Gender differences in autobiographical memory for everyday
events: Retrieval elicited by SenseCam Images vs. Verbal Cues
Peggy L. St Jacques1,2, Martin A. Conway3, and Roberto Cabeza1,2
1 Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA
2 Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA
3 Institute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
Abstract
Gender differences are frequently observed in autobiographical memory (AM). Few studies,
however, have investigated the neural basis of potential gender differences in AM. In the present
functional MRI (fMRI) study we investigated gender differences in AMs elicited using dynamic
visual images vs. verbal cues. We used a novel technology called a SenseCam, a wearable device
that automatically takes thousands of photographs. SenseCam differs considerably from other
prospective methods of generating retrieval cues because it does not disrupt the ongoing
experience. This allowed us to control for potential gender differences in emotional processing and
elaborative rehearsal, while manipulating how the AMs were elicited. We predicted that males
would retrieve more richly experienced AMs elicited by the SenseCam images vs. the verbal cues,
whereas females would show equal sensitivity to both cues. The behavioral results indicated that
there were no gender differences in subjective ratings of reliving, importance, vividness, emotion
and uniqueness, suggesting that gender differences in brain activity were not due to differences in
these measures of phenomenological experience. Consistent with our predictions, the fMRI results
revealed that males showed a greater difference in functional activity associated with the rich
experience of SenseCam vs. Verbal Cues, than did females.
Gender differences have frequently been observed in autobiographical memory (AM), which
refers to memory for events from our personal past. Several studies have documented
superior AMs in females compared to males (for a review see Andreano & Cahill, 2009).
For example, compared to males, females recall longer and more detailed AMs (e.g.,
Friedman & Pines, 1991; Pillemer, Wink, DiDonato, & Sanborn, 2003; Pohl, Bender, &
Lachmann, 2005; Ross & Holmberg, 1992; Seidlitz & Diener, 1998), are more accurate at
dating their AMs (e.g., Skowronski & Thompson, 1990), and are faster to recall AMs (e.g.,
Davis, 1999). In contrast, other studies have failed to find gender differences in AM (e.g.,
Rubin, Schulkind, & Rahhal, 1999). The lack of gender differences in behavior does not
necessarily imply that there are no gender differences in AM retrieval (e.g., Piefke, Weiss,
Markowitsch, & Fink, 2005). However, the bases of potential gender differences during AM
retrieval are not well understood. In the present study we employed functional MRI (fMRI)
to examine brain activity underlying potential gender differences in AM retrieval.
Reported gender differences in AM have been linked to differences in emotional processing
and elaborative rehearsal (for reviews see Andreano & Cahill, 2009; Piefke & Fink, 2005).
According to the affective intensity hypothesis female’s superior AM is due to increased
emotional processing that subsequently enhances memory recall. For example, females
Corresponding Author: Peggy L. St. Jacques, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Box 90999, Durham, NC 27708,
USA, Phone: (919) 668-2299, Fax: (919) 681-0815, peggy.st.jacques@duke.edu.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
Published in final edited form as:
Memory. 2011 October ; 19(7): 723–732. doi:10.1080/09658211.2010.516266.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
recall more emotional AMs (e.g., Friedman & Pines, 1991; Fujita, Diener, & Sandvik,
1991), more emotional information (e.g., Bauer, Stennes, & Haight, 2003; Bloise &
Johnson, 2007), and rate their memories as being more emotional (e.g., Seidlitz & Diener,
1998). Moreover, sex differences have been observed in brain activity during emotional
tasks (e.g., Cahill et al., 2001; Canli, Desmond, Zhao, & Gabrieli, 2002). In contrast, the
elaborative rehearsal hypothesis suggests that females are better at remembering their life’s
experiences because of more frequent and elaborative rehearsal (e.g., Seidlitz & Diener,
1998). Support for this hypothesis is provided by evidence that females discuss events at
more detailed length (Friedman & Pines, 1991; Seidlitz & Diener, 1998) and that parents
discuss AMs in a more elaborative way with daughters compared to sons (for a review see
Fivush & Nelson, 2004).
