【摘要】：目的:特質(zhì)焦慮易引發(fā)個(gè)體對(duì)威脅刺激的注意偏向,且這種負(fù)性注意偏向在焦慮和焦慮障礙的發(fā)生發(fā)展過程中起核心作用。然而由于以往研究者使用的實(shí)驗(yàn)范式不一、采用的被試群體不一而導(dǎo)致了實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果存在很大的分歧。至今為止尚未明確特質(zhì)焦慮的注意偏向成分及其在時(shí)間進(jìn)程上的變化特點(diǎn)。此外,特質(zhì)焦慮和注意偏向之間的關(guān)系可能由注意控制所調(diào)控。因此特質(zhì)焦慮個(gè)體的注意偏向和注意控制就成為了本研究的重點(diǎn)所在。本課題行為學(xué)結(jié)合腦電研究,招聘來自正常人群低特質(zhì)焦慮(low trait anxiety,LTA)、正常人群高特質(zhì)焦慮(high trait anxiety,HTA)和臨床焦慮障礙(generalized anxiety disorder,GAD)三組被試開展實(shí)驗(yàn),以期闡明焦慮神經(jīng)認(rèn)知模型和注意控制理論的不同適用范圍,明確不同水平特質(zhì)焦慮個(gè)體的注意偏向和注意控制的特點(diǎn)及其潛在神經(jīng)機(jī)制。方法:(1)采取情緒空間-線索注意范式,線索與刺激之間的刺激間距設(shè)置為50ms和800ms,來深入考察不同水平特質(zhì)焦慮群體注意偏向的特點(diǎn)及其在時(shí)間維度上的變化,并分析靜息態(tài)腦電前額區(qū)alpha波的非對(duì)稱性揭示潛在神經(jīng)機(jī)制。(2)研究2和研究3分別在情緒和非情緒Flanker實(shí)驗(yàn)任務(wù)下考察正常人群高、低特質(zhì)焦慮和臨床焦慮障礙三組被試的分心抑制和沖突適應(yīng)特點(diǎn),并對(duì)Bishop的焦慮神經(jīng)認(rèn)知模型和Eysenck等人的注意控制理論進(jìn)行驗(yàn)證。(3)研究4采用單任務(wù)情緒Flanker實(shí)驗(yàn)和雙任務(wù)情緒Flanker實(shí)驗(yàn)任務(wù),考察不同水平特質(zhì)焦慮個(gè)體的注意轉(zhuǎn)換功能及潛在認(rèn)知神經(jīng)機(jī)制。結(jié)果:(1)情緒空間-線索實(shí)驗(yàn)發(fā)現(xiàn)GAD組的反應(yīng)時(shí)(473.74±15.50)顯著長(zhǎng)于LTA組(383.75±14.64,p0.001)和HTA組(381.24±12.92,p0.001)的反應(yīng)時(shí),而LTA組和HTA組之間無顯著差異(p=0.898)。線索與目標(biāo)之間的刺激間距為50ms時(shí),三組被試沒有呈現(xiàn)出注意偏向方面的組間差異。刺激間距為800ms時(shí),高特質(zhì)焦慮組表現(xiàn)為對(duì)負(fù)性刺激的注意解除困難,臨床GAD患者對(duì)負(fù)性刺激表現(xiàn)出注意回避。靜息態(tài)腦電結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn),在控制抑郁的情況下,焦慮能夠顯著預(yù)測(cè)前額區(qū)alpha波的非對(duì)稱性;組間差異比較發(fā)現(xiàn)GAD患者顯著比LTA、HTA兩組被試alpha波偏側(cè)化程度低,即大腦左側(cè)腦區(qū)的激活水平偏低。(2)情緒Flanker腦電實(shí)驗(yàn)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)GAD組的反應(yīng)時(shí)(930.38±22.87)長(zhǎng)于LTA組(632.98±19.81,p0.001)和HTA組(655.11±17.71,p0.001)。GAD組的錯(cuò)誤率(2.51±0.40)大于LTA組(1.40±0.31,p=0.038)和HTA組(1.37±0.31,p=0.027)。在不一致試次上,與LTA組和HTA組相比,GAD被試表現(xiàn)出N2潛伏期延長(zhǎng)、振幅降低。與LTA組被試相比,HTA組和GAD組的P3振幅明顯低下。在沖突適應(yīng)指標(biāo)上,HTA和GAD組在行為學(xué)和N2成分上均表現(xiàn)出沖突適應(yīng)不良的特點(diǎn)。(3)非情緒Flanker腦電實(shí)驗(yàn)發(fā)現(xiàn)GAD組的反應(yīng)時(shí)(619.69±129.85)均顯著長(zhǎng)于LTA組(480.52±48.18,p0.001)和HTA組(479.37±57.71,p0.001),LTA組和HTA組則無顯著差異(p=0.945)。反應(yīng)時(shí)的干擾效應(yīng)分析發(fā)現(xiàn)GAD組的干擾效應(yīng)顯著大于LTA組(p=0.001)和HTA組(p0.001);而LTA組和HTA組之間則無顯著差異。錯(cuò)誤率指標(biāo)上,GAD組沖突適應(yīng)水平顯著低于LTA組(p=0.016)。GAD組的N2成分潛伏期(265.89±5.45)長(zhǎng)于LTA組(243.70±5.45,p=0.005)和HTA組潛伏期(252.54±4.78,p=0.070)。GAD組P3的振幅(4.94±0.86)顯著小于LTA組(9.10±0.86,p=0.001)和HTA組(7.87±0.75,p=0.013),LTA組和HTA組間無顯著差異(p=0.287)。(4)雙任務(wù)情緒Flanker任務(wù)下,GAD組的反應(yīng)時(shí)(1052.39±209.40)顯著長(zhǎng)于LTA組(719.88±127.87,p0.001)和HTA組(736.76±106.72,p0.001);GAD組被試的錯(cuò)誤率(5.38±0.63)顯著長(zhǎng)于LTA組(3.05±0.52,p0.001)和HTA組(2.95±0.46,p0.001)。在錯(cuò)誤率指標(biāo)上,GAD患者的轉(zhuǎn)換代價(jià)(6.10±5.74)顯著大于LTA(3.33±2.47,p=0.012)和HTA組(3.11±2.27,p=0.005)。腦電指標(biāo)上這三組并未表現(xiàn)出顯著差異。(5)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)在情緒空間-線索實(shí)驗(yàn)任務(wù)中,臨床GAD患者的反應(yīng)時(shí)變異性(3.52±0.64)顯著大于LTA組(3.07±0.62,p=0.012)和HTA組(2.96±0.63,p=0.001),LTA組和HTA組則無顯著差異(p=0.487)。在情緒Flanker實(shí)驗(yàn)、非情緒Flanker實(shí)驗(yàn)和雙任務(wù)的情緒Flanker實(shí)驗(yàn)中,均得到了類似結(jié)果。