Data from: The effect of static versus dynamic stimuli on visual processing of sexual cues in androphilic women and gynephilic men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Models of sexual response posit that attentional processing of sexual cues is requisite for sexual responding. Despite hypothesized similarities in the underlying processes resulting in sexual response, gender differences in sexual arousal patterns are abundant. One such gender difference relates to the stimulus features (e.g., gender cues, sexual activity cues) that elicit a response in men and women. In the current study, we examined how stimulus modality (static visual images versus dynamic audiovisual films) and stimulus features (gender, sexual activity, and nonsexual contextual cues) influences attentional (i.e., gaze) and elaborative (i.e., self-reported attraction, self-reported arousal) processing of sexual stimuli. Men's initial and controlled attention was consistently gender-specific (i.e., greater attention towards female targets), and this was not influenced by stimulus modality or the presence of sexual activity cues. In contrast, gender-specificity of women's attention patterns differed as a function of attentional stage, stimulus modality, and the features within the stimulus. Degree of specificity was positively predictive of self-reported attraction in both genders; however, it was not significantly predictive of self-reported arousal. These findings are discussed in the context of gendered processing of visual sexual information, including a discussion of implications for research designs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".