Alternatively, gender differences in AM might be due to more general cognitive differences
in verbal and spatial processing (cf. Andreano & Cahill, 2009; Piefke & Fink, 2005). A
substantial body of literature shows that females outperform males on verbal tasks such as
phonological fluency, whereas males outperform females on spatial tasks such as mental
rotation and navigation (for a review see Andreano & Cahill, 2009). However, previous
studies examining gender differences in AM have relied upon verbal cues to elicit AMs and
verbal processing strategies to determine the quality of retrieval, in which males might have
more disadvantage. Moreover, individual differences in phonological fluency accounts for
potential differences in the level of detail in verbal recall of AMs (Addis, Sacchetti, Ally,
Budson, & Schacter, In Press). In contrast, functional neuroimaging studies of AM have
suggested that there is substantial overlap in the brain regions recruited during navigation
(for a meta-analysis see Spreng, Mar, & Kim, 2009) and particular spatial abilities (for
reviews see Hassabis & Maguire, 2007; Moscovitch et al., 2005), suggesting that these
processes are very important in AM retrieval. Furthermore, episodic memory tests that have
controlled for verbal processing have observed less robust gender differences (for a review
see Andreano & Cahill, 2009). Thus, it is possible that the reported gender differences in
behavioral studies of AM might be the result of potential biases favoring verbal processing
in the method of elicitation and evaluation of the retrieved events.
One solution to examine AM retrieval in a more unbiased way is to use functional
neuroimaging to examine covert retrieval of AMs. Gender differences should be observed in
the AM retrieval network if females rely more on verbal processing, whereas males rely
more on spatial processing during AM recall. Piefke et al. (2005) is the only functional
neuroimaging study to our knowledge, which has investigated gender differences in AM
retrieval. In this fMRI study, participants were asked to recall AMs elicited via verbal
sentences describing particular autobiographical events generated in a pre-scan interview.
Females recruited the prefrontal cortex (PFC), a region that is associated with increased
control over the recovery of information (for a review see Miller & Cohen, 2001). Piefke et
al. (2005) interpreted the greater recruitment of the PFC as reflecting a greater reliance on
temporal context when females retrieve AMs. In contrast, males recruited the
parahippocampal gyrus, a region associated with bottom-up visuospatial processing (for a
review see Burgess, Maguire, & O’Keefe, 2002). Thus, the findings of Piefke et al. (2005)
are consistent with the idea that gender differences in AM might be due to differences in
retrieval strategy. However, it is not clear whether the use of more spatial cues might
attenuate some of these potential gender differences in cognitive strategy during AM
retrieval.
To address these issues, we investigated potential gender differences in AMs elicited using
verbal cues versus dynamic visual images. We employed a novel technology called a
SenseCam (Microsoft Research Cambridge; http://research.microsoft.com/sensecam/) to
prospectively collect dynamic, visuospatial cues to elicit AMs during functional MRI
St Jacques et al. Page 2
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
(fMRI) scanning. SenseCam is a small wearable digital camera that has electronic sensors
(e.g., light, heat, etc.) that can automatically trigger thousands of photographs in a single day
(see Figure 1A). This differs considerably from the normal way in which we can use a
camera to generate retrieval cues (Cabeza et al., 2004; St. Jacques, Rubin, Labar, & Cabeza,
2008), because it does not disrupt the ongoing experience of events through the act of taking
a photograph (for a review see Cabeza & St. Jacques, 2007). Moreover, the SenseCam
images can provide effective retrieval cues to elicit everyday AMs, which are less likely to
be emotionally intense and elaboratively rehearsed compared to memories that participants
retrieve themselves (e.g., Seidlitz & Diener, 1998). Participants wore the SenseCam for a
week while it automatically recorded photographs, and they also kept a schedule of their
daily activities. Following a week delay, participants came in for their fMRI session, in
which they were asked to covertly recall the events depicted in short SenseCam clips versus
verbal cues garnered from the daily schedule, then to rate their subjective feeling of reexperience
using a reliving rating. We examined the interaction between gender (males,
females) and type of cue (SC, VC) on brain activity sensitive to reliving during AM
retrieval. Based on reported gender differences in the reliance on spatial vs. verbal
processing, we predicted that males would retrieve more richly experienced AMs when cued
via the SenseCam images (SC) versus the verbal cues (VC), whereas females would show an
equal benefit for both types of cues.
Methods
Participants
There were twenty-three participants (12 females, and 11 males; age range: 18 – 35 years)
who were healthy, right-handed, and without history of neurological or psychiatric episodes
(for demographic characteristics see Table 1). Participants gave written informed consent for
a protocol approved by the Duke University Institutional Review Board. Participants were
tested on subsets of executive function (Intra-Extra Dimensional Set Shifting, Spatial Span,
Spatial Working Memory, Rapid Visual Information Processing), visual memory ability
(Paired-Associated Learning, Pattern Recognition Memory), and speed of processing
(Movement Time and Reaction Time) included in the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test
Automated Battery (CANTABeclipse, version 2.0; Cambridge Cognition Ltd.), as well as
vocabulary ability using the Shipley Vocabulary Test. Using Bonferroni correction to
control for multiple t-tests we found no significant gender differences across these cognitive
tasks or in the demographic characteristics of the participants (see Table 1).
