While some evidence suggests gender-based differences in processing speed, such claims require scrutiny. For instance, although Mathe et al.⁴ report variability in recognition speeds between men and women, these findings are often generalised without accounting for task specificity or individual variability. Studies noting that women recognise faces and emotional expressions more quickly^23,24 tend to associate this with social cognition, but such conclusions may overlook confounding variables such as sociocultural conditioning and sample diversity. Conversely, the observation that men excel in dynamic spatial environments²⁵ may reflect gendered experiences or training rather than innate ability. However, other research indicates that when variables such as age, task familiarity and training are taken into account, these disparities become less pronounced.^7,19 Gender effects do exist, but they are mitigated by context and experience.

Research suggesting that women may exhibit heightened peripheral sensitivity^26,27,28 often frames this in terms of environmental monitoring and evolutionary roles such as caregiving or foraging. However, such interpretations risk reinforcing outdated gender essentialist views without accounting for broader contextual factors, such as modern environmental demands or task-specific training. David et al.²⁹ claim that boys demonstrate improved peripheral vision in traffic-related tasks, raising questions about how early exposure, familiarity with stimuli and expectations shape performance. In addition, hormonal and sociocultural influences are acknowledged,³⁰ yet these factors are rarely isolated or systematically examined across studies. Thus, while some sex-based trends in peripheral awareness are reported, attributing these to biological determinism may obscure the dynamic, plastic nature of visio-spatial processing shaped by learning, environment and cultural practices.

While men are often reported to outperform women in tasks requiring rapid, forceful movements, and women tend to excel in precision-based tasks,^31,32,33 these distinctions may oversimplify a complex interaction of biological factors, including hormonal influences and neuroanatomical differences, alongside sociocultural conditioning.³⁴ When practice and exposure are controlled, Orhan et al.³⁵ report no significant overall differences, highlighting the importance of opportunity and training. The body of research suggests that sex differences may be more reflective of experience and opportunity than innate ability, calling for more nuanced research designs that control for such confounds.

Women generally show advantages in object recognition, facial memory and recalling visual details, potentially linked to stronger verbal and episodic memory processes. Conversely, men often outperform women in spatial memory tasks, such as mental rotation and navigation.^12,36,37 While biological factors such as brain structure likely contribute, social and environmental influences also play critical roles in shaping these abilities.³⁸ Importantly, the considerable individual variability and overlapping performance suggest that gender differences should not be overstated.³⁹ The complex interplay of genetics, experience and context highlights the need for more refined research methods that account for these confounding factors, rather than attributing differences solely to sex.³⁹

Some research suggests men outperform women in dynamic visual tracking, whereas women may excel in sustained attention and detail-oriented tasks.^37,40,41 However, these findings are not universally replicable, indicating that gender effects on concentration may be context-dependent and moderated by task design. Neurobiological factors, including brain structure and hormonal influences, are often proposed explanations,^30,42 but the extent to which these directly cause attentional differences remains unclear. In addition, sociocultural influences, such as differential exposure to certain activities during development, complicate interpretations.⁴³ When considered collectively, the literature demonstrates the highly task-dependent nature of attention-related differences.

Studies typically show men outperforming women in speed, particularly in rapid motor response tasks.^44,45 This gender difference is often attributed to biological factors such as hormonal influences like testosterone, greater muscle mass and neuromuscular efficiency.¹⁹ However, these explanations risk oversimplification, as they may understate the contribution of environmental and experiential factors. For instance, men’s greater involvement in reflex-enhancing sports and activities likely contributes to faster reaction times.^46,47 Conversely, women’s superior performance in accuracy-focused and sustained attention tasks⁴⁸ suggests a trade-off between speed and precision rather than a simple speed advantage. Importantly, reaction time differences are further modulated by training, cognitive strategies and situational variables,⁴⁹ suggesting that gender effects are not fixed but rather context-dependent.

Some studies suggest women may exhibit superior accommodation ability, potentially because of ocular anatomical differences or hormonal influences.^19,21 However, conflicting evidence exists, with other research reporting no significant gender differences.⁵⁰ This inconsistency highlights substantial individual variability and suggests that external factors such as environmental conditions and measurement techniques could heavily influence results.⁵¹ Gender disparities relating to accommodations are therefore yet unclear.

Research indicates that men generally demonstrate superior dynamic visual acuity possibly because of a higher density of rod cells in the retina, which are more sensitive to motion.⁵² Conversely, women tend to have a greater number of cone cells, supporting colour discrimination and fine detail resolution.⁵³ While hormonal influences such as testosterone and oestrogen have been proposed to modulate these visual processing differences,¹⁹ the evidence remains largely correlational, and causal links are not well established.

