A review of published studies on virtual reality in sexuality research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Virtual reality (VR) technology contributes to greater approach of methodological safety to make ecological validity more feasible and a growing interest in sexuality behaviors. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to show VR in the sexuality area by a comprehensive review of outcomes, offer a synthesis of the studies, and make a methodological quality assessment of finding results. A secondary goal was to investigate the effect of immersion on diverse sexual responses outcomes. METHODS: We designed a review based on a systematic review strategy describing types of studies, participants, data collection and outcomes; searched in 4 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and SciELO), and made a full-text screening process. RESULTS: The study found 18 articles that met research criteria synthesized within 3 outcome groups: erection measures, level of immersion, and biomarker studies. Synthesis shows a lack of methodological aspects that impair results, such as description of methods from bias protection, randomization, or concealment. The literature still needs to improve its methodology, even though it already shows relevant data for intervention in sexual dysfunction, forensic psychiatry, sexual attraction, orientation, and use of pornography. CONCLUSION: Current methodological issues need better design to highlight relevant issues in sexuality with stronger quality of design, opening boundaries to new diagnostic or interventional technologies to sexual health.
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 | 0.050 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".