Procedure
Prospective Collection—Retrieval cues were prospectively collected across a period of
6 days, in which participants wore the SenseCam and kept a schedule of each day’s
activities to be used to parse the SenseCam images into events. The daily schedule was
recorded at the end of each day along with a unique identifier to distinguish that particular
day from others (e.g., “Today was the day I had lunch with Ben”). Participants were
instructed to write about 10–15 brief sentences, one for each major event during the day
(e.g., “Had breakfast”, “went to the grocery store …”). Participants were not informed that
their written schedules would be later used to test their memory for the events, and
debriefing after scanning confirmed that no participant suspected a memory test. Three days
were randomly assigned to the SC condition and 3 days, to the VC condition. For each day,
12 events were selected to be tested in the scanner. Participants also viewed SenseCam
images from other people’s cameras in separate runs, which were included for additional
analyses that were not the focus on the present investigation (St. Jacques, Conway, Lowder,
& Cabeza, 2010).
St Jacques et al. Page 3
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
FMRI Scanning—The scanning session took place one week following the last day the
SenseCam was worn (mean length of delay = 8 days, SD = 1.2). Participants did not view
the photographs prior to fMRI scanning. There were six fMRI runs blocked by condition and
presented in an alternating order (i.e., ABABAB), counterbalanced across participants based
on a Latin square design. The structure of the runs was similar in each condition (see Figure
1). Each run began with a 10-second title screen (i.e., “Today was the day I…”) and
consisted of 12 cues presented in chronological order from that day, for a total of 36 events
per condition across 3 runs. The cues were presented for 20 seconds, and participants were
instructed to recall the events depicted. The cues in the SC condition consisted of 40
SenseCam pictures depicting a single event and presented at a rate of two pictures per
second; the cues in the VC condition consisted of a short description of a single event. To
control for differences in the visual input, a static string of letters was presented in the SC
condition, whereas participant-specific, Fourier transformed SenseCam images were
presented at a rate of two pictures per second in the VC condition. Thus, the visual input
between the conditions was identical.
Following the cue presentation, participants indicated the subjective experience associated
with each cue. Participants rated the subjective experience of recollection, reliving, which
refers to how much they were able to re-experience the event depicted as if it were
happening right now or as if they were mentally traveling back to the time when the event
occurred. It is important to note that reliving is similar to other subjective measures of
recollection, such as the remember/know paradigm (Yonelinas, 2002). For example, in the
remember/know paradigm, participants are asked to use introspection to classify items as
recollected (vivid re-experiencing of the original event and its context) or merely familiar.
Although introspection has its limitations, the results of hundreds of remember/know studies
are highly consistent with findings of hundreds of studies using objective measures of
recollection, such as source memory (Yonelinas, 2002). However, there are some critical
differences between the reliving scale and remember/know paradigm, which make the
reliving scale a better measure for AM. First, the reliving scale could be considered a better
subjective measure of recollection in AM than remember/know because it does not require
the assumption of a dual-process model (Wixted, 2007; Yonelinas, 2002). Second, reliving
is a better predictor of recollection in AMs compared to the remember/know scale, which is
a better predictor of confidence in AMs (Rubin, Schrauf, & Greenberg, 2003). Ratings were
conducted on an 8-point scale from low to high, and were self-paced (up to 6 seconds).
Following a response, a fixation cross was presented for a jittered interval between 4 and 8
seconds plus any remaining time from the response period.
Post-Scanning—Immediately following the scanning session, participants viewed the
identical SC and VC runs and answered additional questions on a small set of subjective
ratings to ensure that the events selected for inclusion in the SC vs. VC conditions were
unbiased. More ratings were not included due to time constraints. Participants were asked to
rate the events on the following properties: Importance (1 = low to 8 = high), Vividness (1 =
low to 8 = high), Emotion (-4 = intense negative to 4 = intense positive), and Uniqueness (1
= low to 8 = high) associated with the event. For more details on the instructions provided to
participants, please see the Appendix.
fMRI Methods
Image Acquisition—Scanning was conducted using a 4T GE magnet. Anatomical
scanning included a T1-weighted sagittal localizer series and 3D fast spoiled gradient echo
recalled (SPGR) structural images were acquired in the coronal plane (2562 matrix, TR =
12.3 ms, TE = 5.4 ms, flip angle = 20°, FOV = 240, 68 slices, 1.9 mm slice thickness).
Coplanar functional images were acquired using an inverse spiral sequence (642 image
St Jacques et al. Page 4
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
matrix, TR = 2000 ms, TE = 6 ms, FOV = 240, flip angle = 60°, 34 slices, 3.8 mm slice
thickness).
fMRI Analyses—Image processing and analyses were performed using Statistical
Parameter Mapping software in Matlab (SPM5; Wellcome Department of Imaging
Neuroscience). Functional images were corrected for slice acquisition order, realigned to
correct for motion artifacts, spatially normalized to a standard stereotactic space, and
spatially smoothed using an 8-mm isotropic Gaussian kernel. Evoked hemodynamic
responses for the cue was modeled with a boxcar function corresponding to the 20-second
phase of presentation, convolved with a canonical hemodynamic response function within
the context of the General Linear Model (GLM). Evoked hemodynamic responses for the
ratings were modeled with a delta (stick) function, convolved with a canonical
hemodynamic response function.
SenseCam Retrieval vs. Verbal Cue Retrieval—To examine brain activity in the SC
condition we employed the GLM to examine the neural correlates modulated by reliving
using a random-effects parametric approach via the first-order parametric modulation option
integrated in SPM5. The parametric approach ensures that potential gender differences
reflect memory (i.e., fluctuations in activity tracking reliving) rather than other perceptual
differences (e.g., exploration of the visual stimulus). Data analysis was confined to the first
5 seconds of the retrieval blocks (i.e., presentation of the stimulus) to reduce potential
differences in the number of retrieval cues provided by the two conditions. Subsequently, we
conducted a two sample t-tests to examine the interaction between gender and memory cue
(P = .005, > 10 voxel extent threshold) and the main effect of gender across both cuing
manipulations, and then inclusively masked this statistical image with the corresponding
statistical map for the effect of interest at p = .005 (i.e., SenseCam > Verbal Cues in Males,
etc.). Thus, the resulting pattern of group differences in activity had to pass two hurdles: 1)
the difference should be significant within one group, and 2) the difference should be
significantly larger within one group compared to the other group. Given the a priori role of
the MTL in AM (Cabeza & St. Jacques, 2007; Maguire, 2001; McDermott et al., 2009;
Spreng et al., 2009; Svoboda et al., 2006) we conducted an additional a priori region of
interest (ROI) here at P = .05 using the Talaraich Daemon Atlas (Lancaster, Summerin,
Rainey, Freitas, & Fox, 1997; Lancaster et al., 2000), implemented within the PickAtlas
software (Maldjian, Laurienti, Kraft, & Burdette, 2003), also using an extent threshold of >
10 voxels.
Results
Behavioral
The behavioral results indicated that there were no gender differences in the
phenomenological experience of memory retrieval measured by reliving, importance,
vividness, emotion and uniqueness, or in reaction times to make these subjective ratings (for
means and standard deviations see Table 2). We conducted multiple repeated-measures
ANOVAs (Gender × Cue) using Bonferroni correction separately on each of the subjective
ratings and reaction time measures (p < .005). Both females and males gave higher reliving
ratings, F(1,21) = 32.60, p < .001, and vividness ratings, F(1,21) = 78.79, p < .001, for AMs
elicited in the SC versus VC conditions. Furthermore, both genders made faster reliving
ratings, F(1,21) = 17.80, p < .005, for the SC versus VC conditions. There were no other
gender or cueing differences. These results suggest that any gender differences in functional
activity cannot be explained by potential gender differences in the phenomenological
experience of recall- at least as measured by reliving, emotion, importance, vividness, of the
AMs and the uniqueness of the events.
St Jacques et al. Page 5
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
fMRI
As predicted, we found that males showed greater increase in activity sensitive to reliving
AMs elicited in the SC versus VC condition, whereas females showed equivalent sensitivity
to reliving in both cuing types (see Table 3, Figure 2). There was greater activity in MTL
(left hippocampus), retrosplenial cortex, left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), and right occipital
cortex that was positively correlated with reliving ratings to a greater extent for males vs.
females in the SC vs. VC conditions. Further, when we separately examined the influence of
gender within each condition, we found that males recruited less activity sensitive to reliving
for AMs elicited in the VC condition when compared to females. Specifically, males
recruited less hippocampus (x = −26, y = −33, z = 2; t = 2.44, 11 voxels) and IFG (BA 45; x
= −45, y = 19, z = 20; t = 4.11, 34 voxels), which overlapped with those showing the gender
× cue interaction effects. There were no significant effects of gender that were common to
both the SC and VC conditions, suggesting that cue independent effects of reliving were not
influenced by gender. In sum, these results suggest that females were equally sensitive to
reliving AMs in both conditions, but that males benefited more from the rich visuospatial
cues provided by the SenseCam images than the verbal cues.