結(jié)論:(1)在注意晚期加工階段高特質(zhì)焦慮被試對(duì)負(fù)性刺激存在注意固著;焦慮障礙患者存在注意回避。GAD患者alpha波偏側(cè)化程度低,即大腦左側(cè)腦區(qū)的激活水平偏低與其負(fù)性注意回避關(guān)系密切。(2)臨床GAD患者在情緒和非情緒刺激背景下均表現(xiàn)出沖突適應(yīng)不良、注意抑制和轉(zhuǎn)換能力低下,存在自上而下的注意控制不足。正常人群高特質(zhì)焦慮個(gè)體僅在情緒刺激下表現(xiàn)出沖突適應(yīng)不良,抑制和轉(zhuǎn)換能力在情緒和非情緒刺激背景下均表現(xiàn)正常。高特質(zhì)焦慮、低注意控制可能是誘發(fā)臨床焦慮障礙的內(nèi)在根本原因。神經(jīng)認(rèn)知模型能較好的解釋臨床焦慮障礙患者的注意特點(diǎn),而注意控制理論則更適用于正常人群高特質(zhì)焦慮個(gè)體。(3)反應(yīng)時(shí)變異性是衡量注意控制的一個(gè)重要指標(biāo),可較好地區(qū)分臨床焦慮障礙患者與正常人群,具有跨實(shí)驗(yàn)范式和實(shí)驗(yàn)材料的穩(wěn)定性。
[Abstract]:AIM: Trait anxiety tends to induce individual attention bias toward threatening stimuli, and this negative attention bias plays a central role in the occurrence and development of anxiety and anxiety disorders. In addition, the relationship between trait anxiety and attention bias may be regulated by attention control. Therefore, attention bias and attention control of trait anxiety individuals become the focus of this study. Three groups of subjects, low trait anxiety (LTA), high trait anxiety (HTA) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), were tested in order to clarify the different application scope of anxiety neurocognitive model and attentional control theory, and to clarify the individual trait anxiety at different levels. Methods: (1) Using the emotional space-cue attention paradigm, the stimulus spacing between cues and stimuli was set at 50 ms and 800 ms to investigate the characteristics of attention bias and its temporal variation in different levels of trait anxiety, and to analyze resting state EEG. The asymmetry of alpha waves in the prefrontal region reveals the underlying neural mechanisms. (2) Study 2 and Study 3 examined the characteristics of distraction inhibition and conflict adaptation in normal subjects with high, low trait anxiety and clinical anxiety disorder under emotional and non-emotional Flanker tasks, and paid attention to Bishop's anxiety neurocognitive model and Eysenck's attention. Control theory was validated. (3) In study 4, single-task emotional Flanker test and two-task emotional Flanker test were used to investigate the attention-switching function and potential cognitive neural mechanism of trait anxiety individuals at different levels. There was no significant difference between LTA group and HTA group (p = 0.898) in response time between p0.001 and HTA group (381.24 (+ 12.92), but there was no significant difference between LTA group and HTA group (p = 0.898). The results of resting state EEG showed that anxiety could significantly predict the asymmetry of alpha waves in the prefrontal region under depression control; the differences between groups showed that GAD patients were significantly higher than LTA, while HTA patients had a lower degree of alpha wave lateralization, i.e. a lower activation level in the left cerebral region. Flanker EEG study found that the response time of GAD group was longer than LTA group (632.98+19.81, p0.001) and HTA group (655.11+17.71, p0.001). The error rate of GAD group (2.51+0.40) was higher than LTA group (1.40+0.31, p=0.038) and HTA group (1.37+0.31, p=0.027). In inconsistent trials, compared with LTA group and HTA group, the N2 latency of GAD group was higher. Compared with LTA group, P3 amplitude of HTA group and GAD group was significantly lower. Both HTA group and GAD group showed poor conflict adaptation in behavior and N2 components. (3) Non-emotional Flanker EEG test showed that the response time of GAD group (619.69 1) There was no significant difference between HTA group and LTA group (p = 0.945), but there was no significant difference between LTA group and HTA group (p = 0.001) and between LTA group and HTA group (p = 0.001). The latency of N2 component (265.89 +5.45) was longer in LTA group (243.70 +5.45, P = 0.005, P = 0.005) and HTA group (252.54 +4.78, P = 0.070) than in LTA group (243.70 +5.45, P = 0.45, P = 0.005) and HTA group (252.54 +4.54 +4.78, P = 0.78, P = 0.070). The amplitudeof P3 (4.94 [(4.94 +0.86) in GAD group was significantly lower than that in LTA group (9.10 [(9.10 +0.86, P = 0.86, P = 0.86, P = 0.001 Responses of the GAD group to the task The error rate of GAD group was significantly higher than that of LTA group (3.05 + 0.52, P 0.001) and HTA group (3.05 + 0.52, P 0.001) and LTA group (719.88 + 127.87, P 0.001) and HTA group (719.88 + 127.87, P 0.001) and HTA group (736.76 [106.76 [106.72, P 0.72, P 0.001, P 0.001); the error rate of GAD group (5.38 [(5.38 [(0.63) was significantly higher than LTA group (3.38.38 [(3.38 [(3.38 [0.38] [0.63) significantly higher than LTA group (3.05 [(3.HTA group ( There was no significant difference in EEG parameters among the three groups. (5) In the emotional space-cue task, the response time variability of GAD patients was significantly higher than that of LTA patients (3.07 0.62, P = 0.012) and HTA patients (2.96 0.63, P = 0.001), but there was no significant difference between LTA and HTA patients (p = 0.487). Similar results were obtained in the R test, the non-emotional Flanker test and the dual-task emotional Flanker test. Conclusion: (1) In the late attention processing stage, the subjects with high trait anxiety had attention fixation on negative stimuli, and the patients with anxiety disorder had attention avoidance. Low is closely related to negative attention avoidance. (2) In clinical GAD patients, both emotional and non-emotional stimuli show poor conflict adaptation, low attention inhibition and switching ability, and insufficient top-down attention control. High trait anxiety and low attention control may be the underlying causes of clinical anxiety disorder. Neurocognitive model can better explain the attention characteristics of patients with clinical anxiety disorder, while attention control theory is more suitable for normal people with high trait anxiety. Variability is an important indicator of attention control, which can better distinguish the patients with clinical anxiety disorder from the normal population, and has the stability of cross-experimental paradigm and experimental materials.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：第三軍醫(yī)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：B842

