Using Eye Tracking to Identify Faking Attempts During Penile Plethysmography Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penile plethysmography (PPG) is considered the most rigorous method for sexual interest assessment. Nevertheless, it is subject to faking attempts by participants, which compromises the internal validity of the instrument. To date, various attempts have been made to limit voluntary control of sexual response during PPG assessments, without satisfactory results. This exploratory research examined eye-tracking technologies' ability to identify the presence of cognitive strategies responsible for erectile inhibition during PPG assessment. Eye movements and penile responses for 20 subjects were recorded while exploring animated human-like computer-generated stimuli in a virtual environment under three distinct viewing conditions: (a) the free visual exploration of a preferred sexual stimulus without erectile inhibition; (b) the viewing of a preferred sexual stimulus with erectile inhibition; and (c) the free visual exploration of a non-preferred sexual stimulus. Results suggest that attempts to control erectile responses generate specific eye-movement variations, characterized by a general deceleration of the exploration process and limited exploration of the erogenous zone. Findings indicate that recording eye movements can provide significant information on the presence of competing covert processes responsible for erectile inhibition. The use of eye-tracking technologies during PPG could therefore lead to improved internal validity of the plethysmographic procedure.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | medium |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".