Examining gender specificity of sexual response with concurrent thermography and plethysmography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men's genital responses are significantly greater to sexual stimuli of their preferred gender compared to their nonpreferred gender (gender-specific), whereas androphilic (i.e., sexually attracted to men) women's genital responses are similar to sexual stimuli depicting either women or men (gender-nonspecific). This gendered pattern of genital response has only been demonstrated using vaginal photoplethysmography (VPP) in women and primarily penile plethysmography (PPG) in men. These measures assess different aspects of genital vasocongestion, thereby limiting comparisons between genders. Thermography is a newer sexual psychophysiology methodology that measures genital vasocongestion via temperature change and is better suited to assess sexual response between genders because the dependent measure, change in genital temperature, is similar for women and men. Further, previous studies have assessed gender specificity of sexual response across relatively short sexual stimuli, allowing only the examination of initial phases of sexual response. We examined gender specificity of sexual arousal by measuring women's and men's genital responses to lengthier stimuli with concurrent thermography and VPP/PPG. Gynephilic men (i.e., sexually attracted to women; n = 27) and androphilic women (n = 28) viewed 10-min films depicting men masturbating, women masturbating, and a nonsexual film, and reported feelings of sexual arousal while genital responses were assessed. Across measures, men's sexual responses were gender-specific and women's responses were gender-nonspecific, indicating that the gender difference in gender specificity of arousal is robust to methodology and stimulus duration. These findings replicate previous research, extend knowledge of gendered sexual response, and highlight the utility of multimethod approaches in sexual psychophysiology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".