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 黃文強(qiáng);;對(duì)特質(zhì)焦慮理論的初步研究[J];中小企業(yè)管理與科技(上旬刊);2009年02期

2 徐芳芳;;高特質(zhì)焦慮的注意偏向研究[J];牡丹江教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年05期

3 海倩;張俊麗;;特質(zhì)焦慮影響因素研究綜述[J];才智;2010年30期

4 黃辛隱;任艷超;;特質(zhì)焦慮對(duì)面孔情緒識(shí)別的影響[J];心理技術(shù)與應(yīng)用;2013年03期

5 肖凌燕,鄒泓;大學(xué)生特質(zhì)焦慮:結(jié)構(gòu)及其特點(diǎn)[J];心理發(fā)展與教育;2000年04期

6 李焰,張世桐;中學(xué)生特質(zhì)焦慮的發(fā)展[J];健康心理學(xué)雜志;2000年01期

7 李焰,張世彤,王極盛;中學(xué)生特質(zhì)焦慮與其影響因素的模型建構(gòu)[J];心理學(xué)報(bào);2002年03期

8 黃建,于志濤;大學(xué)生特質(zhì)焦慮的影響因素研究[J];廣州體育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年01期

9 柳春香;黃希庭;;特質(zhì)焦慮大學(xué)生注意偏向的實(shí)驗(yàn)研究[J];心理科學(xué);2008年06期

10 劉溪;梁寶勇;;心算應(yīng)激與特質(zhì)焦慮、應(yīng)對(duì)風(fēng)格的關(guān)系[J];心理與行為研究;2008年01期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 張曉龍;陳英和;;研究生的特質(zhì)焦慮、抑郁、主動(dòng)控制特點(diǎn)及關(guān)系[A];第十一屆全國(guó)心理學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文摘要集[C];2007年

2 郭小朝;李良明;丁亞平;朱召烈;;空軍飛行(學(xué))員特質(zhì)焦慮水平調(diào)查結(jié)果的初步分析[A];第一屆全國(guó)人—機(jī)—環(huán)境系統(tǒng)工程學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文集[C];1993年

3 李雪燕;辛濤;;特質(zhì)焦慮的潛類別回歸分析[A];第十一屆全國(guó)心理學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文摘要集[C];2007年

4 柳春香;黃希庭;任澤港;;特質(zhì)焦慮大學(xué)生注意偏向的實(shí)驗(yàn)研究[A];第十一屆全國(guó)心理學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文摘要集[C];2007年

5 周路平;孔令明;;特質(zhì)焦慮、性別差異對(duì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)回避的影響[A];第十二屆全國(guó)心理學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)大會(huì)論文摘要集[C];2009年

6 陳建民;黃恩;徐曉青;張載福;呂望強(qiáng);;職業(yè)中專學(xué)生的特質(zhì)焦慮與父母教養(yǎng)方式、人格特征關(guān)系[A];2005年浙江省精神病學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文匯編[C];2005年

