Interoceptive Awareness, Alexithymia, and Sexual Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in women suggests a relation between sexual difficulties and lower interoceptive awareness, the conscious perception of internal bodily states. Lower interoceptive awareness is theoretically linked to greater alexithymia, which has been related to sexual dysfunctions. Hence, we examined the relations of interoceptive awareness and alexithymia with several dimensions of sexual functioning in a nonclinical sample of both sexes. Methods: Three hundred forty Portuguese (228 women, 112 men) completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA). Women additionally completed the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the Female Sexual Distress Scale–Revised (FSDS-R). Men additionally completed the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and one question on difficulties delaying ejaculation. Greater alexithymia correlated with lesser interoceptive awareness. For women, greater alexithymia and lesser interoceptive awareness correlated with lesser arousal, lesser lubrication, more orgasm difficulties, more dissatisfaction, more pain, and more sexual distress. Higher female desire correlated with greater interoceptive awareness, but was unrelated to alexithymia. In men, lesser interoceptive awareness correlated with more difficulties delaying ejaculation, and greater alexithymia correlated with more erectile difficulties. The present investigation corroborates that awareness of emotions and internal bodily states is important for sexual functioning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".