Discussion
The present study investigated the interaction between gender and the type of cue to elicit
AMs during functional scanning. We used a novel technology called a SenseCam to
prospectively collect dynamic, visuospatial cues to elicit everyday AMs in the scanning
environment. This allowed us to control for potential differences in the emotional intensity
and rehearsal of retrieved events. The behavioral results revealed that there were no gender
differences in the reliving, emotion, importance, vividness, of the AMs and the uniqueness
of the events. Consistent with our predictions, however, the fMRI results revealed that males
showed a greater difference in functional activity associated with the rich experience of
visuospatial versus verbal cues, than did females.
Males and females might rely on different cognitive strategies during memory retrieval.
Previous evidence has indicated an advantage for males on spatial tasks, whereas females
show greater advantage on verbal tasks (cf. Andreano & Cahill, 2009; Piefke & Fink, 2005).
Consistent with this finding, one previous fMRI study examining gender effects on AM
found that males relied more on MTL regions associated with visuospatial processing,
whereas females relied more on PFC regions linked to controlled processes, such as
temporal context (Piefke, et al., 2005). Substantial evidence has suggested that females have
superior AMs compared to males (for reviews see Andreano & Cahill, 2009; Piefke & Fink,
2005). However, the female advantage might be less robust once potential gender
differences in these cognitive strategies are controlled (for review see Andreano & Cahill,
2009). Consistent with this idea, we found that males, compared to females, showed greater
recruitment of brain regions sensitive to reliving of AMs elicited by visuospatial cues than
verbal cues.
The present findings are less amenable to alternative accounts of potential gender
differences in AM, which have linked better memory in females to differences in the amount
of rehearsal or emotional intensity (for reviews see Andreano & Cahill, 2009; Piefke &
Fink, 2005), since we queried for very recent, everyday AMs. Participants did keep a daily
schedule of events, which may have involved some minimal rehearsal and perhaps lessened
the influence of the SenseCam cues, when compared to the verbal cues. However, potential
gender differences in the influence of rehearsal provided by the daily schedule could not
easily explain the greater sensitivity to reliving elicited by the SenseCam images in males.
St Jacques et al. Page 6
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
In the present study we showed that gender differences were directly linked to memory
experience by examining brain activity that was parametrically modulated by participant
ratings of reliving. Males showed greater sensitivity to the experience of reliving when cued
by the visuospatial cues in a number of brain regions. First, there was greater sensitivity to
reliving in the hippocampus, a region associated with spatial memory (for a review see
Burgess, et al., 2002), and to recollection processes (for a review see Diana, Yonelinas, &
Ranganath, 2007). Furthermore, functional neuroimaging studies of AM have shown that the
amount of details associated with retrieval modulates activity in the left hippocampus (e.g.,
Addis, McIntosh, Moscovitch, Crawley, & McAndrews, 2004), and patient evidence links
this region to recollection of AMs (e.g., Steinvorth, Corkin, & Halgren, 2006). Second,
males showed greater sensitivity to reliving when cued by the visuospatial cues in the
retrosplenial cortex. Previous functional neuroimaging studies have found the retrosplenial
cortex to be sensitive to the amount of reliving associated with AM retrieval (Daselaar et al.,
2008), and damage here can result in amnesia (e.g., Valenstein et al., 1987).. Third, there
was greater sensitivity to reliving in males in the occipital cortex. The occipital cortex is
associated with the visual imagery that is critical to AM retrieval (Greenberg & Rubin,
2003), and has been linked to the rich elaboration of AMs (Conway, Pleydell-Pearce, &
Whitecross, 2001; Daselaar et al., 2008). In sum, males and females showed a differential
effect of reliving AMs cued by visuospatial versus verbal cues, with males showing a greater
effect visuospatial compared to verbal cues and females showing equal sensitivity to both
cues.
Conclusion
The present findings demonstrate the potential of using SenseCam to prospectively generate
everyday AMs, which was particularly advantageous to the current investigation of gender
differences in functional neuroimaging of AMs. We found that males had a differential
effect on brain activity recruited when retrieving richly re-experienced AMs elicited by the
SenseCam images, whereas females showed an equal effect to both SenseCam and verbal
cues. The findings emphasize the importance of using unbiased measures to elicit and
evaluate AMs when examining gender differences.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Matthew W. Lowder for help with participant testing. This research was supported
by a grant from Microsoft Research Cambridge and the National Institute of Health RO1 AG23770, both awarded
to RC.
