是时候在认知神经科学中讨论性了。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Cognitive Neuroscience Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-01 DOI:10.1080/17588928.2021.1996343
Dylan S Spets, Scott D Slotnick
{"title":"是时候在认知神经科学中讨论性了。","authors":"Dylan S Spets,&nbsp;Scott D Slotnick","doi":"10.1080/17588928.2021.1996343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In a discussion paper published in the special issue of <i>Cognitive Neuroscience</i>, Sex Differences in the Brain, we investigated whether certain experimental parameters contributed to findings in functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of sex differences during long-term memory. Experimental parameters included: the number of participants, stimulus type(s), whether or not performance was matched, whether or not sex differences were reported, the type of between-subject statistical test used, and the contrast(s) employed. None of these parameters determined whether or not differences were observed, as all included studies reported sex differences. We also conducted a meta-analysis to determine if there were any brain regions consistently activated to a greater degree in either sex. The meta-analysis identified sex differences (male > female) in the lateral prefrontal cortex, visual processing regions, parahippocampal cortex, and the cerebellum. We received eight commentaries in response to that paper. Commentaries called for an expanded discussion on various topics including the influence of sex hormones, the role of gender (and other social factors), the pros and cons of equating behavioral performance between the sexes, and interpreting group differences in patterns of brain activity. There were some common statistical assumptions discussed in the commentaries regarding the 'file drawer' issue (i.e., the lack of reporting of null results) and effect size. The current paper provides further discussion of the various topics brought up in the commentaries and addresses some statistical misconceptions in the field. Overall, the commentaries echoed a resounding call to include sex as a factor in cognitive neuroscience studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":10413,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Neuroscience","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"It's time for sex in cognitive neuroscience.\",\"authors\":\"Dylan S Spets,&nbsp;Scott D Slotnick\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17588928.2021.1996343\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In a discussion paper published in the special issue of <i>Cognitive Neuroscience</i>, Sex Differences in the Brain, we investigated whether certain experimental parameters contributed to findings in functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of sex differences during long-term memory. Experimental parameters included: the number of participants, stimulus type(s), whether or not performance was matched, whether or not sex differences were reported, the type of between-subject statistical test used, and the contrast(s) employed. None of these parameters determined whether or not differences were observed, as all included studies reported sex differences. We also conducted a meta-analysis to determine if there were any brain regions consistently activated to a greater degree in either sex. The meta-analysis identified sex differences (male > female) in the lateral prefrontal cortex, visual processing regions, parahippocampal cortex, and the cerebellum. We received eight commentaries in response to that paper. Commentaries called for an expanded discussion on various topics including the influence of sex hormones, the role of gender (and other social factors), the pros and cons of equating behavioral performance between the sexes, and interpreting group differences in patterns of brain activity. There were some common statistical assumptions discussed in the commentaries regarding the 'file drawer' issue (i.e., the lack of reporting of null results) and effect size. The current paper provides further discussion of the various topics brought up in the commentaries and addresses some statistical misconceptions in the field. Overall, the commentaries echoed a resounding call to include sex as a factor in cognitive neuroscience studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10413,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2021.1996343\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/11/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2021.1996343","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在《认知神经科学》特刊《大脑中的性别差异》上发表的一篇讨论论文中,我们调查了某些实验参数是否有助于长期记忆中性别差异的功能性磁共振成像研究结果。实验参数包括:被试人数、刺激类型、表现是否匹配、是否报告性别差异、使用的被试间统计检验类型和采用的对比。这些参数都不能决定是否观察到差异,因为所有纳入的研究都报告了性别差异。我们还进行了一项荟萃分析,以确定是否有任何大脑区域在两性中一直处于更大程度的激活状态。荟萃分析确定了性别差异(男性>女性)在外侧前额叶皮层、视觉处理区、海马旁皮层和小脑。我们收到了对那篇论文的八篇评论。评论呼吁扩大对各种主题的讨论,包括性激素的影响、性别(和其他社会因素)的作用、将两性之间的行为表现等同起来的利弊,以及解释大脑活动模式的群体差异。在关于“文件抽屉”问题(即缺乏无效结果报告)和效应大小的评论中讨论了一些常见的统计假设。当前的论文提供了在评论中提出的各种主题的进一步讨论,并解决了该领域的一些统计误解。总的来说,这些评论回应了一个响亮的呼吁,即把性作为认知神经科学研究的一个因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
It's time for sex in cognitive neuroscience.

In a discussion paper published in the special issue of Cognitive Neuroscience, Sex Differences in the Brain, we investigated whether certain experimental parameters contributed to findings in functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of sex differences during long-term memory. Experimental parameters included: the number of participants, stimulus type(s), whether or not performance was matched, whether or not sex differences were reported, the type of between-subject statistical test used, and the contrast(s) employed. None of these parameters determined whether or not differences were observed, as all included studies reported sex differences. We also conducted a meta-analysis to determine if there were any brain regions consistently activated to a greater degree in either sex. The meta-analysis identified sex differences (male > female) in the lateral prefrontal cortex, visual processing regions, parahippocampal cortex, and the cerebellum. We received eight commentaries in response to that paper. Commentaries called for an expanded discussion on various topics including the influence of sex hormones, the role of gender (and other social factors), the pros and cons of equating behavioral performance between the sexes, and interpreting group differences in patterns of brain activity. There were some common statistical assumptions discussed in the commentaries regarding the 'file drawer' issue (i.e., the lack of reporting of null results) and effect size. The current paper provides further discussion of the various topics brought up in the commentaries and addresses some statistical misconceptions in the field. Overall, the commentaries echoed a resounding call to include sex as a factor in cognitive neuroscience studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Neuroscience
Cognitive Neuroscience NEUROSCIENCES-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive Neuroscience publishes high quality discussion papers and empirical papers on any topic in the field of cognitive neuroscience including perception, attention, memory, language, action, social cognition, and executive function. The journal covers findings based on a variety of techniques such as fMRI, ERPs, MEG, TMS, and focal lesion studies. Contributions that employ or discuss multiple techniques to shed light on the spatial-temporal brain mechanisms underlying a cognitive process are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信