlsten. 1997. Sex differences in the
human corpus callosum: Myth or reality? Neuroscience
and Biobehavioral Reviews 21(5): 581–601.