↓ Skip to main content

Why Don't Men Understand Women? Altered Neural Networks for Reading the Language of Male and Female Eyes

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
273 X users
facebook
45 Facebook pages
googleplus
20 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Why Don't Men Understand Women? Altered Neural Networks for Reading the Language of Male and Female Eyes
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0060278
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boris Schiffer, Christina Pawliczek, Bernhard W. Müller, Elke R. Gizewski, Henrik Walter

Abstract

Men are traditionally thought to have more problems in understanding women compared to understanding other men, though evidence supporting this assumption remains sparse. Recently, it has been shown, however, that meńs problems in recognizing women's emotions could be linked to difficulties in extracting the relevant information from the eye region, which remain one of the richest sources of social information for the attribution of mental states to others. To determine possible differences in the neural correlates underlying emotion recognition from female, as compared to male eyes, a modified version of the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test in combination with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was applied to a sample of 22 participants. We found that men actually had twice as many problems in recognizing emotions from female as compared to male eyes, and that these problems were particularly associated with a lack of activation in limbic regions of the brain (including the hippocampus and the rostral anterior cingulate cortex). Moreover, men revealed heightened activation of the right amygdala to male stimuli regardless of condition (sex vs. emotion recognition). Thus, our findings highlight the function of the amygdala in the affective component of theory of mind (ToM) and in empathy, and provide further evidence that men are substantially less able to infer mental states expressed by women, which may be accompanied by sex-specific differences in amygdala activity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 273 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Germany 3 2%
Hungary 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Uganda 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 171 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 23%
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Researcher 25 13%
Student > Master 24 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 6%
Other 42 22%
Unknown 17 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 57 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 16%
Neuroscience 14 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 6%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Other 44 23%
Unknown 22 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 339. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2024.
All research outputs
#99,662
of 25,888,937 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#1,598
of 225,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#596
of 213,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#31
of 5,239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,888,937 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 213,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.