Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31619975›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2019

"What a Girl Wants": What Can We Learn From Animal Models of Female Sexual Motivation?

Fay A Guarraci, Russell J Frohardt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Fay A GuarraciDepartment of Psychology, Southwestern University, Georgetown, TX, United States.
Russell J FrohardtAcademic Success, Northwest Vista College, San Antonio, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sexual motivation is notably different than other motivations such as hunger and thirst, because it lacks homeostatic drive. Sexual motivation poses no threat to physical well-being; individual survival is not at stake. Nevertheless, sexual motivation is a powerful drive and is critical for species survival. Understanding the complexity of sexual motivation has the potential to advance our understanding of other motivations, even pathological motivations, such as those associated with substance abuse. The study of motivation that is unique to females has often been neglected. A number of paradigms have been developed to investigate female sexual motivation beyond measuring only the lordosis reflex. Lordosis is a reflexive posture displayed by female mammals in response to male sexual stimulation to facilitate intromission. The lordosis reflex is essential, but studying the drive to mate is compromised in the absence of robust lordosis. Therefore, appetitive measures of sexual behavior (e.g., preferences, solicitation behaviors) are more specific and more sensitive indicators of sexual motivation than lordosis alone. Paradigms designed to study female sexual motivation often provide a female subject with the choice to interact with a sexually vigorous male or either a non-sexual partner (i.e., female, castrated male) or to remain alone. The study of appetitive measures of sexual motivation has elucidated the role of hormones in female sexual motivation, as well as the underlying neural pathways. The present review describes methods for studying female rats to advance our understanding of sexual motivation and sexual dysfunction.

Indexed as

mate choicepaced-mating behaviorpartner-preference testratssolicitation behavior

Identifiers

PMID31619975
PMCPMC6763560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.