Literature DB >> 16509110

Sex differences in left/right confusion.

Kirsten Jordan1, Torsten Wüstenberg, Fern Jaspers-Feyer, Anja Fellbrich, Michael Peters.   

Abstract

In agreement with the literature, females (n=269) gave themselves significantly poorer ratings than males (n=164) in evaluating their ability to make fast and accurate left/right judgments. In order to evaluate the ecological validity of the self-ratings, subjects were tested on a task that required fast and accurate left/right judgments, on a mental rotation task, and on a task that required navigation of a virtual maze. The correlations between the performances and self-ratings were computed. Both males and females who gave themselves very poor LRC (left/right confusion) ratings had significantly lower accuracy scores on the left/right judgement task than males and females with average ratings, but there was no sex-specific relation between LRC ratings and left/right judgements that would explain why females give themselves lower LRC ratings. For females only, a weak correlation between LRC scores and the learning of the virtual maze was observed, but no significant correlations were observed between LRC scores and mental rotation performance. We conclude that self-ratings on left/right confusion questions, although they yield reliable sex differences, are poor predictors of actual performance on spatial tasks that involve left/right judgements. Thus, and in support of earlier speculations (Sholl and Egeth, 1981; Teng and Lee, 1982; Williams et al., 1993), the principal cause of the marked sex differences in LRC self-ratings likely lies in a greater willingness of females to rate themselves more poorly on questions of this type than is the case for men.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16509110     DOI: 10.1016/s0010-9452(08)70323-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cortex        ISSN: 0010-9452            Impact factor:   4.027


  7 in total

1.  The Bergen left-right discrimination test: practice effects, reliable change indices, and strategic performance in the standard and alternate form with inverted stimuli.

Authors:  Philip Grewe; Hanno A Ohmann; Hans J Markowitsch; Martina Piefke
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2013-10-31

2.  Patients attending eye clinic have poor left right discrimination.

Authors:  G S Williams; D J Eddyshaw
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  Differential neural activity patterns for spatial relations in humans: a MEG study.

Authors:  Nicole M Scott; Arthur Leuthold; Maria D Sera; Apostolos P Georgopoulos
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Imagining others' handedness: visual and motor processes in the attribution of the dominant hand to an imagined agent.

Authors:  Daniele Marzoli; Silvia Menditto; Chiara Lucafò; Luca Tommasi
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Self-rated right-left confusability and performance on the Money Road-Map Test.

Authors:  Hikari Yamashita
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2012-09-11

6.  Executive control deficits in substance-dependent individuals: a comparison of alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamine and of men and women.

Authors:  Ellen A A van der Plas; Eveline A Crone; Wery P M van den Wildenberg; Daniel Tranel; Antoine Bechara
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2008-11-26       Impact factor: 2.475

7.  The Impact of Handedness, Sex, and Cognitive Abilities on Left-Right Discrimination: A Behavioral Study.

Authors:  Martin Constant; Emmanuel Mellet
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-03-27
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.