ArticleBiology of sex differences2025
Own-gender bias in facial feature recognition yields sex differences in holistic face processing.
Article in Biology of sex differences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The influence of social cues in learning and decision-making over time.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFemale observers in their luteal cycle phase exhibit a bias towards a detail-oriented rather than global visuospatial processing style that is well-documented across cognitive domains such as pattern recognition, navigation, and object location memory. Holistic face processing involves an integration of global patterns and local parts into a cohesive percept and might thus be susceptible to the influence of sex and cycle-related processing styles. This study aims to investigate potential sex differences in the part-whole effect as a measure a of holistic face processing and explores possible relationships with sex hormone levels.
methods147 participants (74 male, 51 luteal, 22 non-luteal) performed a part-whole face recognition task while being controlled for cycle phase and sex hormone status. Eye tracking was used for fixation control and recording of fixation patterns.
resultsWe found significant sex differences in the part-whole effect between male and luteal phase female participants. In particular, this sex difference was based on luteal phase participants exhibiting higher face part recognition accuracy than male participants. This advantage was exclusively observed for stimulus faces of women. Exploratory analyses further suggest a similar advantage of luteal compared to non-luteal participants, but no significant difference between non-luteal and male participants. Furthermore, testosterone emerged as a possible mediator for the observed sex differences.
conclusionOur results suggest a possible modulation of face encoding and/or recognition by sex and hormone status. Moreover, the established own-gender bias in face recognition, that is, female advantage in recognition of faces of the same gender might be based on more accurate representations of face-parts.
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.