Please wait a minute...
心理学报
  论文 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
不同特质焦虑水平的选择性注意偏向
彭家欣;杨奇伟;罗跃嘉
(1北京师范大学, 认知神经科学与学习国家重点实验室, 北京 100875) (2深圳大学 情绪与社会认知科学研究所, 深圳 518060)
Selected Attentional Bias in Different Level of Trait Anxiety
PENF Jiaxin;YANG Qiwei;LUO Yuejia
(1 National Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China) (2 Institute of Affective and Social Neuroscience, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China)
全文: PDF(463 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 高特质焦虑个体常表现出对威胁性刺激的选择性注意偏向的特点。然而其潜在的神经机制目前仍不清楚。通过记录高、低特质焦虑者各17名进行情绪加工时的ERP, 比较了两组个体在选择性注意偏向发生的时间进程和相关的神经反应的差异。结果发现, 高特质焦虑者诱发出更大的N1, 进一步发现恐惧图片比中性图片诱发更大的N1; 而低特质焦虑者诱发了更大的N2, 特质焦虑得分越低, N2波幅越大。结果初步说明高特质焦虑者加工早期对恐惧图片分配了较多的注意资源, 并且其抑制执行功能可能受损; 而低特质焦虑者较晚开始区分恐惧图片和中性图片。这些结果提供了支持认知-动机模型的新证据。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
彭家欣
杨奇伟
罗跃嘉
关键词 特质焦虑情绪加工恐惧图片N1N2    
Abstract:Anxiety is one of the most common mental disorders and has attracted attention of more and more researchers. A number of behavioral studies suggest that attentional bias towards threat among anxious populations is a relatively robust phenomenon. The attentional biases are observed not only across different experimental tasks but also across different anxiety disorders. However, studies of the neural mechanisms of this phenomenon are currently rare and inconsistent. It was found that compared to low trait anxiety (LTA), high trait anxiety (HTA) evoked different P2 between angry and neutral faces, with a larger P2 to the angry face in some studies. In contrast, others found that threatening stimuli elicited a larger P2 in both groups. Similarly, inconsistent findings also exited for the P1. In addition, the N1 effect on the attentional bias to fearful images with a complex context is still unclear. Therefore, the present study aimed at investigating the electrophysiological markers of attention bias for fearful images with a complex context in anxiety. Participants were selected out of a pool of 70 undergraduate students. The participants were screend on the basis of their response to Spielberger’s Trait Anxiety Inventory. Those with scores in the top quartile of the distribution (n=17, 6 males and 11 females) were assigned to the HTA group, and those in the bottom quartile of the distribution (n=17, 10males and 7 females) were assigned to the LTA group. All participants were right-handed, and had normal or corrected normal vision. ERPs were recorded when subjects viewed 30 fear and 30 neutral pictures which were presented twice. ERP data from five midline electrode sites was selected for further statistical analysis: Fz, FCz, Cz, CPz, and Pz. We measured mean amplitudes in four windows following stimulus onset: 120~140 ms (N1), 230~250 ms (N2), 300~500 ms (P3), and 500~1000 ms (Slow wave, SW). Anxiety group (HTA vs. LTA) ×picture type (fearful vs. neutral) ×electrode sites (Fz, FCz, and Cz) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the amplitude of N1, N2, P3, and SW. For all analyses, the significance level was set at 0.05. Post-hoc testing of significant main effects was conducted using BONFERRONI method. Significant interactions were analyzed using simple-effect models. Results showed that the HTA group exhibited a enhanced N1 in comparison to the LTA group, F(2, 64) = 19.28, p < 0.01. And the interactions of the three factors was significant, F(1, 32) = 11.94, p<0.01. The interactions between picture and group was significant [Cz: F(1, 32) = 6.93, p<0.05, FCz: F(1, 32) = 5.22, p<0.05]; compared to LTA, HTA elicited different N1 amplitude between fearful and neutral images, with enhanced N1 to the fearful images. LTA elicited enhanced N2 compared with HTA, F(1, 32) = 4.83, p < 0.05. A significant relation between N2 and the trait score was found by using the stepwise regression analysis, F=6.97, p<0.05, R2=0.18. These results indicate that the HTA group allocated more attention resource to fearful images at the early emotional process stage (120~140 ms), whereas LTA group began to distinguish fearful from neutral at the later stage (230~250 ms). The executive function of inhibition might decrease with HTA, These results provide new evident to support the cognition-motivation model.
Key wordstrait anxiety    emotional process    fearful images    N1    N2
收稿日期: 2012-09-07      出版日期: 2013-10-25
基金资助:

国家自然科学基金(91132704, 30930031)、国家973项目(2011CB711000)。

通讯作者: 罗跃嘉   
引用本文:   
彭家欣;杨奇伟;罗跃嘉. 不同特质焦虑水平的选择性注意偏向[J]. 心理学报, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.01085.
PENF Jiaxin;YANG Qiwei;LUO Yuejia. Selected Attentional Bias in Different Level of Trait Anxiety. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(10): 1085-1093.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.01085      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2013/V45/I10/1085
[1] 程家萍;罗跃嘉;崔芳. 认知负荷对疼痛共情的影响:来自ERP研究的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(5): 622-630.
[2] 范伟;钟毅平;杨子鹿;李琎;欧阳益; 蔡荣华; 李慧云 ;傅小兰 . 外倾个体的自我参照加工程度效应[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(8): 1002-1012.
[3] 徐菊;胡媛艳;王双; 李艾苏;张明;张阳. 返回抑制训练效应的认知神经机制 ——来自ERP研究的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(6): 658-670.
[4] 钟毅平;李琎;占友龙;范伟;杨子鹿. 自我旋转面孔识别的ERPs研究[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(11): 1379-1389.
[5] 胡艳梅;张明. 基于记忆的注意捕获和注意抑制效应:ERP证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(1): 12-21.
[6] 高雪梅;翁蕾;周群;赵偲;李芳. 暴力犯的疼痛共情更低:来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(4): 478-487.
[7] 杨亚平;徐强;张林;邓培状;梁宁建. 场景的不同空间频率信息对面部表情加工的影响:来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(12): 1433-1444.
[8] 窦伟伟;郑希付;杨慧芳;王俊芳;李悦;俄小天;陈倩倩. 认知分心的强度对创伤性信息加工的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(5): 656-665.
[9] 钟毅平;范伟;蔡荣华;谭千保;肖丽辉;占友龙;罗西;秦敏辉. 正性情绪诱导下的自我参照加工:来自ERPs的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(3): 341-352 .
[10] 王益文;张振; 张蔚;黄亮;郭丰波;原胜. 群体身份调节最后通牒博弈的公平关注[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(12): 1850-1859.
[11] 刘欢欢;范宁;沈翔鹰;纪江叶. 认知灵活性对非熟练双语者语言转换的影响 —— 一项ERPs研究[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(6): 636-648.
[12] 张瑜;郑希付;黄珊珊;李悦;杜晓芬;周薇. 不同线索下特质焦虑个体的返回抑制[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(4): 446-452.
[13] 于丽霞;凌霄;江光荣. 自伤青少年的冲动性[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(3): 320-335.
[14] 孙天义;许远理;郭春彦. 人类面孔识别工作记忆的脑电位特征[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(10): 1072-1084.
[15] 吴燕,周晓林. 公平加工的情境依赖性:来自ERP的证据[J]. , 2012, 44(6): 797-806.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn