CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control

Sex differences in functional brain networks involved in interoception: An fMRI study

Open access
Alfano, Vincenzo, Cavaliere, Carlo, Di Cecca, Angelica, Ciccarelli, Giuseppina, Salvatore, Marco, Aiello, Marco, Federico, Giovanni·2023·Frontiers in Neuroscience
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2023.1130025PMC PMC10043182
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Interoception can be described as the ability to perceive inner body sensations and it is different between biological sex. However, no previous research correlated this ability with brain functional connectivity (FC) between males and females. In this study, we used resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate FC of networks involved in interoception among males and females in a sample of healthy volunteers matched for age. In total, 67 participants (34 females, mean age 44.2; 33 males, mean age 37.2) underwent a functional MRI session and completed the Self-Awareness Questionnaire (SAQ) that tests the interoceptive awareness. To assess the effect of sex on scores obtained on the SAQ we performed a multivariate analysis of variance. A whole-brain seed-to-seed FC analysis was conducted to investigate the correlation between SAQ score and FC, and then to test differences in FC between males and females with SAQ score as a covariate. MANOVA revealed a significant difference in SAQ scores between males and females with higher values for the second ones. Also, significant correlations among interoception scores and FC in Salience network and fronto-temporo-parietal brain areas have been detected, with a sharp prevalence for the female. These results support the idea of a female advantage in the attention toward interoceptive sensations, suggesting common inter-network areas that concur to create the sense of self.

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 · 10.3389/fnins.2023.1130025

