Cited by 101Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentAction Observation and SynchronizationFace Recognition and Perception

Are women better mindreaders? Sex differences in neural correlates of mentalizing detected with functional MRI

Open access
Krach, Sören, Blümel, Isabelle, Marjoram, Dominic, Lataster, Tineke, Krabbendam, Lydia, Weber, Jochen, van Os, Jim, Kircher, Tilo·2009·BMC Neuroscience

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The ability to mentalize, i.e. develop a Theory of Mind (ToM), enables us to anticipate and build a model of the thoughts, emotions and intentions of others. It has long been hypothesised that women differ from men in their mentalizing abilities. In the present fMRI study we examined the impact of (1) gender (women vs. men) and (2) game partner (human vs. computer) on ToM associated neural activity in the medial prefrontal cortex. Groups of men (n = 12) and women (n = 12) interacted in an iterated classical prisoner's dilemma forced choice situation with alleged human and computer partners who were outside the scanner. RESULTS: Both the conditions of playing against putative human as well as computer partners led to activity increases in mPFC, ACC and rTPJ, constituting the classic ToM network. However, mPFC/ACC activity was more pronounced when participants believed they were playing against the alleged human partner. Differences in the medial frontal lobe activation related to the sex of the participants could be demonstrated for the human partner > computer partner contrast. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate differences in medial prefrontal brain activation during a ToM task depending on both the gender of participants and the game partner.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2202-10-9

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Studies of sex differences in social cognition have mainly focused on emotional expression perception and mental state reasoning with little emphasis placed on imitation.

    “Furthermore, studies of sex differences in social cognition have mainly focused on emotional expression perception and mental state reasoning with little emphasis placed on imitation (Krach et al., 2009;Russell, Tchanturia, Rahman, & Schmidt, 2007;Rahman, Wilson, & Abrahams, 2004;Campbell et al., 2002;Thayer & Johnsen, 2000).”

    From Functional Specificity and Sex Differences in the Neural Circuits Supporting the Inhibition of Automatic Imitation (2018) · cites this paper as Krach et al., 2009

    The Background (page unavailable) identifies this as a study of sex differences in mentalizing, supporting its use as an example of research on mental-state reasoning. It does not establish that studies of sex differences in social cognition have mainly focused on emotional-expression perception and mental-state reasoning, or that imitation has received little emphasis. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Krach, S., Blümel, I., Marjoram, D., Lataster, T., Krabbendam, L., Weber, J., van Os, J., & Kircher, T.
Affiliations
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • Universitätsklinikum Aachen (DE)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Krach, Sören
Venue
BMC Neuroscience
Published
2009-02-04
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
9-9
ISSN
1471-2202 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031956151
Cited by
101
References
53
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
11.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GW0751)
  • RWTH Aachen University
  • Medizinische Fakultät, RWTH Aachen University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
theory of mind, mentalization, sex differences, gender differences, medial prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, right temporoparietal junction, human-computer interaction, iterated prisoner's dilemma, social cognition, neural correlates
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Mental Processes, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reaction Time, Sex Characteristics, Social Perception, User-Computer Interface, Young Adult

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