Sex differences in the functional connectivity of the amygdalae in association with cortisol
Open accessAbstract
Human amygdalae are involved in various behavioral functions such as affective and stress processing. For these behavioral functions, as well as for psychophysiological arousal including cortisol release, sex differences are reported. Here, we assessed cortisol levels and resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) of left and right amygdalae in 81 healthy participants (42 women) to investigate potential modulation of amygdala rsFC by sex and cortisol concentration. Our analyses revealed that rsFC of the left amygdala significantly differed between women and men: Women showed stronger rsFC than men between the left amygdala and left middle temporal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, postcentral gyrus and hippocampus, regions involved in face processing, inner-speech, fear and pain processing. No stronger connections were detected for men and no sex difference emerged for right amygdala rsFC. Also, an interaction of sex and cortisol appeared: In women, cortisol was negatively associated with rsFC of the amygdalae with striatal regions, mid-orbital frontal gyrus, anterior cingulate gyrus, middle and superior frontal gyri, supplementary motor area and the parietal-occipital sulcus. Contrarily in men, positive associations of cortisol with rsFC of the left amygdala and these structures were observed. Functional decoding analyses revealed an association of the amygdalae and these regions with emotion, reward and memory processing, as well as action execution. Our results suggest that functional connectivity of the amygdalae as well as the regulatory effect of cortisol on brain networks differs between women and men. These sex-differences and the mediating and sex-dependent effect of cortisol on brain communication systems should be taken into account in affective and stress-related neuroimaging research. Thus, more studies including both sexes are required.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Some studies show more focal sex differences in the thalamus, corpus callosum, cingulum, and superior cerebellar peduncles, and some show regions of increased FA in adult females, including the corpus callosum and fronto-occipital fasciculus.
“some studies have shown more focal differences in the thalamus, corpus callosum, cingulum, and superior cerebellar peduncles 136, 137, and some studies also show regions of increased FA in adult females compared with males, including the corpus callosum and fronto-occipital fasciculus137, 138.”
From Imaging structural and functional brain development in early childhood (2018) · cites this paper as [136]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 124 · Cited by 78
- Authors
- Kogler, L., Müller, V. I., Seidel, E.-M., Boubela, R., Kalcher, K., Moser, E., Habel, U., Gur, R. C., Eickhoff, S. B., & Derntl, B.
- Affiliations
- Jülich Aachen Research Alliance (DE)
- Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
- University of Vienna (AT)
- Medical University of Vienna (AT)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kogler, Lydia
- ORCID
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-07
- Volume
- 134
- Pages
- 410-423
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6594554
- OpenAlex
- W2327107093
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 124
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 4.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (IRTG-1328, EI 816/4-1, EI 816/6-1, LA 3071/3-1)
- Jülich-Aachen-Research-Alliance, Translational Brain Medicine
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH074457)
- European EFT program
- Austrian Science Fund (P-23533)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- sex differences, amygdala, resting-state functional connectivity, cortisol, stress, brain networks, middle temporal gyrus, hippocampus, striatum, anterior cingulate cortex, supplementary motor area, emotional processing, reward processing, memory processes, action execution
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Amygdala, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Hydrocortisone, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nerve Net, Neural Pathways, Saliva, Sex Factors, Gonadal Steroid Hormones, Tissue Distribution
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