Cited by 265Face Recognition and PerceptionNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

A developmental examination of gender differences in brain engagement during evaluation of threat

McClure, Erin B, Monk, Christopher S, Nelson, Eric E, Zarahn, Eric, Leibenluft, Ellen, Bilder, Robert M, Charney, Dennis S, Ernst, Monique +1 more·2004·Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Females appear to be more sensitive and responsive to social cues, including threat signals, than are males. Recent theoretical models suggest that developmental changes in brain functioning play important roles in the emergence of such gender differences.Methods We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine developmental and gender differences in activation of neural structures thought to mediate attention to emotional faces depicting varying degrees of threat. Analyses focused on the orbitofrontal cortex, amygdala, and anterior cingulate cortex during the evaluation of threat conveyed by faces. Healthy adolescents (n = 17; 53% male) and adults (n = 17; 53% male) were scanned while they rated how threatening pictures of neutral and emotional (angry, fearful, or happy) faces appeared.Results Results indicate significant interactions among age, gender, and face type for activation during explicit threat monitoring. In particular, adult women activated orbitofrontal cortex and amygdala selectively to unambiguous threat (angry) cues, while adult men showed a less discriminating pattern of activation. No gender differences were evident for adolescents, who as a group resembled adult males.Conclusions These findings suggest that there are gender differences in patterns of neural responses to emotional faces that are not fully apparent until adulthood.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.02.013

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McClure, E. B., Monk, C. S., Nelson, E. E., Zarahn, E., Leibenluft, E., Bilder, R. M., Charney, D. S., Ernst, M., & Pine, D. S.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-06
Volume
55
Issue
11
Pages
1047-1055
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2078650086
Cited by
265
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 13
FWCI
7.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
gender differences, threat detection, emotional face processing, orbitofrontal cortex, amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, adolescent brain development, threat monitoring, emotional expression
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Brain, Brain Mapping, Child, Emergencies, Emotions, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Facial Expression, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Photic Stimulation, Sex Characteristics, Sex Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review