References
Addis DR, McIntosh AR, Moscovitch M, Crawley AP, McAndrews MP. Characterizing spatial and
temporal features of autobiographical memory retrieval networks: a partial least squares approach.
Neuroimage. 2004; 23(4):1460–1471. [PubMed: 15589110]
Addis DR, Sacchetti DC, Ally BA, Budson AE, Schacter DL. Episodic simulation of future events is
impaired in mild Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia. (In Press).
Andreano JM, Cahill L. Sex influences on the neurobiology of learning and memory. Learn Mem.
2009; 16(4):248–266. [PubMed: 19318467]
Bauer PJ, Stennes L, Haight JC. Representation of the inner self in autobiography: women’s and men’s
use of internal states language in personal narratives. Memory. 2003; 11(1):27–42. [PubMed:
12653487]
Bloise SM, Johnson MK. Memory for emotional and neutral information: gender and individual
differences in emotional sensitivity. Memory. 2007; 15(2):192–204. [PubMed: 17534112]
Burgess N, Maguire EA, O’Keefe J. The human hippocampus and spatial and episodic memory.
Neuron. 2002; 35(4):625–641. [PubMed: 12194864]
St Jacques et al. Page 7
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
Cabeza R, Prince SE, Daselaar SM, Greenberg DL, Budde M, Dolcos F, et al. Brain activity during
episodic retrieval of autobiographical and laboratory events: An fMRI study using a novel photo
paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2004; 16(9):1583–1594. [PubMed: 15622612]
Cabeza R, St Jacques PL. Functional neuroimaging of autobiographical memory. Trends Cogn Sci.
2007; 11(5):219–227. [PubMed: 17382578]
Cahill L, Haier RJ, White NS, Fallon J, Kilpatrick L, Lawrence C, et al. Sex-related difference in
amygdala activity during emotionally influenced memory storage. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2001;
75(1):1–9. [PubMed: 11124043]
Canli T, Desmond JE, Zhao Z, Gabrieli JD. Sex differences in the neural basis of emotional memories.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002; 99(16):10789–10794. [PubMed: 12145327]
Conway MA, Pleydell-Pearce CW, Whitecross SE. The neuroanatomy of autobiographical memory: A
slow wave cortical potential study of autobiographical memory. Journal of Memory & Language.
2001; 45:493–524.
Daselaar SM, Rice HJ, Greenberg DL, Cabeza R, LaBar KS, Rubin DC. The spatiotemporal dynamics
of autobiographical memory: neural correlates of recall, emotional intensity, and reliving. Cereb
Cortex. 2008; 18(1):217–229. [PubMed: 17548799]
Davis PJ. Gender differences in autobiographical memory for childhood emotional experiences.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999; 76:498–510. [PubMed: 10101879]
Diana RA, Yonelinas AP, Ranganath C. Imaging recollection and familiarity in the medial temporal
lobe: a three-component model. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007; 11(9):379–386. [PubMed: 17707683]
Fivush R, Nelson K. Culture and language in the emergence of autobiographical memory.
Psychological Science. 2004; 15(9):573–577. [PubMed: 15327626]
Friedman A, Pines A. Sex differences in gender-related childhood memories. Sex Roles. 1991; 25:25–
32.
Fujita F, Diener E, Sandvik E. Gender differences in negative affect and well-being: the case for
emotional intensity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991; 61(3):427–434. [PubMed: 1941513]
Greenberg DL, Rubin DC. The neuropsychology of autobiographical memory. Cortex. 2003; 39(4–5):
687–728. [PubMed: 14584549]
Hassabis D, Maguire EA. Deconstructing episodic memory with construction. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007;
11(7):299–306. [PubMed: 17548229]
Lancaster JL, Summerin JL, Rainey L, Freitas CS, Fox PT. The Talairach Daemon, a database server
for Talairach Atlas Labels. Neuroimage. 1997; 5(4):S633.
Lancaster JL, Woldorff MG, Parsons LM, Liotti M, Freitas CS, Rainey L, et al. Automated Talaraich
atlas labels for functional brain mapping. Human Brain Mapping. 2000; 10:120–131. [PubMed:
10912591]
Maldjian JA, Laurienti PJ, Kraft RA, Burdette JH. An automated method for neuroantomic and
cytoarchitectonic atlas-based interrogation of fMRI data sets. Neuroimage. 2003; 19:1233–1239.
