ArticleScientific reports2026
No gender differences in predictive processing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statistical learning, defined as the implicit extraction of environmental regularities, is considered a fundamental cognitive mechanism that supports predictive processing across individuals, domains, and species. However, whether it is modulated by gender remains unclear. This study investigated potential gender-related differences in statistical learning using an age-matched sample of 129 women and 129 men (N = 258) who completed a well-established visuomotor probabilistic learning task. Statistical learning was revealed in both reaction time and accuracy measures, with participants responding faster and more accurately to high-probability than to low-probability trials. Critically, neither the magnitude nor the trajectory of statistical learning differed between women and men. Furthermore, no baseline differences in visuomotor performance interacted with learning metrics. Overall, these findings suggest that implicit statistical learning is a robust cognitive mechanism that is highly resilient to gender-related variation.
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.