It might not look like much, but this is science's very first glimpse of something rather close to the hearts of most men.
The methods sound like a real riot. Ten guys were scanned while being exposed to two different kinds of stimulation. First, 'audiovisual'
They don't say who these independent grumble-rating viewers were, but I'm, er, told that some porn sites these days have user ratings next to each clip. So it's possible that they used those and that the raters were, quite literally, just some bunch of wankers.Films, depicting heterosexual couples engaged in sex play, vaginal sexual intercourse, and oral sex, were presented in two 5-min blocks, separated by a baseline condition (blank screen) for 3 min... The selected films were chosen by the investigators and were all very highly rated (on a scale of 1 to 10) by independent viewers. Only films that received a minimum score of 8 out of 10 were shown to participants.
As for the manual stimulation...
All participants manually performed stimulation of the penis. Participants received written instructions superimposed onto a rear-projection screen, indicating whether to rest or to perform penile self-stimulation... there were two equal blocks of 1.5 min of stimulation that were separated by a 1.5-min block of rest... a shorter duration was selected for this part of the study in order to avoid overstimulation of the penis and/or ejaculation.
Good thinking. That could have been messy.
Clearly there's more work to be done here. The images are rather crude. That grey oval is meant to look like this:
Still, it's early days. Spinal cord fMRI is not a new technique, having first been performed in 1999, but it's not received nearly as much research interest as the brain variety.

11 comments:
I don't know, looking at a guy's hairy ass in a porn movie never did for me, regardless of females present. I must have a different spinal cord.
I did however work designing computer interfaces for the (mentally) handicapped and did have conversations with guys with spinal injuries all the way from down to the neck (idiot jumped in too shallow pool headfirst)
All claimed to have sex a life. Never asked them how much heterosexual porn they watched though.
(improving. Got the captcha already after the 6th try!! Yay)
This reminds me of a previous seminal (sorry, couldn't resist the pun...) work by Holstege et al. who measured "Brain activation during human male ejaculation" using PET.
They used what I find to be a quite more "satisfying" procedure:
"To minimize motor activity by the volunteer during the scan, sexual stimulation was provided by his female partner by means of manual penile stimulation in the tasks stimulation and ejaculation. Manual stimulation was continued throughout ejaculation. ... In the week before the experiments, the volunteers and their female partners were informed about how the experiments would be conducted, and they were asked to practice at home, especially regarding minimizing head and limb movements."
What can I say - practice makes perfect.
In the interest of science, I cannot but wonder if the results would have been different, had the partner used oral stimulation instead of manual? - with proper training, naturally.
All in the name of science, of course.
Ehm... Blocks of 5 min?? Seriously? Thats well within the low frequency domain well known to dominate BOLD fMRI, largely of non-neuronal origin. Any knowledgable fmri researcher doesn't use blocks longer than 1min. This low frequency domain is normally filtered out by analysis packages.
So this contrast is very likely artifactual. How on earth did this get through review? And why does an apparently 'skeptical' blogger not notice this?
Agreed about the low frequency effects. Even the 1.5 min blocks for the manual stimulation experiment seem awfully long for an efficient fMRI design. Haven't read the paper though so I will for now give the authors the benefit of the doubt that they may have at least considered this problem.
@petrossa: totally offtopic, but I am glad I'm not the only one who hates these captchas on this site!
There is no way that motion did not severely contaminate this study. I don't put any credence in the results. None.
Re: the block length. You have a good point, thanks.
The TR was 9 seconds, much longer than in brain fMRI, though. Does that make the long blocks more justifiable?
Can't find the link anymore, but there was this paper published by a female neuroscientist who using a 'device' attained orgasm whilst being fMRI'd.
She claimed that orgasm caused the brain to have access to some higher spheres of consciousness. Or something.
I think in the interest of being taken at least somewhat seriously neurology should steer away from these 'experiments'
@NS: The TR is irrelevant here. The ideal block length for BOLD fMRI is 15-30 seconds. I could see why with a TR of 9 s and also with the ...ahm...nature of this experiment you would aim for long blocks but this would still mean perhaps 3-4 TRs per block. A long TR doesn't make the low frequency drifts you see in fMRI any slower.
But as Anon above pointed out, motion is likely to have contaminated the results. Comparing a condition with manual stimulation to one with watching movies is almost certainly going to contain some motion artifact. At the very least, there should have been a control condition with manual "stimulation" of a fake phallus or something that doesn't cause arousal.
@petrossa: I get where you're coming from but the question itself isn't necessarily a bad one. If we want to understand how the brain works we must study all aspects of it and some are going to be "risque". But that doesn't excuse bad experimental design.
Yup, horrible methods. Further criticism: the SEEP contrast mechanism is unproven even in the brain. And many blood flow and motion sensitivities are inherent in the pulse sequence they used. As already suggested by others I'd want to see good sham conditions tested with the same acquisition scheme before putting any faith whatsoever into the data.
Well it looks like I dropped the ball on this one and was insufficiently skeptical. But I know I can always rely on my readers to put me right when that happens...
@Neuroskeptic, thank you for getting the ball rolling! *This* is what I call peer review! (I only commented so that others reading in future could know where the problems are.) So, well done!!!
Post a Comment