Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:00:57.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Female Advantage for Object Location Memory in Peripersonal but not Extrapersonal Space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2007

DEBORAH SAUCIER ,
AMANDA LISOWAY ,
SHERYL GREEN  and
LORIN ELIAS
DEBORAH SAUCIER
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada Department of Neuroscience, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Canada
AMANDA LISOWAY
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
SHERYL GREEN
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
LORIN ELIAS
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The neural representation of peripersonal space may be distinct from the representation of extrapersonal space. Sex differences in the performance of motor tasks might relate to proximity to the body. In the spatial domain, females excel at tasks performed in peripersonal space, like the Object Location Memory Task (OLMT), whereas males excel at tasks performed in extrapersonal space, such as navigation. We compared performance on the OLMT in peripersonal space with performance on the same task in extrapersonal space (using a between-subjects design). As predicted, the typical female advantage was observed for the peripersonal OLMT. However, for the extrapersonal OLMT, the female advantage disappeared and males actually outperformed females. These results suggest that the sex differences observed in the OLMT, and potentially other tasks that exhibit sex differences in performance, may be related to sex differences to spatial-motor systems that are preferentially tuned to proximity. (JINS, 2007, 13, 683–686.)

Keywords

Sex differencesSpatial abilitySpatial behaviorProximitySpatial cognitionYoung adult
Type
BRIEF COMMUNICATION
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , July 2007 , pp. 683 - 686
Copyright
© 2007 The International Neuropsychological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beschin, N. & Robertson, I.H. (1997). Personal versus extrapersonal neglect: A group study of their dissociation using a reliable clinical test. Cortex, 33, 379–384.Google Scholar
Bisiach, E., Perani, D., Vallar, G., & Berti, A. (1986). Unilateral neglect: Personal and extra–personal. Neuropsychologia, 24, 759–767.Google Scholar
Butler, B.C., Eskes, G.A., & Vandorpe, R.A. (2004). Gradients of detection in neglect: Comparison of peripersonal and extrapersonal space. Neuropsychologia, 42, 346–358.Google Scholar
Eals, M. & Silverman, I. (1994). The hunter–gatherer theory of spatial sex differences: Proximate factors mediating the female advantage in recall of object arrays. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 95–105.Google Scholar
Elias, L.J., Bryden, M.P., & Bulman-Fleming, M.B. (1998). Footedness is a better predictor than is handedness of emotional lateralization. Neuropsychologia, 36, 37–43.Google Scholar
Graziano, M. (2006). The organization of behavioral repertoire in motor cortex. Annual Review of the Neurosciences, 29, 105–134.Google Scholar
Halligan, P.W. & Marshall, J.C. (1991). Left neglect for near but not far space in man. Nature, 350, 498–500.Google Scholar
Halpern, D.F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lewin, C., Wolgers, G., & Herlitz, A. (2001). Sex differences favoring women in verbal but not in visuospatial episodic memory. Neuropsychology, 15, 165–173.Google Scholar
McCourt, M.E. & Garlinghouse, M. (2000). Asymmetries of visuospatial attention are modulated by viewing distance and visual field elevation: Pseudoneglect in peripersonal and extrapersonal space. Cortex, 36, 715–731.Google Scholar
Postma, A. & De Haan, E.H. (1996). What was where? Memory for object locations. Q Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 49, 178–199.Google Scholar
Previc, F.H. (1998). The neuropsychology of 3-D space. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 123–164.Google Scholar
Saucier, D.M., Green, S.M., Leason, J., MacFadden, A., Bell, S., & Elias, L.J. (2002). Are sex differences in navigation caused by sexually dimorphic strategies or by differences in the ability to use the strategies? Behavioral Neuroscience, 116, 403–410.Google Scholar
Silverman, I. & Eals, M. (1992). Sex differences in spatial abilities: Evolutionary theory and data. In J.H. Barkow, J. Tooby, & L. Cosmides (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tiffin, J. (1968). Purdue pegboard: Examiner manual. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Vallar, G., Bottini, G., & Paulesu, E. (2003). Neglect syndromes: The role of the parietal cortex. Advances in Neurology, 93, 293–319.Google Scholar
Varnava, A., McCarthy, M., & Beaumont, J.G. (2002). Line bisection in normal adults: Direction of attentional bias for near and far space. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1372–1378.Google Scholar
Voyer, D., Postma, A., Brake, B., & Imperato–McGinley, J., (in press). Gender differences in object location memory: A meta–analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.
Watson, N.V. (2001). Sex differences in throwing: Monkeys having a fling. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5, 98–99.Google Scholar
Watson, N.V. & Kimura, D. (1989). Right-hand superiority for throwing but not for intercepting. Neuropsychologia, 27, 1399–1414.Google Scholar