Research shows that men generally demonstrate superior depth perception, especially in tasks requiring spatial awareness, consistent with broader findings showing male advantages in mental rotation and navigation tasks.³⁷ This male advantage has often been interpreted through an evolutionary lens, suggesting that spatial skills were favoured for activities such as hunting and navigation.¹⁹ However, this perspective can oversimplify complex cognitive processes and may underrepresent the influence of cultural and educational experiences that shape spatial abilities. Conversely, women tend to outperform men in colour vision and fine detail discrimination, potentially reflecting evolutionary adaptations related to foraging and plant identification.⁵⁴ Nonetheless, these distinctions are not absolute, and considerable individual variability exists, underscoring the need for research that considers both biological and socioenvironmental contributors to depth perception.

Evidence suggests that men may exhibit poorer discrimination in the middle of the spectrum, particularly for greenish tones,^55,56 while women tend to show greater sensitivity to long-wavelength colours.⁵⁷ However, Rodríguez-Carmona et al.⁵⁸ found no significant gender differences when controlling for normal vision, highlighting the potential influence of genetic variability, especially X-chromosome linked factors. These mixed results suggest that colour discrimination differences between sexes may be less pronounced than commonly assumed and emphasise the importance of considering genetic, methodological and sample selection factors when interpreting such findings.

Research reports that men typically have faster saccadic velocities and shorter latencies than women;⁵⁹ these differences may stem from a combination of cerebral processing speed, hormonal influences and ocular motor control variations.²² Conversely, some research indicates women may exhibit greater accuracy in specific saccadic tasks, potentially because of enhanced visual attention and cognitive processing.^60,61 Importantly, findings are not consistent across all studies, with some showing no significant gender differences,⁶² highlighting how task demands, sample characteristics and methodological approaches can profoundly impact results.⁶³

Research indicates men generally exhibit shorter fixation durations and more frequent shifts in attention, whereas women tend to have longer fixations, suggesting a more detail-focused processing approach.^19,64,65 While neurological explanations point to men’s greater reliance on right-hemisphere spatial processing and women’s more bilateral hemisphere engagement during complex visual tasks,⁶⁶ these findings are limited by small sample sizes and the variability of task designs. In addition, the extent to which fixation differences translate into functional advantages remains unclear, emphasising the need for further research that controls for cognitive strategy and individual differences.

Studies suggest that women exhibit stronger gaze-cueing effects, sustain longer eye contact and shift gaze more frequently during social interactions.^18,67 This pattern reflects greater attention to facial features and emotional cues, implying heightened sensitivity to social and contextual information.⁶⁸ In contrast, men typically display a more dispersed gaze pattern, focusing on object- or spatial-related information. However, these observed differences are influenced by both biological factors, such as hormonal levels and sociocultural conditioning, which complicates attributing causality.

Research shows mixed findings⁶⁹ Jedziniak et al.⁷⁰ reported that male goalkeepers exhibit longer fixation durations than women during penalty shots, implying men may utilise more prolonged visual focus in high-pressure, goal-directed tasks; this finding is not consistent across studies. Lebeau et al.⁷¹ found no significant gender differences in quiet eye when training and experience were controlled, highlighting that expertise and practice may be more critical factors than gender itself.

A study conducted by Bayliss et al.¹⁸ found that women exhibit stronger gaze-cueing responses, suggesting greater sensitivity to social cues. Ohlsen, Van Zoest and Van Vugt⁷² reported no significant gender differences in gaze cueing, despite the influence of facial dominance, indicating that gender may not be a primary factor. Furthermore, Bayliss and Tipper⁷³ argued that variables such as task demands and emotional context exert stronger effects on gaze cueing than gender. These mixed results, alongside varying methodologies and contextual influences, emphasise the complexity of gaze-cueing mechanisms and suggest that gender differences may be minimal or secondary to situational factors.

Findings are inconsistent.⁷⁴ Feng et al.⁷⁵ reported that women exhibit greater Event-Related Potential (ERP) amplitudes during attention-shift tasks, suggesting heightened cognitive engagement and possibly more efficient recruitment of brain areas related to visuo-spatial attention. However, Dong et al.⁷⁶ found no significant gender differences in visual behaviour during spatial orientation tasks, highlighting inconsistencies in the literature. These conflicting findings may result from differences in task complexity, measurement techniques or sample characteristics.