1. Is S1 (or another body map) over-connected in podophilia?
Population: 40 adults with primary foot interest (feet necessary for reliable arousal) and 40 matched controls, both sexes if recruitment allows. Method: pre-registered 7T or high-resolution 3T fMRI; tactile stimulation of hallux, palm, and genitals; erotic stills of feet vs hands vs bodies; connectivity analyses. Prediction if A1 is true: greater foot-genital overlap or coupling in the interest group during both tactile and visual foot conditions. Prediction if Turnbull is right: no S1 specificity; any group difference lives in insula, cingulate, or visual association cortex.
2. Do feet condition more readily than hands?
Population: unselected heterosexual men and women without a foot interest, N ≈ 80. Method: Hoffmann-style genital conditioning; CS = foot still vs hand still, matched for attractiveness ratings at baseline; subliminal and conscious arms. Prediction if adjacency/relevance is true: larger CR to feet. Prediction if arbitrary-cue learning is true: no CS-class difference.
3. What is the population prevalence of foot interest?
Population: probability sample, one country, N ≥ 2,000, ages 18-65. Method: dual mode (web and paper), items separating (a) incidental liking of feet, (b) enhancing, (c) necessary; plus DSM-style distress. Prediction: incidental > enhancing > necessary; necessary-plus-distress (disorder) rare. Mode effect as in Joyal.
4. Is there any heritability?
Population: twin registry with a foot-specific item, not a bundled fetish item. Method: classical ACE model. Prediction: unknown. Even a small h² with large unique-environment would be a result. A zero with tight confidence intervals would also be a result.
5. What do first pairings look like when not reconstructed at 40?
Population: adolescent cohort, nonsexual foot-exposure items at 12-14 (tickling, massage, sport, dance, household), sexual items at 18-25. Method: prospective, pre-registered, privacy-protecting. Prediction if B7 narratives are causal: specific exposures predict later foot items after confounder control. Prediction if narrative is identity: no prospective link.
6. Does religion-as-ritual predict anything?
Population: multi-country, including a Christian foot-washing church, a wuḍūʾ-observant sample, a Hindu sample with regular caraṇ sparś, and a secular control, N large enough for culture as a cluster. Method: ritual frequency and a foot-erotic item, plus Shekarchi-style affiliation. Prediction if F6 is causal: ritual exposure raises the erotic item. Prediction if Shekarchi generalizes: affiliation unrelated to presence; ritual unrelated too.
7. Sex ratio with a foot-specific item
Population: same as study 3. Method: the foot item, not ‘fetishism.’ Prediction: necessary-primary interest male-biased; incidental liking less biased. This would reconcile Joyal with Scorolli.
8. Internet: create or concentrate?
Population: twins or siblings discordant for early (pre-16) exposure to dedicated foot-content communities. Method: co-twin control on later primary interest. Prediction if create: exposed twin higher after shared-family control. Prediction if concentrate: exposure follows earlier interest, not the reverse (need some childhood item, see study 5).
9. Subtypes: tactile, visual, olfactory, power
Population: community sample of people who already identify the interest, N ≥ 400. Method: latent class analysis on sensory and script items. Prediction: at least two classes (visual/object vs tactile/olfactory), with D/s as a cross-cutting dimension (Weinberg). If classes exist, A1 may apply to one class only.
10. Does ego-dystonic status explain depression better than the fetish?
Population: replication of Shekarchi outside Iran, mixed gender. Method: same cluster variables, PHQ, GAD, plus a stigma scale. Prediction: depression follows dystonia and stigma, not foot-as-stimulus. If replicated, treatment implication: target shame and concealment, not the cue, when the person does not want the cue removed.