Spatial abilities are not related to testosterone levels and variation in the androgen receptor in healthy young men

Abstract

Abstract. Androgens modulate brain functions such as cognition, emotions and ability. Several studies have shown a correlation between testosterone levels and mental rotation. The aim of the present study was to confirm the influence of salivary testosterone levels, 2D/4D ratio (such as a putative marker of prenatal testosterone), and sensitivity of androgen receptor on the mental rotation in healthy young men. Seventy-five healthy young men (age, 21.86 year) volunteered in this study. Mental rotation scores of our subjects were assessed using the Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotation Test. The 2D/4D finger length ratio as an indicator of prenatal testosterone was used as an average measurement of both hands. Correlation analysis revealed no correlation between salivary testosterone levels and mental rotation. However, we have observed a trend towards a negative correlation. There were no statistically significant results between 2D/4D ratio and mental rotation or between polymorphic three-nucleotide (CAG) repeats and mental rotation tests. Future studies should focus on other genetic determinants of spatial abilities, potentially genes involved in testosterone metabolism.

Revisiting the relationships of 2D:4D with androgen receptor (AR) gene and current testosterone levels: Replication study and meta‐analyses

“…The previous eight studies indicated that testosterone levels are negatively correlated with 2D:4D (Crewther & Cook, ; Durdiaková et al, ; García‐Cruz et al, ; Klimek, Galbarczyk, Nenko, Alvarado, & Jasienska, ; Manning et al, ; Muller et al, ; Perciavalle et al, ; Tan, ), while other two studies showed that they have a strong positive relationship (Chen, Decety, Huang, Chen, & Cheng, ; Durdiaková et al, , ; Oświecimska et al, ). Interestingly, a significant relationship was not found referring to the other 32 studies (Almasry, Domiaty, Algaidi, Elbastawisy, & Safwat, ; Bang et al, ; Benderlioglu & Nelson, ; Borniger, Chaudhry, & Muehlenbein, ; Borráz‐León, Cerda‐Molina, Choi, & Mayagoitia‐Novales, ; Campbell et al, ; Coco et al, ; Durdiaková et al, ; Falter, Arroyo, & Davis, ; Flegr, Lindova, Pivonkova, & Havlicek, ; Folland et al, ; Georgiev, Ryan, Gettler, McDade, & Kuzawa, ; Hönekopp et al, ; Kallai et al, ; Kempel et al, ; Kilduff et al, ; Kubranska et al, ; Li et al, ; Lujan, Bloski, Chizen, Lehotay, & Pierson, ; Maestripieri, Baran, Sapienza, & Zingales, ; Manning et al, ; McIntyre, Li, Chapman, Lipson, & Ellison, ; Neave, Laing, Fink, & Manning, ; Oh, Kim, Yoon, Kim, & Kim, ; Portnoy et al, ; Richards, Klimek, Jasienska, & Marcinkowska, ; Roney & Maestripieri, ; Unal, Urun Unal, Balevi, Tol, & Uyar, ; Vermeersch, T'Sjoen, Kaufman, & Vincke, ; Whitehouse et al, ; Yang, Gray, Zhang, & Pope, ; Zhang et al, ). Regarding our replication study, the results indicate that there is no a significant association between them.…”

“…Relationship between the length of AR (CAG)n and current testosterone levels is somewhat inconsistent referring to the previous studies in males: The four studies indicate that the length is positively correlated with the levels (De Naeyer et al, ; Ma et al, ; Manuck et al, ; Stanworth, Kapoor, Channer, & Jones, ); another study, however, demonstrates a significant negative correlation between them (Mosaad, Shahin, Elkholy, Mosbah, & Badawy, ); and another 15 studies report there is no a significant correlation between them at all (Aluja et al, ; Durdiaková et al, ; Durdiaková et al, ; Eisenegger, Kumsta, Naef, Gromoll, & Heinrichs, ; Gettler et al, ; Goutou, Sakka, Stakias, Stefanidis, & Koukoulis, ; Hampson & Sankar, ; Kubranska et al, ; Lapauw, Goemaere, Crabbe, Kaufman, & Ruige, ; Nowak, Diamond, Land, & Moffat, ; Ryan et al, ; Sankar & Hampson, ; Schneider et al, ; Schneider, Zitzmann, Gromoll, Ladwig, & Berger, ; Stiger et al, ). Regarding the same relationship analyzed by previous studies for females, two studies indicate the length is positively correlated with the levels (Peng et al, ; Skrgatic, Baldani, Cerne, Ferk, & Gersak, ); such relationship, however, is significantly negative (Brum et al, ; Jaaskelainen et al, ); or not significant (Durdiaková et al, ; Jaaskelainen, Korhonen, Voutilainen, Hippelainen, & Heinonen, ; Nowak et al, ).…”

“…Such a relationship in another study, however, was described as a significant negative correlation (De Naeyer et al, ). Furthermore, 12 reports demonstrated that they don't have any significant correlation (Butovskaya et al, ; Durdiaková et al, , ; Folland, Mc Cauley, Phypers, Hanson, & Mastana, ; Hampson & Sankar, ; Hurd et al, ; Kubranska et al, ; Latourelle, Elwess, & Elwess, ; Loehlin, Medland, & Martin, ; Mas et al, ; Zhang, Dang et al, ). As for the previous findings in females, Warrington's study (Warrington et al, ) indicated that the length is positively related to 2D:4D, while other five studies didn't find a significant correlation between them (Durdiaková et al, ; Latourelle et al, ; Loehlin et al, ; Mas et al, ; Zhang, Dang et al, ).…”

On the effects of testosterone on brain behavioral functions

“…The size of the corpus callosum seems to add complexity in the relationship between spatial abilities and testosterone (Karadi et al, 2006 ). This might be one of the causes for negative findings in studies where some of the determinants are missing (Kubranska et al, 2014 ). Another cause is likely the selection of the tested population.…”

Which Data to Meta-Analyze, and How?

“…For our worked example (for study details and findings, see Table 1), we update the most recent, and largest, published meta-analysis of CAG effects on 2D:4D (Voracek, 2014), that encompassed 13 studies published up to 2014 (Butovskaya et al, 2012; De Naeyer et al, 2014; Durdiaková et al, 2013; Folland et al, 2012; Hampson & Sankar, 2012; Hurd, Vaillancourt, & Dinsdale, 2011; Knickmeyer, Woolson, Hamer, Konneker, & Gilmore, 2011; Kubranská et al, 2014; Latourelle, Elwess, & Elwess, 2008; Loehlin, Medland, & Martin, 2012; Manning et al, 2003; Mas et al, 2009; Zhang et al, 2013), which provided a maximum of 18 samples (total N = 2,909) for meta-analytic inclusion, originating from nine countries located on five continents (Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Slovakia, Spain, Tanzania, UK, and USA). Using the same multi-pronged literature search and data retrieval strategies and the same eligibility criteria as in the previous meta-analysis (see Voracek, 2014, for details), we ascertained seven further, more recent, studies (Babková Durdiaková et al., 2017; Chang et al., 2015, Cheng, Zhao, Lu, Liu, & Liu, 2016; Durdiaková, Celec, Laznibatová, Minárik, & Ostatníková, 2016; Durdiaková et al, 2015; Warrington et al, 2018; Zhang et al, 2018), which provided 13 additional samples for inclusion, including two samples from a further country (Denmark: Chang et al, 2015).…”