Gender Differences in Visuospatial Working Memory —Does Emotion Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex-based differences in visuospatial working memory (VSWM) processing have been documented previously.However, there is a significant lack of empirical data on the gender-related effects on both cognitive load, andthe emotional content of spatially-remembered objects in VSWM. In order to explore this issue, 50 young adults(25 males) voluntarily participated in performing a VSWM task with two different levels of cognitive load.Trials included 4 or 6 facial (happy, fearful and neutral faces), or non-facial, stimuli, presented sequentially atrandomized spatial locations, and subjects were asked to reproduce the sequences in inverse order. Behavioralresults showed that both males and females performed more accurately and faster when the sequences to bereproduced were shorter. In general, males performed significantly better than females, but particularly whenreproducing longer sequences. Males and females were sensitive to the emotional content of the stimuli, as bothgenders achieved significantly more correct responses during trials with happy faces. Results suggest thatgender-based differences on VSWM processing go beyond discriminating processes, and may involvedissimilarities in cognitive strategies, and/or underlying neural substrates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".