The Relationship Between Sexual Concordance and Interoception in Anxious and Nonanxious Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sexual concordance refers to the association between physiological and self-reported sexual arousal. Women typically exhibit lower sexual concordance scores than men. There is also a sex difference in interoception--awareness of (nonsexual) physiological states or responses--such that women, compared with men, tend to be less aware of and less accurate at detecting changes in their physiological responses. Women with anxiety problems tend to have better interoceptive abilities than nonanxious women. AIM: To investigate whether women's lower sexual concordance is associated with interoception using a sample likely to show high variation in interoceptive abilities. METHOD: Sixteen anxious and 15 nonanxious women were presented with twelve 90 seconds sexual and nonsexual film clips while their genital response, heart rate, and respiration rate were measured. A heartbeat mental tracking task was also employed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Genital response was measured with a vaginal photoplethysmograph. Heart rate was measured with an electrocardiogram and respiration rate with a thermistor. Participants estimated their physiological responses after each film. A mental tracking task was also used to assess participants' awareness of heart rate. Within-subject correlations were computed for each physiological/self-reported response combination. RESULTS: Overall, sexual concordance (i.e., the correlation between genital responses and perceptions of genital response) was not significantly associated with heart rate awareness or respiration rate awareness. Anxious women did not exhibit significantly higher sexual concordance or heart rate awareness than nonanxious women; the nonanxious women actually exhibited higher respiration rate awareness. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that sexual concordance may be a distinct phenomenon from interoception and in need of its own explanation.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".