视觉搜索范式下抑郁症患者的负性注意偏向

目的:考察不同情绪环境中的视觉搜索任务对抑郁症患者负性注意偏向的影响。方法:选取27例符合美国精神障碍诊断与统计手册第4版(DSM-IV)抑郁症诊断标准的抑郁症住院患者,以及27例性别、年龄、受教育程度与之匹配的正常对照。选用Nimstim情绪面孔图片库中的高兴、悲伤和中性面孔作为刺激材料,使用视觉搜索范式,比较两组被试在不同情绪环境中搜索反应时的差异。结果:抑郁组在高兴、悲伤环境中的反应时显著大于正常对照组[(4717.7±1907.1)ms vs.(2406.2±1210.4)ms;(5186.1±2078.8)ms vs.(3093.0±1244.2)ms;均P0.001];抑郁组在高兴与悲伤面孔环境中的反应时的差异无统计学意义(P0.05),而正常对照组在高兴面孔环境中的反应时小于悲伤面孔环境中的反应时[(2406.2±1210.4)ms vs.(3093.0±1244.2)ms,P0.05]。患者组HAMD得分与反应时的相关无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:在面孔视觉搜索任务中,与正常被试相比,抑郁症患者抗情绪刺激干扰能力更差,没有表现出负性注意偏向。     

手机依赖的大学生的情绪觉察特点

目的:调查手机依赖的大学生的情绪觉察特点,为未来手机依赖干预提供建议。方法:使用手机成瘾倾向量表(MPATS)对548名大学生进行施测,结合聚类分析和高低于平均数一个标准差的标准筛选出手机依赖组和非手机依赖组各40人。使用视觉搜索任务比较两组对愉悦、中性和悲伤表情面孔觉察的反应时间和正确率。结果:当呈现相同表情面孔时,面孔数量主效应有统计学意义[F(1,468)=11.26,P0.01],4个面孔的觉察速度快于8个面孔的觉察速度[(1079.1±187.9)ms vs.(1139.2±202.7)ms];当呈现的面孔图片不同时,表情面孔类型主效应有统计学意义[F(1,312)=10.30,P0.01],悲伤表情的觉察快于愉悦表情的觉察[(941.0±168.5)ms vs.(997.8±152.7)ms]。表情类型和被试分组的交互作用有统计学意义[F(1,312)=16.55,P0.01],手机依赖组对悲伤情绪的识别快于非手机依赖组[(975.5±112.4)ms vs(906.4±126.5)ms,P0.05]。结论:手机依赖大学生对悲伤表情面孔觉察较快,其对愉悦和悲伤情绪的搜索是系列搜索。     

特质焦虑个体诱发负性情绪时的抑制控制

目的:探讨高特质焦虑个体诱发负性情绪时的抑制控制能力。方法:使用特质焦虑问卷筛选出高、低特质焦虑大学生各30名[STAI-T常模分数为(41.2±7.6)分,高于常模1个标准差为高特质焦虑,低于常模1个标准差为低特质焦虑]。让被试观看一组负性情绪面孔图片诱发负性情绪后,采用数字Stroop任务和数字转换任务,通过反应时、Stroop冲突效应量、转换损失等指标考察特质焦虑个体认知加工速度和抑制控制能力。结果:诱发负性情绪下,数字Stroop任务中高特质焦虑情绪组反应时长于低特质焦虑情绪组[(779.3±51.6)ms vs.(703.7±49.8)ms,P<0.05],Stroop冲突效应量高于低特质焦虑情绪组,[(167.9±55.7)ms vs.(114±79.1)ms,P<0.001];转换任务中高特质焦虑情绪组反应时长于低特质焦虑情绪组,[1 151.7±15.8)ms vs.(1 029.9±21.3)ms,P<0.05],转换损失高于低特质焦虑情绪组[(290.7±27.3)ms vs.(211.7±18.6)ms,P<0.05]。结论:负性情绪诱发下,高特质焦虑情绪个体抑制控制能力下降,体现为对无关信息的干扰抑制能力以及对心理定势反应的抑制能力下降。     