Cites

8 of 8 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Alfano V. Longarzo M. Aiello M. Soricelli A. Cavaliere C. (2021). Cerebral microstructural abnormalities in impulsivity: a magnetic resonance study. Brain Imaging Behav. 15 346– 354. 32128715
  2. Allen E. A. Erhardt E. B. Damaraju E. Gruner W. Segall J. M. Silva R. F. (2011). A baseline for the multivariate comparison of resting-state networks. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 5: 2. 10.3389/fnsys.2011.00002 21442040 PMC3051178 · DOI
  3. Auerbach E. J. Xu J. Yacoub E. Moeller S. Uğurbil K. (2013). Multiband accelerated spin-echo echo planar imaging with reduced peak RF power using time-shifted RF pulses. Magn. Reson. Med. 69 1261– 1267. 10.1002/mrm.24719 23468087 PMC3769699 · DOI
  4. Bar-Joseph Z. Gifford D. K. Jaakkola T. S. (2001). Fast optimal leaf ordering for hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics 17(suppl_1) S22– S29. 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.suppl_1.s22 11472989 · DOI
  5. Bluhm R. L. Osuch E. A. Lanius R. A. Boksman K. Neufeld R. W. Théberge J. (2008). Default mode network connectivity: effects of age, sex, and analytic approach. Neuroreport 19 887– 891. 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328300ebbf 18463507 · DOI
  6. Cavanna A. E. Trimble M. R. (2006). The precuneus: a review of its functional anatomy and behavioural correlates. Brain 129 564– 583. 16399806
  7. Ceunen E. Van Diest I. Vlaeyen J. W. S. (2013). Accuracy and awareness of perception: related, yet distinct. Biol. Psychol. 92 426– 427. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.09.012 23059638 · DOI
  8. Cosgrove K. P. Mazure C. M. Staley J. K. (2007). Evolving knowledge of sex differences in brain structure, function, and chemistry. Biol. Psychiatry 62 847– 855. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.03.001 17544382 PMC2711771 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Coupé P. Catheline G. Lanuza E. Manjón J. V. Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (2017). Towards a unified analysis of brain maturation and aging across the entire lifespan: A MRI analysis. Hum. Brain Mapp. 38 5501– 5518. 10.1002/hbm.23743 28737295 PMC6866824 · DOI
  10. Craig A. D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3 655– 666. 10.1038/nrn894 12154366 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Craig A. D. (2008). Interoception and emotion: a neuroanatomical perspective. Handb. Emot. 3 272– 288. 10.1017/S0140525X13001489 24304783 · DOI
  12. Critchley H. D. Wiens S. Rotshtein P. Öhman A. Dolan R. J. (2004). Neural systems supporting interoceptive awareness. Nat. Neurosci. 7 189– 195. 14730305
  13. Eckert M. A. Menon V. Walczak A. Ahlstrom J. Denslow S. Horwitz A. (2009). At the heart of the ventral attention system: the right anterior insula. Hum. Brain Mapp. 30 2530– 2541. 10.1002/hbm.20688 19072895 PMC2712290 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Federico G. Reynaud E. Navarro J. Lesourd M. Gaujoux V. Lamberton F. (2022). The cortical thickness of the area PF of the left inferior parietal cortex mediates technical-reasoning skills. Sci. Rep. 12: 11840. 10.1038/s41598-022-15587-8 35821259 PMC9276675 · DOI
  15. Filippi M. Valsasina P. Misci P. Falini A. Comi G. Rocca M. A. (2013). The organization of intrinsic brain activity differs between genders: A resting-state fMRI study in a large cohort of young healthy subjects. Hum. Brain Mapp. 34 1330– 1343. 10.1002/hbm.21514 22359372 PMC6870508 · DOI
  16. Goldstein J. M. Seidman L. J. Horton N. J. Makris N. Kennedy D. N. Caviness V. S. Jr. (2001). Normal sexual dimorphism of the adult human brain assessed by in vivo magnetic resonance imaging. Cereb. Cortex 11 490– 497. 11375910
  17. Good C. D. Johnsrude I. S. Ashburner J. Henson R. N. A. Friston K. J. Frackowiak R. S. J. (2001). A voxel-based morphometric study of ageing in 465 normal adult human brains. NeuroImage 14 21– 36. 10.1006/nimg.2001.0786 11525331 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Grabowska A. (2017). Sex on the brain: Are gender-dependent structural and functional differences associated with behavior? J. Neurosci. Res. 95 200– 212. 27870447
  19. Guo C. C. Kurth F. Zhou J. Mayer E. A. Eickhoff S. B. Kramer J. H. (2012). One-year test-retest reliability of intrinsic connectivity network fMRI in older adults. NeuroImage 61 1471– 1483. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.027 22446491 PMC4226138 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Gusnard D. A. Akbudak E. Shulman G. L. Raichle M. E. (2001). Medial prefrontal cortex and self-referential mental activity: relation to a default mode of brain function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 4259– 4264. 11259662 PMC31213
  21. Jantzen K. J. Oullier O. Marshall M. L. Steinberg F. L. Kelso J. A. S. (2007). A parametric fMRI investigation of context effects in sensorimotor timing and coordination. Neuropsychologia 45 673– 684. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.07.020 17014871 PMC2570094 · DOI
  22. Kircher T. T. Senior C. Phillips M. L. Benson P. J. Bullmore E. T. Brammer M. (2000). Towards a functional neuroanatomy of self processing: effects of faces and words. Cogn. Brain Res. 10 133– 144. 10.1016/s0926-6410(00)00036-7 10978701 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Longarzo M. D’Olimpio F. Chiavazzo A. Santangelo G. Trojano L. Grossi D. (2015). The relationships between interoception and alexithymic trait. The Self-Awareness Questionnaire in healthy subjects. Front. Psychol. 6: 1149. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01149 26300829 PMC4528101 · DOI
