MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903237287 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.10.013

Is Pelvic Floor sEMG a Measure of Women’s Sexual Response?

2018· article· en· W2903237287 on OpenAlexaff
M. N. Hannan-Leith, Marcy Dayan, Gillian L. Hatfield, Martin L. Lalumière, Arianne Albert, Lori A. Brotto

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaNative Mental Health Association of CanadaUniversity of the Fraser ValleyInstitute for Christian StudiesWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBulbocavernosus reflexSexual arousalPelvic floorConcordanceAnxietyElectromyographyArousalPsychologyFacial electromyographyPelvic Floor MusclePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyAudiologySurgeryAnesthesiaInternal medicinePsychiatryReflexSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Pelvic floor surface electromyography (sEMG) is often used in the assessment and treatment of individuals with pelvic floor abnormalities to measure muscle tone and neural control of the pelvic floor muscles (PFM); however, little is known about the role of the PFM in sexual arousal. AIM: The aim of this pilot study was to examine whether changes in deep and superficial PFM activity-assessed with sEMG-can be observed during the presentation of sexual stimuli. METHODS: Deep PFM sEMG activity was assessed with a vaginal probe. Superficial PFM activity was assessed with sEMG electrodes placed over the bulbocavernosus and perianal muscles. 15 sexually healthy women (mean age 27 years) watched a series of neutral, anxiety-evoking, and sexually explicit films. Continuous subjective sexual arousal was measured using a handheld arousometer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes in microvolts were measured by sEMG sensors, from neutral to anxiety-evoking and neutral to sexually explicit films. RESULTS: There was an increase in intravaginal and perianal sEMG for both the erotic and anxiety films. Bulbocavernosus sEMG responses did not differ among the 3 films. Concordance between self-reported continuous sexual arousal for the erotic film and bulbocavernosus sEMG (r = 0.349) was not significantly different than concordance using intravaginal sEMG (r = 0.293) or perianal sEMG (r = 0.236). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Understanding more about which parts of the PFM respond specifically to sexual stimuli may have implications for measuring the effects of treatments aimed at improving sexual response in women. STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: The results of this pilot study provide a preliminary understanding of which pelvic floor muscles respond to sexual stimuli. A limitation of this study was the small sample size. CONCLUSION: Taken together, these findings suggest that intravaginal and perianal sEMG respond to erotic stimuli, whereas bulbocavernosal sEMG responses do not. Hannan-Leith MN, Dayan M, Hatfield G, et al. Is Pelvic Floor Surface Electromyography a Measure of Women's Sexual Response? A Pilot Study. J Sex Med 2019;16:70-82.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207