The Relationship between Female Sexual Arousal and Response Bias in Women with and without Provoked Vestibulodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smaller correlations have typically been found between genital and subjective sexual arousal in female versus male samples. This study evaluated the association between response bias and the relationship between genital and subjective arousal (i.e., concordance) in women with (n = 20) and without (n = 21) provoked vestibulodynia. Participants (M = 21.27 years, SD = 2.27) underwent blood flow imaging via a laser Doppler imager to assess genital responsiveness to a visual erotic stimulus; subjective arousal was assessed during and following the film. The relationships between three types of subjective arousal ratings (perceived sexual arousal, perceived genital responsiveness, and reported desire to engage in sexual activity) and two forms of socially desirable responding (impression management and self-deceptive enhancement) were examined. Concordance estimates were statistically non-significant in both groups, with the exception of the desire to engage in sexual activity, which was moderately correlated with genital arousal in the control group. Impression management was not a statistically significant moderator of the relationship between genital and subjective arousal, but was moderately negatively related to the three forms of subjective arousal ratings in the provoked vestibulodynia group. The results highlight the importance of assessing response bias in laboratory studies comparing women with and without sexual dysfunction.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".