  24. Mann S. L. Hazlett E. A. Byne W. Hof P. R. Buchsbaum M. S. Cohen B. H. (2011). Anterior and posterior cingulate cortex volume in healthy adults: effects of aging and gender differences. Brain Res. 1401 18– 29. 21669408 PMC3134959
  25. Murphy J. Catmur C. Bird G. (2019). Classifying individual differences in interoception: Implications for the measurement of interoceptive awareness. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 26 1467– 1471. 10.3758/s13423-019-01632-7 31270764 PMC6797703 · DOI
  26. Onoda K. Ishihara M. Yamaguchi S. (2012). Decreased functional connectivity by aging is associated with cognitive decline. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 24 2186– 2198. 10.1162/jocn_a_00269 22784277 · DOI
  27. Owens M. M. Potter A. Hyatt C. S. Albaugh M. Thompson W. K. Jernigan T. (2021). Recalibrating expectations about effect size: A multi-method survey of effect sizes in the ABCD study. PLoS One 16: e0257535. 10.1371/journal.pone.0257535 34555056 PMC8460025 · DOI
  28. Pollatos O. Traut-Mattausch E. Schroeder H. Schandry R. (2007). Interoceptive awareness mediates the relationship between anxiety and the intensity of unpleasant feelings. J. Anxiety Disord. 21 931– 943. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.12.004 17257810 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Rezzani R. Franco C. Rodella L. F. (2019). Sex differences of brain and their implications for personalized therapy. Pharmacol. Res. 141 429– 442. 30659897
  30. Ruigrok A. N. Salimi-Khorshidi G. Lai M. C. Baron-Cohen S. Lombardo M. V. Tait R. J. (2014). A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 39 34– 50. 24374381 PMC3969295
  31. Seeley W. W. Menon V. Schatzberg A. F. Keller J. Glover G. H. Kenna H. (2007). Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control. J. Neurosci. 27 2349– 2356. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5587-06.2007 17329432 PMC2680293 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Sevinc G. Gurvit H. Spreng N. R. (2017). Salience network engagement with the detection of morally laden information. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 12 1118– 1127. 10.1093/scan/nsx035 28338944 PMC5490682 · DOI
  33. Smitha K. A. Akhil Raja K. Arun K. M. Rajesh P. G. Thomas B. Kapilamoorthy T. R. (2017). Resting state fMRI: A review on methods in resting state connectivity analysis and resting state networks. Neuroradiol. J. 30 305– 317. 10.1177/1971400917697342 28353416 PMC5524274 · DOI
  34. Sowell E. R. Peterson B. S. Thompson P. M. Welcome S. E. Henkenius A. L. Toga A. W. (2003). Mapping cortical change across the human life span. Nat. Neurosci. 6 309– 315. 10.1038/nn1008 12548289 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Sun Y. Lee R. Chen Y. Collinson S. Thakor N. Bezerianos A. (2015). Progressive gender differences of structural brain networks in healthy adults: a longitudinal, diffusion tensor imaging study. PLoS One 10: e0118857. 10.1371/journal.pone.0118857 25742013 PMC4350987 · DOI
  36. Tomasi D. Volkow N. D. (2012). Laterality patterns of brain functional connectivity: gender effects. Cereb. Cortex 22 1455– 1462. 21878483 PMC3450858
  37. Tsang A. Lebel C. A. Bray S. L. Goodyear B. G. Hafeez M. Sotero R. C. (2017). White matter structural connectivity is not correlated to cortical resting-state functional connectivity over the healthy adult lifespan. Front. Aging Neurosci. 9: 144. 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00144 28572765 PMC5435815 · DOI
  38. Ueno D. Matsuoka T. Kato Y. Ayani N. Maeda S. Takeda M. (2020). Individual differences in interoceptive accuracy are correlated with salience network connectivity in older adults. Front. Aging Neurosci. 12: 592002. 10.3389/fnagi.2020.592002 33335482 PMC7736179 · DOI
  39. Vogt B. A. Vogt L. Laureys S. (2006). Cytology and functionally correlated circuits of human posterior cingulate areas. Neuroimage 29 452– 466. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.048 16140550 PMC2649771 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Whitfield-Gabrieli S. Nieto-Castanon A. (2012). Conn: a functional connectivity toolbox for correlated and anticorrelated brain networks. Brain Connect. 2 125– 141. 10.1089/brain.2012.0073 22642651 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Zhang C. Dougherty C. C. Baum S. A. White T. Michael A. M. (2018). Functional connectivity predicts gender: Evidence for gender differences in resting brain connectivity. Hum. Brain Mapp. 39 1765– 1776. 29322586 PMC6866578

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alfano, V., Cavaliere, C., Di Cecca, A., Ciccarelli, G., Salvatore, M., Aiello, M., & Federico, G.
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2023-03-14
Volume
17
Pages
1130025-1130025
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fnins.2023.1130025
PMC
PMC10043182
OpenAlex
W4324145444
Cited by
32
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2
FWCI
4.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Ministero della Salute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Keywords
interoception, sex differences, functional connectivity, brain networks, interoceptive awareness, salience network, self-awareness, resting-state functional connectivity

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