(WFU Pickatlas, version 1232.1233). [PubMed: 12880848]
Miller EK, Cohen JD. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2001;
24:167–202. [PubMed: 11283309]
Moscovitch M, Rosenbaum RS, Gilboa A, Addis DR, Westmacott R, Grady C, et al. Functional
neuroanatomy of remote episodic, semantic and spatial memory: a unified account based on
multiple trace theory. J Anat. 2005; 207(1):35–66. [PubMed: 16011544]
Piefke M, Fink GR. Recollections of one’s own past: the effects of aging and gender on the neural
mechanisms of episodic autobiographical memory. Anat Embryol (Berl). 2005; 210(5–6):497–
512. [PubMed: 16172875]
Piefke M, Weiss PH, Markowitsch HJ, Fink GR. Gender differences in the functional neuroanatomy of
emotional episodic autobiographical memory. Hum Brain Mapp. 2005; 24(4):313–324. [PubMed:
15704151]
Pillemer DB, Wink P, DiDonato TE, Sanborn RL. Gender differences in autobiographical memory
styles of older adults. Memory. 2003; 11(6):525–532. [PubMed: 14982120]
Pohl RF, Bender M, Lachmann G. Autobiographical memory and social skills of men and women.
Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2005; 19:745–759.
St Jacques et al. Page 8
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
Ross M, Holmberg D. Are wives memories for events in relationships more vivid than their husband’s
memories? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1992; 9:585–604.
Rubin DC, Schrauf RW, Greenberg DL. Belief and recollection of autobiographical memories. Mem
Cognit. 2003; 31(6):887–901.
Rubin DC, Schulkind MD, Rahhal TA. A study of gender differences in autobiographical memory:
Broken down by age and sex. Journal of Adult Development. 1999; 6(1):61–71.
Seidlitz L, Diener E. Sex differences in the recall of affective experiences. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;
74(1):262–271. [PubMed: 9457787]
Skowronski JJ, Thompson CP. Reconstructing the dates of events: Gender differeces in accuracy.
Applied Cognitive Psychology. 1990; 4:371–381.
Spreng RN, Mar RA, Kim AS. The common neural basis of autobiographical memory, prospection,
navigation, theory of mind, and the default mode: a quantitative meta-analysis. J Cogn Neurosci.
2009; 21(3):489–510. [PubMed: 18510452]
St Jacques PL, Rubin DC, Labar KS, Cabeza R. The Short and Long of It: Neural Correlates of
Temporal-order Memory for Autobiographical Events. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008
St Jacques, PL.; Conway, MA.; Lowder, MW.; Cabeza, R. Watching my mind unfold vs. yours: An
fMRI study using a novel camera technology to examine neural differences in self-projection of
self vs. other perspectives. 2010. Under Review
Steinvorth S, Corkin S, Halgren E. Ecphory of autobiographical memories: An fMRI study of recent
and remote memory retrieval. Neuroimage. 2006:285–298. [PubMed: 16257547]
Valenstein E, Bowers D, Verfaellie M, Heilman KM, Day A, Watson RT. Retrosplenial amnesia.
Brain. 1987; 110(Pt 6):1631–1646. [PubMed: 3427404]
Wixted JT. Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. Psychol Rev.
2007; 114(1):152–176. [PubMed: 17227185]
Yonelinas AP. The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of
Memory and Language. 2002; 46:441–517.
Appendix
After viewing each event you will be making four different ratings:
1. Importance. You will be rating how important, or significant, this event is to your
life. Some events are more personally meaningful than others because they impart
an important message or represent an anchor, critical juncture, or turning point.
Other events are relatively insignificant and do not carry any sort of personal
meaning to you. Rate each event on a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 8 (very
important).
2. Vividness. You will be rating how vivid each memory is. You may find that some
memories are fuzzier than others, with bits and pieces missing, and it takes a great
deal of effort to consciously reconstruct the event. On the other hand, some
memories are full and detailed, with virtually no missing information. Rate each
memory on a scale of 1 (vague; unclear; not at all vivid) to 8 (completely clear;
very vivid).
3. Emotion. You will be rating the emotional content associated with recalling the
event. This scale is a little different from the others in that we are trying to capture
two types of information. First you will decide whether retrieving this memory
represents negative emotions or positive emotions for you. If the memory is
negative, you will be using the keys on the left; if it is positive, you will be using
the keys on the right. Then, we are also interested in the intensity of that emotion.
Some of your memories may be extremely sad, while others may be just somewhat
sad. Similarly, some of your memories may be extremely happy and exciting,
whereas others may just be pleasing or calming. Rate each memory on a scale from
−4 (intense negative) to 4 (intense positive). Memories that carry virtually no
St Jacques et al. Page 9
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
emotional content should be rated −1 or 1. We are interested the emotion
associated with retrieving the event now in the present, rather than the emotion that
might have been attached to the event during the time it occurred.
4. Uniqueness. You will be rating how unique each event is to your life. There are
certain events we all do regularly, as part of a daily routine, that may seem
mundane or commonplace. Alternatively, there are other events we rarely
experience that we may regard as different or special. Rate the uniqueness of each
event on a scale from 1 (something you do every day) to 8 (something completely
unique that you rarely do).
St Jacques et al. Page 10
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
Figure 1.
The experimental design depicting the study conditions.
St Jacques et al. Page 11
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
Figure 2.
The results of the two-sample t-test showing the effects of gender on cue type for functional
activity sensitive to the experience of reliving. Males recruited more richly experienced
autobiographical memories cued by the SenseCam than the verbal cues, whereas females
showed an equivalent sensitivity to reliving in functional activations for both cueing types.
Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.
St Jacques et al. Page 12
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
St Jacques et al. Page 13
Table 1
Demographic Information by Gender
Females Males t (21)
n 12 11
Age 23.08 (2.23) 24.45 (4.72) 0.90
Years of Education 16.17 (1.75) 15.91 (2.17) −0.32
Shipley Vocabulary 33.75 (2.99) 34.73 (3.44) 0.73
Executive Tasks
Spatial Working Memory
Between errors 6.75 (9.38) 10.18 (12.78) 0.74
Strategy 24.58 (5.45) 28.55 (7.54) 1.45
Spatial Span 7.58 (1.16) 8.18 (0.75) 1.45
Rapid Visual Information Processing 0.95 (0.03) 0.98 (0.02) 2.60
Intra-Extra Dimensional Set Shifting
Stages Completed 9.00 (0.00) 9.00 (0.00) n/a
Total Errors 9.25 (2.34) 10.45 (2.50) 1.19
Memory Tasks
Paired Associate Learning 2.17 (2.17) 5.36 (5.26) 1.94
Pattern Recognition Memory 96.53 (3.91) 96.59 (3.64) 0.04
Speed Tasks
Movement time (ms) 363.89 (75.81) 351.16 (58.65) −0.45
Reaction time (ms) 309.73 (44.75) 318.56 (57.51) 0.41
Mean (Standard Deviation);
*
p < .001
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
St Jacques et al. Page 14
Table 2
Mean behavioral responses by Gender
Females Males
SenseCam
Subjective Ratings
Reliving 5.10 (0.48) 4.97 (0.65)
Vividness 4.75 (0.42) 4.59 (0.86)
Emotional Intensity 1.91 (0.24) 1.96 (0.41)
Importance 3.15 (0.70) 3.53 (0.85)
Uniqueness 4.29 (0.57) 4.22 (0.77)
Reaction Time (s)
Reliving 1.12 (0.38) 1.75 (0.77)
Vividness 1.75 (0.52) 2.09 (0.71)
Emotional Intensity 1.81 (0.46) 1.88 (0.46)
Importance 2.09 (0.79) 3.04 (1.33)
Uniqueness 2.09 (0.55) 2.30 (0.79)
Verbal Cue
Subjective Ratings
Reliving 4.06 (0.60) 4.25 (0.62)
Vividness 3.67 (0.68) 3.55 (0.47)
Emotional Intensity 1.93 (0.32) 1.79 (0.36)
Importance 3.11 (0.70) 3.37 (0.78)
Uniqueness 4.13 (0.62) 3.71 (0.67)
Reaction Time (s)
Reliving 0.95 (0.36) 1.44 (0.52)
Vividness 1.71 (0.56) 2.03 (0.65)
Emotional Intensity 1.70 (0.50) 2.08 (0.78)
Importance 2.06 (0.89) 3.29 (1.28)
Uniqueness 1.94 (0.47) 2.37 (1.14)
Mean (Standard Deviation)
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
St Jacques et al. Page 15
Table3
Gender×CueEffect
RegionBAHxyztVoxels
SenseCamvs.VerbalCue
Males>Females
InferiorFrontalGyrus45L−4819173.3419
*Hippocampus--L−22−3322.4914
RetrosplenialCortex29C0−39163.8915
OccipitalCortex18R30−94123.8515
Females>Males
NoSignificantVoxels
VerbalCuevs.SenseCam
NoSignificantVoxels
TalaraichCoordinatesReported.BA,Brodmann’sArea;H,Hemisphere.
*
RegionofInterest
Memory. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 1.