抑郁情绪对情绪面孔返回抑制的影响

目的:探讨抑郁情绪对情绪面孔返回抑制的影响.方法:用贝克抑郁量表(BDI)和自评抑郁量表(SDS)筛选出34名抑郁个体和35名正常对照,进行真人情绪面孔(高兴面孔、中性面孔、悲伤面孔和愤怒面孔)的线索一靶子任务(包括有效提示和无效提示两种线索类型)实验.结果:对照组的无效提示(430.3±74.3,423.1±58.3,426.4±59.5,429.4±53.6)小于有效提示(454.9±50.3,455.3±65.9,462.1±65.8,458.5±51.1)(F=45.12,P＜0.001),对四种面孔的返回抑制效应无显著差别(F=0.229,P=0.876);抑郁组的返回抑制效应在高兴与悲伤面孔之间有显著差异(F=4.528,P=0.042),在愤怒与悲伤面孔之间差异边缘显著(F=2.891,P=0.099),悲伤面孔的返回抑制效应(-6.2±58.2)小于高兴面孔(-66.1±90.1)和愤怒面孔(-56.9±97.8);两组被试的返回抑制效应在高兴面孔时差异边缘显著(F=3.29,P=0.076),抑郁组(-66.1±90.1)大于对照组(-24.6±65.9).结论:抑郁组对情绪面孔的注意特点不同于对照组:对照组对四种面孔均存在返回抑制效应,无显著差别;而抑郁组对四种面孔的返回抑制效应程度不同,对中性面孔的返回抑制效应正常,对高兴、愤怒面孔有过度抑制倾向,对悲伤面孔有抑制不足倾向.     

抑郁症患者对情绪面孔的定向遗忘效应

目的:对比分析抑郁症患者与正常人对情绪面孔的定向遗忘效应,探究抑郁症患者存在认知偏差的原因是否与定向遗忘的能力有关。方法:选取符合疾病和有关健康问题的国际统计分类第十次修订本(ICD-10)抑郁症诊断标准、汉密顿抑郁量表(HAMD)评估抑郁症状轻至中度的患者35例,选取年龄、受教育程度与之相匹配的健康对照33例。采用项目法定向遗忘范式,以情绪面孔(愉悦、平静、悲伤)作为刺激材料,比较两组在面孔再认成绩上的差异。要求记住项目(TBR)的再认成绩高于要求忘记项目(TBF)的再认成绩即出现了定向遗忘效应。结果:项目类型和组别的主效应有统计学意义(均P0.05),项目类型×情绪的交互效应有统计学意义(P0.001),两组对愉悦面孔的TBR和TBF再认数差异有统计学意义(P0.001)。项目类型×组别的简单效应分析显示:两组被试的定向遗忘效应不同,对照组对TBR的再认数高于TBF再认数[(10.1±2.3)vs.(8.7±2.2),P0.01],而抑郁组的TBR与TBF的再认成绩间差异无统计学意义[(8.0±2.7)vs.(7.7±2.9),P0.05]。抑郁组对悲伤面孔的TBR再认反而低于TBF[(2.1±1.3)vs.(3.1±1.6),P0.05]。结论:抑郁症患者总体上并未出现明显的定向遗忘效应,对悲伤面孔的再认出现了压抑后的反弹效应。不能及时有效的遗忘负性材料可能是抑郁症患者存在负性认知的原因之一。     

