MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107878958 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.10.005

Visual Attention to Sexual Stimuli in Women With Clinical, Subclinical, and Normal Sexual Functioning: An Eye-Tracking Study

2020· article· en· W3107878958 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubclinical infectionSexual arousalSex organPsychologyAudiologyFixation (population genetics)Eye trackingDevelopmental psychologySexual functionEye movementClinical psychologyMedicineSexual behaviorPopulationInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Visual attention to sexual stimuli is an important means to facilitate sexual arousal and is thereby relevant for healthy sexual functioning. Experimental studies suggest that sexual dysfunction is associated with less attention toward sexual stimuli. AIM: The goal of this study was to use an eye-tracking-based free-viewing paradigm to investigate whether women in the clinical range of sexual function attend to a genital area in visual sexual stimuli differently than women with subclinical sexual function or those with normal sexual functioning. METHODS: = 27.77, SD = 8.00, range = 19-54) with clinical (n = 30), subclinical (n = 23), and normal (n = 16) levels of sexual functioning watched a series of 10 pictures depicting heterosexual couples during vaginal intercourse while their eye movements were recorded. Each picture was presented twice-once with a distracting object (eg, a to-do list or household appliance) present in the picture and once without-for 8 seconds, each. OUTCOMES: 5 eye-tracking measures indicative of different aspects of initial and sustained attention were analyzed. RESULTS: As hypothesized, 3 out of 5 eye-tracking measures (ie, first fixation duration, number of first fixations, and total fixation duration) indicated that women in the clinical group attended less to the genital area in the pictures than women with normal sexual functioning. For 2 indices (ie, first fixation duration and total fixation duration), women with subclinical (vs normal) sexual functioning also attended less to the genital area. In contrast to our hypothesis, the presence of a distracting object did not influence attention to the genital area in either of the sexual function groups. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study provides further evidence of the role of attentional biases in sexual dysfunction in women. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Eye-tracking methodology allows for a continuous measurement of visual attention; this is one of the first studies using this methodology to assess differences in visual attention in women with and without sexual dysfunction. However, the cross-sectional nature of this study prevents causal interpretation of findings. CONCLUSION: Future studies should use experimental paradigms to determine the causal role of visual attention for the development or maintenance of sexual dysfunction. Velten J, Milani S, Margraf J, et al. Visual Attention to Sexual Stimuli in Women With Clinical, Subclinical, and Normal Sexual Functioning: An Eye-Tracking Study. J Sex Med 2021;18:144-155.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.299 · 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