Limits...
Men fear other men most: gender specific brain activations in perceiving threat from dynamic faces and bodies - an FMRI study.

Kret ME, Pichon S, Grèzes J, de Gelder B - Front Psychol (2011)

Bottom Line: Male participants pay more attention to the female face as shown by increased amygdala activity.But a host of other areas show selective sensitivity for male observers attending to male threatening bodily expressions (extrastriate body area, superior temporal sulcus, fusiform gyrus, pre-supplementary motor area, and premotor cortex).This is the first study investigating gender differences in processing dynamic female and male facial and bodily expressions and it illustrates the importance of gender differences in affective communication.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Cognitive and Affective Neurosciences Laboratory, Tilburg University Tilburg, Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
Gender differences are an important factor regulating our daily interactions. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging we show that brain areas involved in processing social signals are activated differently by threatening signals send from male and female facial and bodily expressions and that their activation patterns are different for male and female observers. Male participants pay more attention to the female face as shown by increased amygdala activity. But a host of other areas show selective sensitivity for male observers attending to male threatening bodily expressions (extrastriate body area, superior temporal sulcus, fusiform gyrus, pre-supplementary motor area, and premotor cortex). This is the first study investigating gender differences in processing dynamic female and male facial and bodily expressions and it illustrates the importance of gender differences in affective communication.

No MeSH data available.


Threatening facial and bodily expressions as a function of gender. Difference scores between threatening and neutral videos. t-Tests are two-tailed, Bonferroni-corrected. Planned comparisons are described in the text and are not indicated in this figure. Regions are followed by the MNI coordinate. EBA, STS, pre-SMA, and PM were active following bodily expressions, especially when threatening, even more so when expressed by a male actor and above all when observed by a male participant. FG was equally responsive to faces and bodies but the interaction between category, emotion, and observer revealed more activation for threatening than neutral male bodies in male participants. AMG was more active for faces than bodies, specifically for male observers watching female faces. TPJ showed an effect of emotion and was more responsive to bodies than faces.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3111446&req=5

Figure 3: Threatening facial and bodily expressions as a function of gender. Difference scores between threatening and neutral videos. t-Tests are two-tailed, Bonferroni-corrected. Planned comparisons are described in the text and are not indicated in this figure. Regions are followed by the MNI coordinate. EBA, STS, pre-SMA, and PM were active following bodily expressions, especially when threatening, even more so when expressed by a male actor and above all when observed by a male participant. FG was equally responsive to faces and bodies but the interaction between category, emotion, and observer revealed more activation for threatening than neutral male bodies in male participants. AMG was more active for faces than bodies, specifically for male observers watching female faces. TPJ showed an effect of emotion and was more responsive to bodies than faces.

Mentions: In order to examine gender differences in face and body responsive areas, we specified the gender of the actors and observers by extracting the beta values of pre-defined ROIs. We checked the patterns of both fear and anger to ensure that both factors contributed the same way to the common effects that are reported below (See Figure 3).


Men fear other men most: gender specific brain activations in perceiving threat from dynamic faces and bodies - an FMRI study.

Kret ME, Pichon S, Grèzes J, de Gelder B - Front Psychol (2011)

Threatening facial and bodily expressions as a function of gender. Difference scores between threatening and neutral videos. t-Tests are two-tailed, Bonferroni-corrected. Planned comparisons are described in the text and are not indicated in this figure. Regions are followed by the MNI coordinate. EBA, STS, pre-SMA, and PM were active following bodily expressions, especially when threatening, even more so when expressed by a male actor and above all when observed by a male participant. FG was equally responsive to faces and bodies but the interaction between category, emotion, and observer revealed more activation for threatening than neutral male bodies in male participants. AMG was more active for faces than bodies, specifically for male observers watching female faces. TPJ showed an effect of emotion and was more responsive to bodies than faces.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3111446&req=5

Figure 3: Threatening facial and bodily expressions as a function of gender. Difference scores between threatening and neutral videos. t-Tests are two-tailed, Bonferroni-corrected. Planned comparisons are described in the text and are not indicated in this figure. Regions are followed by the MNI coordinate. EBA, STS, pre-SMA, and PM were active following bodily expressions, especially when threatening, even more so when expressed by a male actor and above all when observed by a male participant. FG was equally responsive to faces and bodies but the interaction between category, emotion, and observer revealed more activation for threatening than neutral male bodies in male participants. AMG was more active for faces than bodies, specifically for male observers watching female faces. TPJ showed an effect of emotion and was more responsive to bodies than faces.
Mentions: In order to examine gender differences in face and body responsive areas, we specified the gender of the actors and observers by extracting the beta values of pre-defined ROIs. We checked the patterns of both fear and anger to ensure that both factors contributed the same way to the common effects that are reported below (See Figure 3).

Bottom Line: Male participants pay more attention to the female face as shown by increased amygdala activity.But a host of other areas show selective sensitivity for male observers attending to male threatening bodily expressions (extrastriate body area, superior temporal sulcus, fusiform gyrus, pre-supplementary motor area, and premotor cortex).This is the first study investigating gender differences in processing dynamic female and male facial and bodily expressions and it illustrates the importance of gender differences in affective communication.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Cognitive and Affective Neurosciences Laboratory, Tilburg University Tilburg, Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
Gender differences are an important factor regulating our daily interactions. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging we show that brain areas involved in processing social signals are activated differently by threatening signals send from male and female facial and bodily expressions and that their activation patterns are different for male and female observers. Male participants pay more attention to the female face as shown by increased amygdala activity. But a host of other areas show selective sensitivity for male observers attending to male threatening bodily expressions (extrastriate body area, superior temporal sulcus, fusiform gyrus, pre-supplementary motor area, and premotor cortex). This is the first study investigating gender differences in processing dynamic female and male facial and bodily expressions and it illustrates the importance of gender differences in affective communication.

No MeSH data available.