The Assessment of Sensory Detection Thresholds on the Perineum and Breast Compared with Control Body Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Few studies explored multiple sensory detection thresholds on the perineum and breast, but these normative data may provide standards for clinical conditions such as aging, genital and breast surgeries, pathological conditions affecting the genitals, and sexual function. AIMS: The aim of this study was to provide normative data on sensory detection thresholds of three sensory modalities on the perineum and breast. METHODS: Thirty healthy women aged between 18 and 35 years were assessed on the perineum (clitoris, labia minora, vaginal, and anal margin), breast (lateral, areola, nipple), and control body locations (neck, forearm, abdomen) for three sensory modalities (light touch, pressure, vibration). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Average detection thresholds for each body location and sensory modality and statistical comparisons between the primary genital, secondary sexual, and neutral zones were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: Average detection thresholds for light touch suggest that the neck, forearm, and vaginal margin are most sensitive, and areola least sensitive. No statistical difference is found between the primary and secondary sexual zones, but the secondary sexual zone is significantly more sensitive than the neutral zone. Average detection thresholds for pressure suggest that the clitoris and nipple are most sensitive, and the lateral breast and abdomen least sensitive. No statistical difference is found between the primary and secondary sexual zone, but they are both significantly more sensitive than the neutral zone. Average detection thresholds for vibration suggest that the clitoris and nipple are most sensitive. The secondary sexual zone is significantly more sensitive than the primary and neutral zone, but the latter two show no difference. CONCLUSION: The current normative data from sensory detection threshold are discussed in terms of providing standard values for research and clinical conditions. Additional analysis from breast volume, body mass index, hormonal contraception, menstrual cycle, and sexual orientation do not seem to influence the results. Sexual abstinence and body piercing may have some impact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".