ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2023
Gender differences in cognitive and affective interpersonal emotion regulation in couples: an fNIRS hyperscanning.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reviewing digital collaborative interactions with multimodal hyperscanning through an ever-growing database.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2026Pooled it
- Longitudinal associations between sedentary behavior types and mathematics ability mediated by externalizing and internalizing problems.NPJ science of learning · 2026Article
- A dual-fMRI investigation of interpersonal emotion regulation: Predicting strategy selection and implementation success from effective brain connectivity.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- An fNIRS hyperscanning dataset on the modulation of synchrony by social relationship during social touch.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Is a picture worth the same emotions everywhere? Validation of images from the Nencki affective picture system in Malaysia.Discover mental health · 2024Article
- Gender differences in oxyhemoglobin (oxy-Hb) changes during drawing interactions in romantic couples: an fNIRS study.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Emotion regulation is vital in maintaining romantic relationships in couples. Although gender differences exist in cognitive and affective strategies during 'intrapersonal' emotion regulation, it is unclear how gender differences through affective bonds work in 'interpersonal' emotion regulation (IER) in couples. Thirty couple dyads and 30 stranger dyads underwent functional near-infrared spectroscopy hyperscanning recordings when targets complied with their partner's cognitive engagement (CE) and affective engagement (AE) strategies after viewing sad and neutral videos. Behaviorally, for males, CE was less effective than AE in both groups, but little difference occurred for females between AE and CE. For couples, Granger causality analysis showed that male targets had less neural activity than female targets in CH06, CH13 and CH17 during CE. For inflow and outflow activities on CH06 and CH13 (frontopolar cortex), respectively, male targets had less activity in the CE condition than in the AE condition, while for outflow activities on CH 17 (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), female targets had more activity in the CE condition than in the AE condition. However, these differences were not observed in strangers. These results suggest gender differences in CE but not in AE and dissociable flow patterns in male and female targets in couples during sadness regulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.