Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory deprivation has been used in a number of clinical contexts either as a form of therapy by itself or in conjunction with other therapeutic techniques. The characteristics of increasing persuasibility and receptivity to therapeutic input make sensory deprivation an attractive tool for many varieties of behaviour change. In past research sensory deprivation has been used in the treatment of poor self image, autism, phobias, and smoking. This study was designed to extend previous research in which sensory deprivation was used to successfully moderate or eliminate health endangering behavior. In the research on smoking the technique was used in conjunction with appropriate messages to help psychologically addicted smokers to stop smoking (Suedfeld, 1973). The present project applied the sensory deprivation technique to the problem of obesity caused by overeating. The design was a 2 x 2 factorial with the major variables being (1) sensory deprivation (SD) versus non-confinement (NC), and (2) therapeutic messages (M) versus no messages (NM). Subjects were 39 female volunteers between the ages of 20 and 56 who responded to announcements of an experimental weight loss programme. The subjects were assigned to one of the four experimental groups which were equated for weight, age, and marital status. Sensory deprivation consisted of lying in a dark, quiet chamber for 24 hours; the messages consisted of two sets of communications concerning weight loss. The first set of messages was concerned with body orientation, relaxation, and controlling urges; the second set dealt with specific behavioural self-control techniques. The group which received both sensory deprivation and messages heard the messages during their stay in sensory deprivation. Following the experimental treatment, all subjects were given a standard diet manual and standardized instructions in its use. Subjects were seen periodically over the following six months. The weight loss data at six months show a significant interaction between sensory deprivation and message. The combined treatment (SDM mean = 5.87 Kg) was superior to the other three groups (SDNM mean = 1.08 Kg, NCM mean = .67 Kg, NCNM mean = 2.36 Kg). There were no significant changes in skinfold measurements. The weight loss data at two months showed a significant message effect with those who heard the messages losing 3.14 Kg versus 1.23 Kg for those who did not. Weight loss over the final four months showed a condition effect with those who had sensory deprivation losing 1.58 Kg, while the nonconfined subjects gained .98 Kg. These results are discussed in terms of the motivating characteristics of sensory deprivation. When various demographic and behavioural data were regressed on weight change, three significant predictors emerged. The facts were that the more difficulty the subject anticipated, the more weight she lost; the stronger her motive to please her spouse, the less weight she lost; and the more she was concerned with eating slowly, the more weight she lost. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for future treatments of obesity. The present study is also discussed in comparison with other sensory deprivation studies and other obesity treatment studies.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".