The Clitoral Photoplethysmograph: A Pilot Study Examining Discriminant and Convergent Validity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The clitoral photoplethysmograph (CPP) is a relatively new device used to measure changes in clitoral blood volume (CBV); however, its construct validity has not yet been evaluated. AIM: To evaluate the discriminant and convergent validity of the CPP. For discriminant validity, CBV responses should differ between sexual and nonsexual emotional films if the CPP accurately assesses clitoral vasocongestion associated with sexual arousal; for convergent validity, CBV responses should significantly correlate with subjective reports of sexual arousal. METHODS: Twenty women (M age = 21.2 years, SD = 3.4) watched neutral, anxiety-inducing, exhilarating, and sexual (female-male sex) audiovisual stimuli while their genital responses were measured simultaneously using vaginal and clitoral photoplethysmographs and CPPs. Most of these participants continuously reported sexual arousal throughout each stimulus (n = 16), and all reported their sexual and nonsexual affect before and after each stimulus; subjective responses were recorded via button presses using a keypad. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vaginal pulse amplitude (VPA), CBV, and self-reported sexual arousal and nonsexual affect were used as main outcome measures. RESULTS: CBV demonstrated both discriminant and convergent validity. CBV responses were similar to VPA responses and self-reported sexual arousal; all responses differed significantly as a function of stimulus content, with the sexual stimulus eliciting greater relative changes than nonsexual stimuli. CBV, but not VPA, was significantly (negatively) correlated with continuous self-reported sexual arousal during the shorter sexual stimulus. CBV was significantly negatively correlated with VPA for the shorter sexual stimulus. CONCLUSION: CBV may be a valid measure of women's genital sexual arousal that provides complementary information to VPA and correlates with self-reported sexual arousal. Given our relatively small sample size, and that this is among the first research to use the CPP, the current findings must be replicated. More research using the CPP and other devices is required for a more comprehensive description of women's physiological sexual arousal.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".