Neural Correlates and Perceived Attractiveness of Male and Female Shoulder-to-Hip Ratio in Men and Women: An EEG Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there are studies regarding the neural correlates of human facial attractiveness, there are few investigations considering neural responses for body form attractiveness. The most prominent physical feature defining men's attractiveness is their physical fitness and upper body strength. Shoulder-to-hip ratio (SHR), a sexually dimorphic trait in humans, is an indicator of men's attractiveness for both men and women. The current study is the first to report on the neurophysiological responses to male and female body forms varying in SHR in healthy heterosexual men and women observers. Electroencephalographic (EEG) signals were acquired while participants completed an oddball task as well as a subsequent attractiveness judgement task. Behavioral results showed larger SHRs were considered more attractive than smaller SHRs, regardless of stimuli and participants' sex. The electrophysiological results for both the oddball task and the explicit judgement of attractiveness showed that brain activity related to male SHR body stimuli differed depending on the specific ratios, both at early and late processing stages. For female avatars, SHR did not modulate neural activity. Collectively the data implicate posterior brain regions in the perception of body forms that differ in attractiveness vis-a-vis variation of SHR, and frontal brain regions when such perceptions are rated explicitly.
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".