The DOI matches its Crossref record; 111 of the 111 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta-analysis of sex differences in rodent models of learning and memory: a review of behavioral and biological data
Abstract
The existence of sex differences in the standard rat and mouse models of learning and memory is a controversial and contested topic in the literature. The present meta-analysis of radial maze and water maze experiments was conducted to assess the reliablility and magnitude of sex effects in the standard rodent models of learning and memory. Data were culled from published and unpublished sources. Findings indicate large reliable male advantages for rats in radial maze and water maze protocols. Significant strain differences were also identified. In each paradigm, protocol variations were associated with differential sex effects. For the water maze, smaller male advantages were associated with pretraining regimens and for the radial maze, larger significant male advantages were observed in protocols that included unbaited arms (combined reference and working memory protocols). Mouse studies exhibited a different pattern of sex effects; small female advantages were evident in the water maze, but small male advantages were evident in the radial maze. Together these findings establish the reliability of male advantages in spatial working and reference memory for rats across strains, protocols, ages and rearing environments. The findings also support an important species dichotomy between rats and mice that should be considered when transitioning from rat to mouse models. In light of these results, the biological evidence supporting theoretical explanations of sex differences is reviewed and evaluated.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“study quality is inversely related to effect size [79][80][81][82]”
From Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience (2013) · cites this paper as [80]
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,421
Wasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research.
Metcalfe, A., & Rosenthal, R. (1994) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.2307/2348600 · Cited by 4,249
Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984) · Cited by 3,925
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250 · Cited by 2,868
Spatial localization does not require the presence of local cues
Morris, R. G. M. (1981) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/0023-9690(81)90020-5 · Cited by 2,699
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
(1985) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-03396-0 · Cited by 2,570
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641
What determines our navigational abilities?
Wolbers, T., & Hegarty, M. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.001 · Cited by 889
A system for learning statistical motion patterns
Hu, W., Xiao, X., Fu, Z., Xie, D., Tan, T., & Maybank, S. J. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2006.176 · Cited by 539
Assessing Spatial Learning and Memory in Rodents
Vorhees, C. V., & Williams, M. T. (2014) · ILAR Journal · doi:10.1093/ilar/ilu013 · Cited by 582
Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Munafò, M. R., Fusar-Poli, P., Nosek, B. A., & David, S. P. (2014) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.010 · Cited by 471
Metadata
- Authors
- Jonasson, Z.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Jonasson, Zachariah
- Venue
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 811-825
- ISSN
- 0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2086252264
- Cited by
- 498
- References
- 106
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 26
- FWCI
- 1.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Harvard University
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- sex differences, learning and memory, spatial memory, radial maze, water maze, rats, mice, strain differences, working memory, reference memory, pre-training, species differences, rearing conditions, age effects
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Behavior, Animal, Learning, Memory, Rodentia, Sex Characteristics, Maze Learning, Models, Animal
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
