Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Aug 28:8:650.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00650. eCollection 2014.

Recommendations for sex/gender neuroimaging research: key principles and implications for research design, analysis, and interpretation

Affiliations
Review

Recommendations for sex/gender neuroimaging research: key principles and implications for research design, analysis, and interpretation

Gina Rippon et al. Front Hum Neurosci. .

Abstract

Neuroimaging (NI) technologies are having increasing impact in the study of complex cognitive and social processes. In this emerging field of social cognitive neuroscience, a central goal should be to increase the understanding of the interaction between the neurobiology of the individual and the environment in which humans develop and function. The study of sex/gender is often a focus for NI research, and may be motivated by a desire to better understand general developmental principles, mental health problems that show female-male disparities, and gendered differences in society. In order to ensure the maximum possible contribution of NI research to these goals, we draw attention to four key principles-overlap, mosaicism, contingency and entanglement-that have emerged from sex/gender research and that should inform NI research design, analysis and interpretation. We discuss the implications of these principles in the form of constructive guidelines and suggestions for researchers, editors, reviewers and science communicators.

Keywords: brain imaging; essentialism; gender; plasticity; sex differences; sex similarities; stereotypes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of “Essentialist” vs. “Social Context” models of experimental design in sex/gender research. (Shaded section): the essentialist model that is often implicit in NI sex/gender research: female-male differences appear to be directly traceable to initial genetic differences between female and male individuals. (Unshaded section): the social context model where social context variables interact with individual biologies (contingency) and create feedback loops with research design and practices (entanglement): results of particular studies are understood as contingent and entangled “snapshots”.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of “typical” vs. “recommended” processes in NI research. (A) Typical experimental process in NI research on sex/gender is oriented towards identifying differences. Biological sex is considered primary; two sexes are routinely compared, and findings of “no difference” are often lost (though this may also stimulate redesign of study to better detect difference). (B) The recommended experimental process proceeds from the principle of overlap; when differences are observed, researchers attempt to discern the reliability and sensitivity of these observations to social and experimental context. Reports place equal emphasis on findings of sex/gender difference and similarity, with emphasis on distributions.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Proposed guidelines for sex/gender research in neuroscience: critical questions for research design, analysis, and interpretation.

References

    1. Adkins-Regan E. (2005). Hormones and Animal Social Behavior. Princeton, NJ, Princeton: University Press
    1. Barnes J., Ridgway G. R., Bartlett J., Henley S. M. D., Lehmann M., Hobbs N., et al. (2010). Head size, age and gender adjustment in MRI studies: a necessary nuisance? Neuroimage 53, 1244–1255 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.025 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bem S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42, 155–162 10.1037/h0036215 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bennett C. M., Miller M. B. (2010). How reliable are the results from functional magnetic resonance imaging? Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. 1191, 133–135 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05446.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bishop K., Wahlsten D. (1997). Sex differences in the human corpus callosum: myth or reality? Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 21, 581–601 10.1016/s0149-7634(96)00049-8 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources