ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B
主办:中国心理学会
   中国科学院心理研究所
出版:科学出版社

心理学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 58 ›› Issue (8): 1476-1492.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.1476 cstr: 32110.14.2026.1476

• 研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇

知觉与概念信息在无意识恐惧泛化中的加工特征: ERP研究

周亦佳, 梅颖, 王金霞, 雷怡   

  1. 四川师范大学脑与心理科学研究院, 成都 610066
  • 收稿日期:2025-07-07 发布日期:2026-06-16 出版日期:2026-08-25
  • 通讯作者: 雷怡, E-mail:leiyi821@vip.sina.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金面上项目(32271142)资助

Influence of perceptual and conceptual stimuli on non-conscious and conscious fear generalization: A behavioral and event-related potential study

ZHOU Yijia, MEI Ying, WANG Jinxia, LEI Yi   

  1. Institute for Brain and Psychological Sciences, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610066, China
  • Received:2025-07-07 Online:2026-06-16 Published:2026-08-25

摘要: 恐惧泛化是焦虑障碍的核心机制之一, 其加工过程可能受到知觉和概念信息的共同调节, 且加工水平可能依赖个体的意识状态。本研究采用恐惧条件反射范式结合后掩蔽技术, 探讨在意识与无意识条件下, 个体如何加工知觉与概念维度的恐惧线索。本研究采用2 (意识水平: 意识、无意识) × 2 (知觉线索: P+、P-) × 2 (概念线索: C+、C-)的区组设计, 并通过ERP技术记录神经活动。行为结果发现, 意识条件下个体的电击预期评分整体高于无意识条件。脑电结果表明, 在N1成分上, 无意识条件诱发了更负的前额N1波幅, 提示个体即使在缺乏显性觉察的情况下, 仍保持较高的早期注意警觉; 此外, 在N400成分上, 意识条件下C-诱发更大的负波, 这可能表明恐惧学习诱发了个体在不确定性情境中持续的警觉状态, 使得明确的安全信号与内在的威胁预期产生冲突; 而无意识条件下则是C+诱发更大的负波, 反映个体无意识状态下的威胁检测过程。本研究发现恐惧泛化在不同意识条件下表现出早期知觉层次的注意偏向与晚期概念层次的语义整合的双重加工机制, 揭示了意识状态下知觉与概念信息对恐惧加工的差异性作用, 为理解恐惧泛化机制及临床干预策略提供了理论依据。

关键词: 恐惧泛化, 无意识, 知觉, 概念, N1, N400

Abstract: This study investigated cognitive neural mechanisms underlying the generalization, both perceptual and conceptual, of fear under conscious and non-conscious conditions. Sixty-seven healthy individuals participated as valid subjects, randomly assigned to either a “conscious” or “non-conscious” group and following a classical fear-conditioning procedure. The experimental design incorporated three independent variables: two within-subject factors (conceptual generalization stimulus type [C+ vs. C-] and perceptual generalization stimulus type [P+ vs. P-]) as well as one between-subjects factor (conscious vs. non-conscious condition).
The experiment unfolded over three distinct phases. In the first, participants underwent a habituation phase to ensure their familiarity with all stimuli. Next, during the acquisition phase, perceptual stimuli (navy blue and olive green colors) and conceptual stimuli (animal- and furniture-related words) served as conditioned stimuli (CS), with one category designated as CS+ (e.g., navy blue as P+ and animal words as C+) and the other as CS-. An electric shock served as the unconditioned stimulus (US). In the subsequent generalization phase, four types of generalization stimuli (GS) were used: navy blue animal words (C+P+), olive green animal words (C+P-), olive green furniture words (C-P-), and navy blue furniture words (C-P+). Critical temporal parameters differed between groups: to the conscious group, GS were presented for 30 ms, followed by a 200-ms blank screen and a 100-ms mask; to the non-conscious group, GS were presented for 30 ms, followed immediately by a 100-ms mask, then a 200-ms blank screen. Behavioral and electrophysiological data were recorded throughout.
The behavioral data indicated significantly higher US expectancy ratings for P+ than C+ during acquisition. The electrophysiological data revealed two critical patterns: 1) the non-conscious group exhibited more negative frontal N1 amplitudes in response to GS than the conscious group; and 2) in the non-conscious group, C+ elicited more negative N400 amplitudes than C-, whereas the reverse pattern emerged in the conscious group.
These results support three main conclusions. First, perceptual stimuli may more strongly encourage threat-learning to relative to conceptual stimuli. Second, non-conscious GS induce enhanced early attentional vigilance compared to conscious group, as indexed by N1 modulation. Third, distinct neural signatures appear during conceptual processing, where non-conscious conditions facilitate threat-detection through N400 modulation for threat-related concepts. Under conscious conditions, conversely, N400 modulation for safety-related concepts is inconsistent with the threat expectation generated while the individual is in a vigilant state.
Discrepancies between early attentional (N1) and later semantic (N400) processing, as evidenced in this study, suggest stage-specific neural correlates of fear generalization across states of consciousness and pointœ toward compelling possible neural mechanisms underlying anxiety disorders.

Key words: fear generalization, non-conscious, perception, concept, N1, N400