Crossing the hands is more confusing for females than males

被引:0
|
作者
Michelle L. Cadieux
Michael Barnett-Cowan
David I. Shore
机构
[1] McMaster University,Multisensory Perception Lab, Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour
[2] York University,Multisensory Integration Laboratory, Centre for Vision Research, Department of Psychology
[3] Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics,Department of Human Perception, Cognition and Action
来源
关键词
Crossed-hands; Egocentric; Gravity perception; Reference frame; Rod-and-frame; Sex difference; Temporal order judgments; Touch; Vision;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
A conflict between an egocentric and an external reference frame can be highlighted by examining the marked deficit observed with tactile temporal order judgments (TOJ) when the hands are crossed. The anecdotally-reported large individual differences in the magnitude of this crossed-hands deficit were explored here by testing a large group of participants (48; 24 female). Given that females have been shown to be more visually dependent than males in the potentially related rod-and-frame test (RFT), we hypothesized that females would show a larger influence of the external reference frame (i.e., a larger crossed-hands deficit). As predicted, female participants produced larger tactile TOJ deficits compared to our male participants. We also administered the RFT in these participants with hands crossed and uncrossed. Crossing the hands increased the effect of the frame in the RFT, more so for females than males, further highlighting the potential difference in the way that each sex accommodates reference frame conflicts. Finally, examining the relation between the two tasks revealed a significant correlation, with larger frame effects associated with larger crossed-hands TOJ deficits, but this only held for males. We speculate that sex-specific differences in multisensory processing and spatial ability may explain why females are less able to disambiguate a crossed-hands posture than are males.
引用
收藏
页码:431 / 446
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Prior Mating Experience Modulates the Dispersal of Drosophila in Males More Than in Females
    Jasper C. Simon
    William B. Dickson
    Michael H. Dickinson
    [J]. Behavior Genetics, 2011, 41 : 754 - 767
  • [42] ALCOHOL IMPAIRS VISUAL PRESENCE ABSENCE DETECTION MORE FOR FEMALES THAN FOR MALES
    AVANT, LL
    [J]. PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 1990, 48 (03): : 285 - 290
  • [43] HEALTHY FEMALES EXCRETE MORE PHOSPHATE THAN MALES IN RESPONSE TO AN ORAL CHALLENGE
    Turner, Mandy
    White, Christine
    Norman, Patrick
    Babiolakis, Corinne
    Adams, Michael
    Holden, Rachel
    [J]. NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2020, 35 : 1206 - 1206
  • [44] Females sing more often and at higher frequencies than males in Australian magpies
    Dutour, Mylene
    Ridley, Amanda R.
    [J]. BEHAVIOURAL PROCESSES, 2020, 172
  • [45] Females are intrinsically more insulin resistant than males, but males are at greater risk of Type 2 diabetes
    Voss, LD
    Metcalf, BS
    Jeffery, AN
    Murphy, MJ
    Wilkin, TJ
    [J]. DIABETOLOGIA, 2004, 47 : A223 - A223
  • [46] REVERSED SEXUAL SIZE DIMORPHISM IN MICROTINES - ARE FEMALES LARGER THAN MALES OR ARE MALES SMALLER THAN FEMALES
    BONDRUPNIELSEN, S
    IMS, RA
    [J]. EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY, 1990, 4 (03) : 261 - 272
  • [47] Is age kinder to females than to males?
    Elizabeth J. Meinz
    Timothy A. Salthouse
    [J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1998, 5 : 56 - 70
  • [48] Is age kinder to females than to males?
    Meinz, EJ
    Salthouse, TA
    [J]. PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 1998, 5 (01) : 56 - 70
  • [49] Females Scan More Than Males: A Potential Mechanism for Sex Differences in Recognition Memory
    Heisz, Jennifer J.
    Pottruff, Molly M.
    Shore, David I.
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2013, 24 (07) : 1157 - 1163
  • [50] Males develop more severe peridontal destruction than females in response to smoking.
    Genco, RJ
    ElGhorab, N
    Grossi, SG
    Ho, A
    Hausmann, E
    Zambon, J
    Dunford, R
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1996, 75 : 243 - 243