Woman,Thinking,While,Reading,A,Book,At,Home,being,Distracted,By

(Credit: eldar nurkovic on Shutterstock)

In a Nutshell

  • Women with higher natural progesterone levels showed less distinct brain activity patterns in a region tied to controlling emotional reactions, called the lateral frontal pole.
  • That weaker brain signal was connected to worse mood over the previous week, and it appeared to fully account for the link between progesterone and mood.
  • People generally reacted slower and made more mistakes when their gut emotional reaction clashed with what they were told to do, such as approaching an angry face or avoiding a happy one.

Holding back a smile while a friend delivers bad news, or mustering a warm reply to someone who just snapped, takes a small act of mental override. That override runs in the background of the brain all day, and new research links one of the body’s own hormones to fuzzier activity in the very circuit that carries it out.

A study published in Psychological Medicine scanned the brains of 116 healthy young women and found that those with higher natural progesterone levels showed weaker, less distinct activity patterns in a brain region that reins in automatic emotional reactions. Women whose brain signals were fuzziest in this region also reported feeling worse over the previous week. When researchers crunched the numbers, that fuzzier signal statistically explained the link between progesterone and lower mood, though the single snapshot of hormones and brain activity cannot prove the hormone caused either.

Scientists have long known hormones like estrogen and progesterone shift mood, but how they do it inside the brain has remained murky. This study used a sharper brain-scanning technique than most past research, allowing the team to catch subtle shifts that simpler methods often miss. Rather than just checking whether a region switched on or off, researchers tested whether its activity pattern was distinct enough to separate different emotional situations. In women with higher progesterone, it wasn’t.

How the Study Tested Emotional Control

Participants, all naturally cycling women between 18 and 35, played a simple computer game while lying in a brain scanner. Photos of faces, some angry, some happy, popped up on screen. Sometimes the rules matched instinct: approach the happy face, avoid the angry one. Other times the rules flipped, asking participants to approach the angry face and avoid the happy one, forcing the brain to override its automatic pull toward reward and away from threat.

As expected, people were slower and less accurate when the rules clashed with instinct. Approaching an angry face or avoiding a happy one took more effort than following the natural pull. That pattern confirmed the task measured emotional self-control, not something else.

Before entering the scanner, each woman gave a saliva sample so researchers could measure her estradiol and progesterone levels, two hormones produced by the ovaries. After the scan, participants also filled out a questionnaire about their mood over the past week.

What the Brain Scans Revealed About Progesterone and Mood

Rather than simply checking which brain areas lit up, the researchers used a technique that reads patterns across many points of brain tissue at once, then tests whether those patterns reliably signal what task a person was doing. Several regions passed this test, including a spot near the front of the brain known as the lateral frontal pole, along with a region that helps turn emotional signals into action, and a few areas involved in vision and threat responses.

Among these, the frontal pole stood out. Earlier research has already tied this region to reining in automatic approach and avoidance urges, and weaker activity there has shown up before in people struggling with anxiety, trauma symptoms, and aggression. In this study, women with higher progesterone had less distinct, less readable activity patterns in that same region. The brain’s signal for “this is an approach situation” versus “this is an avoid situation” grew muddier as progesterone rose.

A weaker signal in the frontal pole was also connected to worse mood scores from the previous week. When the researchers tested whether this brain signal explained the hormone-mood connection, they found it did; an alternative explanation, that brain activity was driving mood through hormone levels rather than the other way around, did not hold up. Estradiol, the other ovarian hormone measured, was not clearly linked to mood or task performance in this group of women.

One detail is easy to miss. Progesterone was not tied to how fast or accurately women actually performed the task, so the women were not measurably worse at emotional control. The hormone showed up in the brain’s signal and in reported mood, not in their scores.

That effect accounted for a modest slice of the differences in mood scores, about 7% of the variation. The authors are careful to note that a connection this size, while real, still leaves plenty of mood variation unexplained by this one mechanism.

Infographic showing higher progesterone linked to less distinct brain patterns involved in emotional control in 116 healthy young women.
Infographic by StudyFinds

Emotional self-control is not some abstract laboratory skill. Weakness in this same brain circuit shows up across a range of mental health struggles, so a hormone that blurs its signal is worth a closer look. If progesterone really does nudge this system toward a fuzzier state, that could help explain why some women notice their emotional footing feels shakier at certain points in their cycle, even when nothing else in their lives has changed.

Researchers behind the study point to brain stimulation aimed at the frontal pole as one possible direction for future work, since earlier studies have shown that targeting this region can improve performance on tasks like the one used here and may even ease social anxiety. Even so, this study was not a treatment trial. It was a snapshot of brain activity and hormone levels in healthy women, not a test of any intervention.

What the findings do not show deserves equal attention. The menstrual cycle phase itself, whether a woman was in an earlier or later stage of her cycle, did not reliably predict mood or brain activity in this group. Progesterone level, measured directly through saliva, was the more precise marker. That distinction matters because broad assumptions about “that time of the month” can miss the more specific hormonal signal actually at play.

Emotional control often goes unnoticed until it slips. This study offers a biological thread connecting a naturally occurring hormone to less distinct activity in the brain circuit that helps rein in automatic reactions, and from there, to how a person actually feels day to day. That’s not a reason for alarm, but it is a reason to take hormone-linked mood changes seriously as something rooted in brain biology rather than dismissing them as simply emotional noise.

Disclaimer: This article summarizes peer-reviewed research and is provided for informational purposes only. The study is observational, so it can show that progesterone was associated with brain activity and mood but cannot prove that the hormone causes either. It looked at healthy young women at a single point in time and did not test any treatment. Nothing here is medical advice. Anyone with concerns about hormones, mood, or mental health should speak with a qualified healthcare professional.

Paper Notes

Limitations

Study authors flagged several caveats. Hormone levels were measured just once per participant rather than tracked repeatedly across the cycle, so the data cannot fully separate short-term hormonal states from more stable personal traits. Saliva-based estradiol measurements are less precise for pinpointing cycle stage than progesterone, and chewing gum, used to stimulate saliva production, can also alter hormone readings. The authors estimated menstrual cycle phase from self-reported cycle length rather than direct hormone confirmation, adding further imprecision. Authors also note the study had limited statistical power to detect smaller effects, though it retained solid power for effects around the size actually observed. Because the design was cross-sectional, meaning everything was measured at a single point in time, the researchers caution that the mediation results suggest a plausible mechanism but do not prove that progesterone causes the brain and mood changes.

Funding and Disclosures

Funding came from a 2022 Young Investigator Award granted to the lead author by the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation. The authors reported no competing interests. The paper also notes that ChatGPT assisted with literature synthesis and data analysis during manuscript preparation, and the authors state they reviewed and edited the content and take full responsibility for the final published article.

Publication Details

Paper Title: “Endogenous progesterone blurs frontostriatal representations of emotion control in healthy young women”

Authors: MaciĂ  Buades-Rotger, Rosamunde Hendricks, Beatrice Roncarati, Marta CalderĂ³n-GarcĂ­a, Kaja Bergmann, and Francisco JosĂ© PĂ©rez-Cano.

Journal: Psychological Medicine (2026), volume 56, article e263

DOI: 10.1017/S0033291726105315

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor