Asexuality vs. sexual interest/arousal disorder: Examining group differences in initial attention to sexual stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention is considered to be a critical part of the sexual response cycle, and researchers have differentiated between the roles of initial (involuntary) and subsequent (voluntary) attention paid to sexual stimuli as part of the facilitation of sexual arousal. Prior studies using eye-tracking methodologies have shown differing initial attention patterns to erotic stimuli between men and women, as well as between individuals of different sexual orientations. No study has directly compared initial attention to sexual stimuli in asexual individuals, defined by their lack of sexual attraction, to women with Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (SIAD), a disorder characterized by a reduced or absent interest in sex coupled with significant personal distress. The current study tested differences in the initial attention patterns of 29 asexual individuals (Mage = 26.56, SD = 4.80) and 25 heterosexual women with SIAD (Mage = 27.52, SD = 4.87), using eye-tracking. Participants were presented with sexual and neutral stimuli, and their initial eye movements and initial fixations to both image types and areas of erotic contact within sexual images were recorded. Mixed-model ANOVAs and t-tests were used to compare the two groups on the speed with which their initial fixations occurred, the duration of their initial fixations, and the proportion of initial fixations made to sexual stimuli. On two indices of initial attention, women with SIAD displayed an initial attention preference for sexual stimuli over neutral stimuli compared to asexual participants. This study adds to a growing literature on the distinction between asexuality and SIAD, indicating that differences in early attention may be a feature that differentiates the groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".