The study builds on a well-established phenomenon in visual psychology known as the inversion effect. People are far better at recognising faces and bodies when they are upright than when they are upside down, a signature of processing an image as a person rather than as an object, for which orientation makes far less difference. Previous laboratory work had shown that this upright advantage shrinks for sexualised images of women but not for images of men, in both male and female viewers, suggesting that sexualised women are processed more like objects. Professor Ciro Civile of the University of Exeter, who led the study, explained the stakes of that finding: “Sexual objectification means treating a person as a body to be looked at or used, rather than as a whole person. It’s dehumanising and most often experienced by women.”

The experiment involved 54 female and 22 male students, each of whom first memorised images of male and female models in underwear photographed in sexualised poses. The images were shown both upright and upside down, and participants were later asked whether they recognised the models when these were mixed in with previously unseen images. While they carried out the recognition task, half of the group received active tDCS for ten minutes, in which a weak current passes between two small electrodes resting on the scalp, one on the left side of the forehead and the other above the right eyebrow. The other half received a placebo of just 30 seconds of stimulation, and neither the participants nor the experimenters knew who was in which group. The technique is widely used in research and typically causes no more than a mild tingling sensation; no adverse effects were reported in the study.

The results followed a clear pattern. In the placebo group, participants recognised images of male models much more easily when upright than when upside down, the usual signature of person-like processing, while for images of women that advantage was significantly smaller, closer to the pattern typically seen for objects. In the group that received active stimulation, recognition of upright images of women improved, and the difference between how images of men and women were processed was no longer present. The stimulation made no difference to the upright advantage for images of men. Recognition was tested during the stimulation or immediately afterwards, so the study did not measure how long the effect lasts, and the findings reflect laboratory performance on a recognition task rather than measured attitudes or behaviour.

The stimulation protocol followed a method that Civile’s laboratory at Exeter has previously used to reduce other biases in face recognition, including the tendency to recognise faces of one’s own race and one’s own age group more accurately than those of others. In those earlier studies, the stimulation removed the bias by reducing people’s advantage for faces from their own group. In the new study, it worked differently, improving recognition of the upright images of women instead. “Until now, studies had reduced this bias by changing the images or the viewer’s mindset – for example, by pixelating sexual body parts, giving humanising information, or making people feel less powerful,” Civile said. “We acted directly on the brain of the person doing the looking instead. Both groups saw exactly the same pictures, so the bias seems to lie in how we process the images rather than in the images themselves, which opens new avenues for understanding how gender-based biases arise in perception.”

The broader context gives the finding its weight. Sexual objectification is pervasive in film, television, social media and advertising, and has been linked to greater tolerance of harassment, as well as body shame, anxiety, eating disorders and depression. It also encourages self-objectification, in which women internalise other people’s view of them and come to judge themselves by their appearance and by public approval. Against that backdrop, a manipulation that alters the perceptual processing of sexualised images at the level of the individual brain offers researchers a new experimental tool, even if its real-world significance remains untested.

The authors themselves are careful about the scope of the result. “Our findings are initial evidence that the way our visual system processes sexualised images of women can be changed, at least temporarily, by mildly stimulating the brain,” Civile said. “This was a lab study – we didn’t measure attitudes or behaviour, and brain stimulation is no cure for sexism – but it gives us a new way to study how objectification works.” The paper, titled ‘Disrupting Objectification: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) enhances the Inversion Effect toward Sexualized Women’, by Ciro Civile and Arwen Stephens, was published on 23 October 2026 in Social Neuroscience.

Subject of Research: The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on the perceptual inversion effect for sexualised images of women

Article Title: Brain stimulation temporarily changes perception of sexualized images of women

Article References: Brain stimulation temporarily changes perception of sexualized images of women. Original publication (Bibliographic details unavailable.)

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: transcranial direct current stimulation, sexual objectification, inversion effect, face recognition, social neuroscience, visual perception, gender bias, University of Exeter, tDCS, dehumanisation, experimental psychology, brain stimulation