tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post4249508282533854579..comments2024-03-29T05:19:17.638-07:00Comments on The Neurocritic: How to Measure Female DesireThe Neurocritichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-51226644314546957252016-08-12T02:19:09.912-07:002016-08-12T02:19:09.912-07:00Wonder if anyone has marketed a vibrator with one ...Wonder if anyone has marketed a vibrator with one of these sensors as well as BLE, temperature/pressure sensors etc? For that matter go all out and put an electrodynamic (conductivity) sensor, pH meters etc on the thing and make the world's most advanced sex toy (tm)<br /><br />Kickstarter anyone?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-69506130067627946462013-06-11T23:18:22.347-07:002013-06-11T23:18:22.347-07:00I'm not sure why they decided to use a masked ...I'm not sure why they decided to use a masked version of the task, other than saying, "A masked version of this task turned out to be a more reliable measurement of (preconscious) attentional bias for emotional cues." OK then, but it doesn't look like they did an awareness check afterwards to see if any participants were able to identify the masked words.<br /><br />Further, they actually used results from the emotional Stroop to identify groups of women who show "high" and "low" sensitivity to sexual cues. And the way they interpreted the interference effect, and how it was affected by Lybrido, was problematic, to say the least. In one of their papers (Poels et al.):<br /><br /><i>"Figure 3. Preconscious attentional bias for sexual cues. Treatment with T+PDE5i relative to placebo produced an increase in the preconscious attentional bias (the differences between the mean reaction times of erotic and neutral words) for sexual cues in women with a relative insensitivity for sexual cues."</i><br /><br />The "increase in preconscious attentional bias" in low sensitive women went from an interference effect of about -22 ms (faster for neutral) to -4 ms (not different from zero), i.e. the time to name the color of masks preceded by "coitus" vs. "chair" was identical. The drug didn't result in greater allocation of attention to masked sexual words.<br /><br />And who knows what happened in any previous unmasked versions, and in the "high sensitive" women. If you're going to use a cognitive task to define clinical groups, you'd better be pretty rigorous about it.The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-83816030014420140582013-06-11T09:33:19.450-07:002013-06-11T09:33:19.450-07:00I'm curious what you think was wrong with thei...I'm curious what you think was wrong with their Stroop task?Matthew Stiefnoreply@blogger.com