海洛因戒断者情绪识别时面孔和声音刺激的整合

目的:考察海洛因戒断者视听情绪一致和不一致条件下的情绪识别表现,研究其情绪面孔和声音刺激的整合加工特点。方法:选取男性海洛因戒断者32例(戒断组)和健康男性30例(对照组),采用视听情绪分类任务,要求被试忽略情绪声音而对情绪面孔的类型(愤怒、快乐)做出判断。结果:戒断组在一致条件下的反应时低于不一致[(670±66)ms vs.(687±77)ms,P<0.001];戒断组不一致条件与一致条件的反应时差值低于对照组[(32±31)ms vs.(17±21)ms,P<0.05];在愤怒声音下,对照组对愤怒面孔的反应时低于快乐面孔[(653±94)ms vs.(679±78)ms,P<0.05],而戒断组对两种面孔的反应时差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:海洛因戒断者表现出了情绪多通道整合促进效应,但其多通道整合加工能力弱于正常人;戒断者多通道整合受损可能体现在对愤怒声音不敏感。     

情绪面孔对成人惊跳反射的影响

目的:探讨情绪面孔刺激对成人惊跳反射的影响。方法:通过广告招募并结合状态-特质焦虑问卷、Beck抑郁问卷筛查出36名正常成人受试,采用以面孔图片(愤怒、恐惧、悲伤、快乐、中性)为诱发材料的惊跳探测任务,记录其眼轮匝肌肌电(electromyography,EMG)信号和自我报告的情绪效价、唤醒评价。结果:受试对愤怒与恐惧面孔的惊跳反应幅度均高于中性面孔[(52.07±4.24),(50.92±4.87)vs.(47.41±4.49),Ps0.05]。对不同类型情绪面孔的效价和唤醒评价差异有统计学意义(F1=92.933,F2=16.800,均P0.001)。快乐面孔(6.52±1.11)的效价得分高于其他面孔[愤怒(3.42±0.86),恐惧(3.58±1.02),悲伤(3.61±1.00),中性(4.55±0.82)],中性面孔的效价分高于愤怒、恐惧和悲伤面孔;愤怒(5.03±1.74)和恐惧面孔(5.05±1.55)的唤醒得分高于其他面孔[悲伤(4.57±1.34),快乐(4.23±1.43),中性(3.64±1.41)],中性面孔的唤醒得分低于其他面孔(Ps0.05)。结论:个体的惊跳反应与面孔的情绪效价并非一一对应关系,惊跳调节效应只发生于愤怒与恐惧面孔。     

有人际关系困扰的大学生的内隐心理活动

目的:探索有人际关系困扰(ID)问题的大学生在人际交往过程中的内隐心理活动特点,为ID者的心理辅导与干预治疗提供理论指导.方法:选取329名大学生,使用人际关系综合诊断量表(IRIDQ)将其分成ID组(IRIDQ得分为15～28分,n=43)、普通组(IRIDQ得分为9～ 12.11分,n=50)和无困扰组(IRIDQ得分为0～3.76分,n=50).采用GNAT (the Go/No-go Association Task)内隐联想范式和情绪STROOP范式测试三组在人际关系上的内隐认知、内隐情绪、内隐社交意向的反应时、击中率与虚报率(用于计算信号辨别率指数d’).结果:方差分析显示,在内隐认知、内隐情绪、内隐行为意向的平均反应时上,组别主效应均显著(均P ＜0.001),进一步多重比较发现,ID组积极内隐认知反应时长于普通组和无困扰组[(594.2±17.0) ms vs.(533.4±15.5) ms vs.(503.3±13.9) ms;均P＜0.01],而消极内隐认知反应时则短于普通组和无困扰组[(554.5±18.5) ms vs.(600.6±28.8) ms vs.(610.4±19.8)ms;均P＜0.01];ID组内隐情绪反应时长于普通组和无困扰组[积极情绪词(442.1±18.5) ms vs.(415.6±17.5) msvs.(395.7±12.9) ms;消极情绪词(434.3±17.5) ms vs.(390.1±13.1) ms vs.(389.8±15.5) ms;均P＜0.01]; ID组内隐社交意向反应时长于普通组和无困扰组[(593.6±10.7) ms vs.(395.6±12.0) ms vs.(381.2±8.1) ms;均P＜0.01],而社交情境d'最短[(0.8±0.6)vs.(1.8±0.8)vs.(2.2±0.6);均P ＜0.05)].结论:人际关系有困扰者存在消极的自我内隐认知和情绪干扰,人际交往行为有退缩意向.     