7 黃鵬;楊志兵;苗丹民;路惠捷;朱霞;;不同特質(zhì)焦慮大學(xué)生在內(nèi)隱聯(lián)想測(cè)驗(yàn)中的表現(xiàn)[A];增強(qiáng)心理學(xué)服務(wù)社會(huì)的意識(shí)和功能——中國(guó)心理學(xué)會(huì)成立90周年紀(jì)念大會(huì)暨第十四屆全國(guó)心理學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文摘要集[C];2011年

8 敖立功;;對(duì)大學(xué)生狀態(tài)-特質(zhì)焦慮問題的調(diào)查與分析[A];中國(guó)心理衛(wèi)生協(xié)會(huì)大學(xué)生心理咨詢專業(yè)委員會(huì)全國(guó)第七屆大學(xué)生心理健康教育與心理咨詢學(xué)術(shù)交流會(huì)暨專業(yè)委員會(huì)成立十周年紀(jì)念大會(huì)論文集[C];2001年

9 葛君慧;崔天雪;嚴(yán)榮燕;沈如璋;陳碩卒;趙夢(mèng)巖;張禹;;音樂對(duì)不同焦慮水平者注意偏向的影響[A];心理學(xué)與創(chuàng)新能力提升——第十六屆全國(guó)心理學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文集[C];2013年

10 王蘭爽;;音樂、腹式呼吸對(duì)高特質(zhì)焦慮女大學(xué)生的心率變異性影響[A];心理學(xué)與創(chuàng)新能力提升——第十六屆全國(guó)心理學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文集[C];2013年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 于永菊;特質(zhì)焦慮個(gè)體的注意偏向和注意控制特點(diǎn)及其認(rèn)知神經(jīng)機(jī)制研究[D];第三軍醫(yī)大學(xué);2017年

2 齊森青;特質(zhì)焦慮影響抑制控制的認(rèn)知神經(jīng)機(jī)制[D];西南大學(xué);2014年

3 顧艷;Go/Nogo任務(wù)下“冷”、“熱”執(zhí)行功能對(duì)數(shù)字、名詞材料的抑制加工[D];蘇州大學(xué);2013年

4 邵秀巧;特質(zhì)焦慮者對(duì)威脅信息注意偏向的實(shí)驗(yàn)研究[D];天津師范大學(xué);2008年

5 賈麗萍;情緒對(duì)不同焦慮水平個(gè)體抑制功能的影響[D];天津師范大學(xué);2014年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 馮慶林;大學(xué)生特質(zhì)焦慮影響因素的結(jié)構(gòu)模型及其與特質(zhì)焦慮關(guān)系的模型建構(gòu)[D];云南師范大學(xué);2003年

2 黃陽(yáng);特質(zhì)焦慮對(duì)面孔情緒識(shí)別的影響研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2012年

3 許明明;高特質(zhì)焦慮者對(duì)人際評(píng)價(jià)信息的注意偏向[D];鄭州大學(xué);2015年

4 傅青青;不同難度下中央執(zhí)行功能在特質(zhì)焦慮與估算表現(xiàn)中的中介效應(yīng)研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2015年

5 羅秋惠;民間信仰與焦慮的外顯和內(nèi)隱關(guān)系研究[D];閩南師范大學(xué);2015年

6 王富;不同情緒線索下特質(zhì)焦慮大學(xué)生的重復(fù)知盲效應(yīng)研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2015年

7 陳琴;特質(zhì)焦慮大學(xué)生的負(fù)性注意偏向及其時(shí)間進(jìn)程特點(diǎn)[D];陜西師范大學(xué);2015年

8 邢澤宇;想象接觸下不同特質(zhì)焦慮水平大學(xué)生對(duì)艾滋群體內(nèi)隱偏見的影響[D];江西師范大學(xué);2015年

9 李清瑤;瑜伽鍛煉對(duì)女性練習(xí)者特質(zhì)焦慮情緒影響的研究[D];西安體育學(xué)院;2015年

10 袁曉明;特質(zhì)焦慮對(duì)決策的影響：期望的作用機(jī)制[D];內(nèi)蒙古師范大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：2238814