The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does testosterone affect lateralization of brain and behaviour? A meta-analysis in humans and other animal species
Open accessAbstract
Lateralization of brain and behaviour has been the topic of research for many years in neuropsychology, but the factors guiding its development remain elusive. Based on sex differences in human lateralization, four hypotheses have been postulated that suggest a role for androgens, specifically testosterone. With the discovery that lateralization is a fundamental principle in the organization of brain and behaviour among vertebrates, it has now become possible to experimentally test such hypotheses in animal models. The use of different taxa, humans, other mammalian species and birds (with oestradiol and not testosterone involved in sexual differentiation in birds) facilitates to differentiate between the hypotheses. We used meta-analyses for analysing papers that provided sufficient information, and a semi-quantitative approach based on all relevant studies that we extracted from the literature. We tested the predictions of these hypotheses regarding strength and direction of lateralization for motor output, language and visuospatial cognition in these three taxa. We tested for sex differences and early organizational effects of testosterone (both correlative and experimental studies). We found sex differences in the direction of lateralization for non-human mammals (motor biases similar to humans) and in direction and strength in birds (visual cognitive tasks). However, the prediction that prenatal testosterone exposure affects the direction of lateralization was not supported for humans. In birds and non-human mammals, opposite trends were found, with the effect in non-human mammals being opposite to the expectation based on sex differences. None of the four hypotheses was sufficiently supported and more studies, testing a wider array of functions in different taxa while reporting the data more completely are needed.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Effect-Size Estimates: Issues and Problems in Interpretation
Fern, E. F., & Monroe, K. B. (1996) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209469 · Cited by 301
Cited by
Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7 · Cited by 770
The new science of cognitive sex differences
Miller, D. I., & Halpern, D. F. (2014) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.10.011 · Cited by 610
Brain Lateralization: A Comparative Perspective
Güntürkün, O., Ströckens, F., & Ocklenburg, S. (2020) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00006.2019 · Cited by 484
The Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges in Understanding the Psychology of Gender
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691613484767 · Cited by 408
Gurvich, C., Hoy, K., Thomas, N., & Kulkarni, J. (2018) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci8090163 · Cited by 150
Metadata
- Authors
- Pfannkuche, K. A., Bouma, A., & Groothuis, T. G. G.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2008-12-04
- Volume
- 364
- Issue
- 1519
- Pages
- 929-942
- ISSN
- 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-2970
- OpenAlex
- W2134298103
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does testosterone affect lateralization of brain and behaviour? A meta-analysis in humans and other animal species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.2008.0282
- The paper
- Pfannkuche, K. A., Bouma, A., & Groothuis, T. G. G. (2009). Does testosterone affect lateralization of brain and behaviour? A meta-analysis in humans and other animal species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0282
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.