MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080164307 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251074

Cognitive processing of sexual cues in asexual individuals and heterosexual women with desire/arousal difficulties

2021· article· en· W3080164307 on OpenAlexafffund
Natalie B. Brown, Diana E. Peragine, Doug P. VanderLaan, Alan Kingstone, Lori A. Brotto

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAsexualityPsychologySexual orientationSexual desireSexual arousalCognitionDevelopmental psychologyArousalDistressAssociation (psychology)Human sexualityGazeSensory cueCognitive psychologySocial psychologyClinical psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asexuality is defined as a unique sexual orientation characterized by a lack of sexual attraction to others. This has been challenged, with some experts positing that it is better explained as a sexual dysfunction. Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (SIAD) is characterized by absent/reduced sexual interest/arousal paired with personal distress, with two subtypes: acquired and lifelong. Research suggests that while asexuality and acquired SIAD are distinct entities, there may be overlap between asexuality and lifelong SIAD. Findings from studies using eye-tracking and implicit association tasks suggest that these methodologies might differentiate these groups on the basis of their neural mechanisms. However, no study has compared their cognitive processing of sexual cues, and the literature on lifelong SIAD is minimal. The current study tested differences in the cognitive processing of sexual cues between asexual individuals and women with SIAD (lifelong and acquired). Forty-two asexual individuals and 25 heterosexual women with SIAD (16: acquired; 9: lifelong) completed three study components: a visual attention task, a Single Category-Implicit Association Task, and the sex semantic differential. ANOVAs examined group differences in: 1) visual attention to erotic cues, 2) implicit appraisals of sexual words, and 3) explicit appraisals of sex. Women with SIAD displayed a controlled attention preference for erotic images and areas of sexual contact, with longer dwell times to these areas relative to asexual individuals, who did not gaze preferentially at erotic cues. For implicit appraisals, all groups demonstrated negative-neutral implicit associations with sexual words. For explicit appraisals, women with acquired SIAD reported more positive evaluations of sex relative to asexual individuals and women with lifelong SIAD. This project sheds light on key differences between asexuality and low desire, and has implications for best clinical practice guidelines for the assessment of lifelong SIAD.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207