大学生对不同情绪词内隐记忆与外显记忆的差异

目的:考察大学生对正性、负性和中性词在内隐记忆和外显记忆上的差异。方法:分别使用真假词判断任务和学习-再认范式考察被试对不同情绪词的内隐和外显记忆。结果:在内隐记忆中,大学生对不同情绪词的反应时存在显著差异(F=6.360,P0.05)。进一步分析发现,对积极词的反应时(573.0±57.9ms)和消极词的反应时(650.3±109.12ms)显著短于对中性词的反应时(671.8±101.0ms),但积极词与消极词的反应时之间差异不显著。在外显记忆中,大学生对不同情绪词的正确率和反应时均存在显著差异(F=7.353,15.000,P0.05)。进一步分析发现,被试对积极词记忆的正确率(67.0%±17.9%)明显高于消极词(46.3%±15.9%)和中性词(50.3%±20.4%),但中性词与消极词的正确率差异不显著。积极词(688.2±129.3 ms)和消极词的反应时(814.5±140.3ms)均低于中性词的反应时(951.8±182.0ms),且积极词的反应时明显低于消极词的反应时。结论:刺激本身所具有的情绪信息会影响个体的记忆,个体对不同情绪词的内隐记忆与外显记忆存在差异。     

焦虑个体对负性刺激的注意偏向特点

目的:探讨焦虑个体的注意偏向特点。方法:招募在校大学生63名,完成状态-特质焦虑量表(STAI)、Liebowitz社交焦虑量表(LSAS)和贝克抑郁量表(BDI)。STAI量表的特质焦虑得分≥45分,或LSAS的社交焦虑得分≥60分者分入焦虑组(n=38);STAI量表的特质焦虑得分45分以下者,或STAI量表的特质焦虑得分≤46分且LSAS得分<45分者分入正常组(n=25)。采用2(组别:焦虑组,正常组)×2(目标位置:负性位置,中心位置)的混合设计,本研究的两个实验均采用目标探测范式,分别用情绪面孔和情绪词语作为线索刺激。比较两组被试在不同目标位置判断目标身份的按键反应的正确率、反应时、注意偏向值(中性刺激材料的反应时与负性刺激材料的反应时的差值)的标准分数的差异。结果:焦虑组在面孔材料条件下[(669.6±72.1)ms vs.(659.4±67.4)ms,P<0.01]和在词语材料条件下[(617.5±80.0)ms vs.(606.7±71.3)ms,P<0.01]的中性位置的反应时长于负性位置的反应时。结论:焦虑个体对负性面孔和词语的刺激材料均可能产生明显的注意偏向。     

Focus on emotion and disorders of emotion

Regulation of emotion is becoming better understood, but despite the societal costs of disorders like depression and anxiety, their causes remain unclear. Five review articles in this issue provide perspective on this literature.     

Respiratory sinus arrhythmia, emotion, and emotion regulation during social interaction

Respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) figures prominently in emotional responding, but its exact role remains unclear. The present study tests two hypotheses: (1) Between-person differences in resting RSA are related to emotional reactivity, and (2) within-person changes in RSA are related to regulatory efforts. Pairs of women watched an upsetting film and discussed it. One woman in each of the experimental dyads was asked to either suppress or to reappraise during the conversation. Their partners and both members of the control dyads conversed naturally. Between-person differences in resting RSA were assessed with paced breathing, and within-person changes in RSA were calculated from baseline to the conversation accounting for respiration. Women with higher resting RSA experienced and expressed more negative emotion, and women who attempted to regulate their emotions either by suppressing or reappraising showed larger increases in RSA than controls.     

Genetics of emotion regulation

Emotions can be powerful drivers of behavior that may be adaptive or maladaptive for the individual. Thus, the ability to alter one's emotions, to regulate them, should be beneficial to an individual's success of survival and fitness. What is the biological basis of this ability? And what are the biological mechanisms that impart individual differences in the ability to regulate emotion? In this article, we will first introduce readers to the construct of emotion regulation, and the various strategies that individuals may utilize to regulate their emotions. We will then point to evidence that suggests genetic contributions (alongside environmental contributions) to individual differences in emotion regulation. To date, efforts to identify specific genetic mechanisms involved in emotion regulation have focused on common gene variants (i.e. variants that exist in >1% of the population, referred to as polymorphisms) and their association with specific emotion regulation strategies or the neural substrate mediating these strategies. We will discuss these efforts, and conclude with a call to expand the set of experimental paradigms and putative molecular mechanisms, in order to significantly advance our understanding of the molecular mechanisms by which genes are involved in emotion regulation.     

基于脑电信号的抑郁情绪倾向研究

目的对在校大学生的脑电信号(electroencephalography,EEG)进行研究,以期找到对抑郁情绪倾向预测具有可行的高识别率的情绪特征。方法首先通过14导脑电设备采集19位高校大学生(女6、男13)的脑电信号并对其进行贝克抑郁量表的测试,按测试结果将其分为实验组和正常组。然后使用Eeglab工具包对采集到的数据进行预处理,得到干净的脑电信号。最后采用事件相关频谱扰动(ERSP)对其进行时频分析,以讨论在时间-频率域内的能量变化与抑郁情绪倾向预测的关系。结果在负性图片刺激下,在Alpha、Beta波段均发现时间窗为50~150 ms、350~450 ms时正常组和实验组之间差异具有统计学意义。在正性图片刺激下,Alpha波段在时间窗为150~250 ms、350~450 ms时正常组和实验组之间差异具有统计学意义,Beta波段在时间窗为300~400 ms时差异具有统计学意义。结论在正负性图片的刺激下,Alpha、Beta波段的部分特殊时间段中存在可识别抑郁情绪倾向的特征值,可为今后研究抑郁情绪倾向性提供一定的参考依据。     

Facial emotion space in schizophrenia

Introduction. Previous studies show that patients with schizophrenia have a deficit in facial emotion recognition. In the framework of emotion categorisation theories, the purpose of the present study was to test if this impairment could result from abnormal boundaries between emotions (whether these boundaries are shifted along continuums or are less sharpened).

Method. Twenty-six schizophrenic patients and the same number of healthy participants were required to perform a facial emotion recognition task and an emotion categorisation task with different emotion intensities obtained using morphing techniques.

Results. The main results indicate that schizophrenic patients exhibited an emotion space with less sharpened categories which favoured confusion between different emotions and intrusions of other emotions. Moreover, correlations between different indices showed that the less sharpened the categories, the more frequent the intrusions and the less discriminable the facial emotions.

Conclusion. We conclude that patients with schizophrenia process facial expressions in a less categorical way which involves impaired recognition of facial expressions. Such a specific impairment may favour false perceptions and lead to the settlement of delusional ideas.     

Hostile emotion and obsessional neurosis

The literature on the place of hostile emotion in obsessional neurosis is reviewed. In the main study 11 obsessional neurotic and 11 depressive patients matched for severity of illness were given questionnaires to measure experienced hostility and anger, and a repertory grid of standard form. The obsessional group showed a qualitatively distinct correlational pattern of measured aspects of hostility-anger, including a high correlation between outwardly directed aspects of hostility and anger; this pattern was replicated in a validation study. In contrast, the obsessional group was not differentiated by a negative cognitive set. Treatment implications for obsessional neurosis are briefly discussed.