Examining Visual Attention Patterns among Asexual and Heterosexual Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asexuality has garnered much attention, and empirical data support its classification as a sexual orientation. Asexuality is defined as a lack of sexual attraction to others, with approximately 1% of the population falling in this category. As theoretical models situate attention as a central component of sexual response, the current study examined attentional processing of erotic stimuli in asexuals and heterosexuals. We hypothesized that heterosexual participants would have initial and controlled visual attention patterns favoring erotic images over non-erotic images. We predicted that asexual participants would have significantly smaller or non-existent differences in attention to erotic versus non-erotic images. Ninety-five adults completed an eye-tracking task viewing erotic and non-erotic images. Eye-tracking data showed no group differences in initial attention to erotic images. For controlled attention, there was a large effect size in the hypothesized direction. Heterosexual participants exhibited more and longer fixations on erotic images, whereas asexuals exhibited a more even distribution of attention across image types. Exploratory analysis of group differences in the association between visual attention and ratings of sexual attractiveness revealed a complex pattern of differences, with some indication of a stronger association between total fixation and sexual attraction for heterosexual participants. These findings suggest that differences in attention to sexual stimuli may represent key underlying differences between asexual and allosexual orientation. Findings also contribute to the larger literature on visual attention and attraction.
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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".