Interoception and sexual response in women with low sexual desire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual concordance is defined as the association between genital response and self-reported sexual arousal. Though one might predict a strong association between sexual concordance and awareness of other internal physiological sensations (termed interoception), past research on sexually healthy women has not found these different domains to be related. The aim of the present study was to test the association between interoception and sexual concordance in a clinical sample of women with Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (SIAD). Fifty-two women with SIAD completed the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA), a validated self-report measure of interoception, and completed a heart-beat accuracy test, an objective measure of interoception. They also participated in a laboratory-based assessment of physiological sexual arousal and self-reported sexual arousal while viewing an erotic film. Mental and physiological arousal were correlated at r = 0.27 (range -0.80 to 0.95). There was no significant association between sexual concordance and women's heartrate awareness. However, five aspects of interoceptive awareness (noticing, emotional awareness, self-regulation, body-listening, and trusting), were predictive of lower, and one aspect (not-distracting) was predictive of higher sexual concordance. We discuss the findings in relation to the role of emotions and arousal states in the interoception-sexual concordance relationship.
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) | 0.001 | 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".