Assessing female sexual arousal with the labial thermistor: Response specificity and construct validity

Prause, Nicole; Heiman, Julia R.

doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.11.002

Cited by 37 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Assuming a .35 effect size for a two-tailed test with alpha = .05, df num = 2 and df denom = 38, the correlation with each factor estimated at r = .9 and the SD estimated at .45 for ANCOVA, a .88 power could be achieved with N = 40 (Faul & Erdfelder, 1992). Estimated values were based on previous research by Prause and Heiman (2009). Power was calculated using PASS software (NCSS Statistical Software, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has demonstrated convergent (Henson, Rubin, Henson, & Williams, 1977) and discriminant (Prause & Heiman, 2009) validity. It also has demonstrated clinical utility in verifying sexual arousal prior to testing pain thresholds for dyspareunia (Payne et al, 2007).…”

Section: Labial Thermistormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The scale anchors provided ranged from 0 (not at all sexually aroused) to 100 (maximum arousal). Maximum arousal was defined as the most sexually arousing experience that the participant could recall ever having experienced (Prause & Heiman, 2009).…”

Section: Levermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Individual Differences on the Efficacy of Different Distracters During Visual Sexual Stimulation in Women

Roberts

Prause

2011

Arch Sex Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distractions from sexual cues have been shown to decrease the sexual response, but it is unclear how distracters decrease sexual response. Individual differences may modulate the efficacy of distracters. Forty women viewed three sexual films while their labial temperature and continuous self-reported sexual arousal were monitored. One sexual film had simultaneous verbal distracters concerning dissatisfaction with one's physical appearance (higher salience distracter), a second had distracters concerning daily chores (lower salience distracter), and the third sexual film had no distracters. Participant's reporting greater relationship satisfaction and more communication with their partner about their own physical appearance were expected to decrease the efficacy (increased sexual arousal) of the distracters concerning physical appearance. Contrary to expectations, women who received less feedback about their body from their partners reported less sexual arousal during a sexual film with body distracters than a sexual film with general distracters or a sexual film with no distracters. All women exhibited lower labial temperature in Minutes 2 and 3 of the sexual film with body image distracters as compared to the other two sexual films. Possible explanations explored include self-verification theory and individual differences in the indicators that women consider when rating their sexual arousal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Labial Thermistormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Individual Differences on the Efficacy of Different Distracters During Visual Sexual Stimulation in Women

Roberts

Prause

2011

Arch Sex Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another possibility is that women with lower sexual desire may be developing health difficulties known to impact sexual physiological responding, such as diabetes [54], for which their lower sexual desire is an early symptom. Finally, some data suggest that the labia may cool when a woman becomes anxious [39]. It is possible that some level of anxiety might have contributed to the lower labial temperature observed in the women with lower sexual desire.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduced Labial Temperature in Response to Sexual Films with Distractors among Women with Lower Sexual Desire

Prause

Heiman

2010

The Journal of Sexual Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Sexual desire variation traditionally has been treated as due to variance in affective response to sexual stimulation, but differences in attention to the stimuli may better account for differences in sexual desire. Aim Determine whether sexual desire varies due to attention biases towards sexual stimuli. Main outcome measures Sexual arousal was quantified by physiological (labia minus temperature) and experienced (continuously adjusting a potentiometer) indicators. Methods Twenty-two women who varied in their level of sexual desire attended one laboratory session during which they viewed a neutral nature film, a sexual film, and a sexual film with distractors while their labial temperature and self-reported sexual arousal were recorded. Results Participants reported and displayed lower sexual arousal during the sexual stimulus with distractors as compared to the sexual film without distractors. While all women reported lower sexual arousal to the sexual film with distractors, women with relatively lower sexual desire also reported lower sexual arousal to the sexual film with no distractors than women with higher sexual desire. Physiologically, women with lower sexual desire exhibited lower labial temperature. Conclusions Since the predicted lower self-reported and physiological sexual arousal to the sexual stimulus with distractors for the women with lower sexual desire did not emerge, this study does not support that sexual desire levels vary due to differential attention to sexual stimuli.

show abstract

“…For example, studies using VPP often show multiple short stimuli within one testing session, and while the sexual stimulus itself might be 90 seconds long the neutral or inter‐stimulus interval could be up to 120 seconds (e.g., [81]) for participants to return to baseline. For labial temperature, Prause and Heiman reported a 10‐minute back‐to‐baseline interval following a 10‐minute sexually explicit stimulus [82]. Although it makes sense that a longer stimulus might allow for a stronger sexual response that would necessitate a longer return to baseline, there exists no research to that effect.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Devices and Methods to Measure Female Sexual Arousal

Kukkonen¹

2015

Sexual Medicine Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing female sexual arousal with the labial thermistor: Response specificity and construct validity

Cited by 37 publications

References 58 publications

Effects of Individual Differences on the Efficacy of Different Distracters During Visual Sexual Stimulation in Women

Effects of Individual Differences on the Efficacy of Different Distracters During Visual Sexual Stimulation in Women

Reduced Labial Temperature in Response to Sexual Films with Distractors among Women with Lower Sexual Desire

Devices and Methods to Measure Female Sexual Arousal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About