Talk:Vaginal photoplethysmograph

Thoughts about interpretation
It seems pretty obvious to me that the following sentence is a strange interpretation of findings: "There is an overall poor correlation (r = 0.26) between women's self-reported levels of desire and their VPG readings suggesting that vaginal blood flow is not a reliable indicator of female sexual arousal and a better method is needed." Since women's self-reported levels of desire is reasonably the "gold standard", no method is expected to outperform it. The best possible measurement would have a correlation coefficient of 1.0 with self-reported level of desire. But what is the point of introducing such a measurement when there is already one that is noninvasive, harmless, and free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)