Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preparation hypothesis posits that women's genital responses (vasocongestion and lubrication) occur automatically in the presence of any sexual stimulus to prevent injuries from sexual activities. It follows that women's genital responses should be easily conditioned to non-sexual cues that reliably predict impending sexual activities. It has been difficult, however, to demonstrate classical conditioning of genital responses in women in the laboratory. In the current study, we used music as an auditory conditioned stimulus (CS) and vignette narrations of consensual sex, non-consensual sex, and neutral (nonsexual) interactions as unconditioned stimuli (US). Eighteen women (range=18–27 years, M=21.9 years, SD=2.2 years,) and 18 men (range=19–29 years, M=22.8 years, SD=2.8 years) were exposed to three neutrally-rated classical music pieces, each paired with a different type of vignette. Participants were exposed to 3 pre-acquisition trials, 12 acquisition trials, and a minimum of 9 extinction trials. After each trial, participants were asked to rate the CS (or the US in CS-US pairings) on pleasantness, anxiousness, and perceived sexual arousal. Vaginal photoplethysmography and penile plethysmography were used to assess changes in genital responses. The sexual vignettes produced genital responses and the nonsexual vignettes did not. We did not observe conditioning of genital responses to music in either sex, but did so for men's and women's feelings of sexual arousal toward songs paired with a consensual sex story. The results were not consistent with the preparation hypothesis.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".