社交焦虑个体的注视方向和面部表情加工及其机制研究

发布时间：2018-04-25 20:36

本文选题：注视方向 + 社交焦虑　；参考：《安徽医科大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的：社交焦虑是一种危害人类心理健康的严重心理问题，信息加工偏差对社交焦虑的发生发展有重要影响。社交焦虑者的这种偏差可以划分为注意偏差、记忆偏差、消极自我意象和解释偏差等认知偏差，其中对威胁信息的注意偏差在社交焦虑的发生发展中具有重要作用。在社交情境中，与社交焦虑特异相关的威胁信息包括威胁性面孔和注视方向。目前关于社交焦虑的这种注意偏向效应还未得到一致的结论，并且前人的研究多数只研究面部表情和注视方向两个因素中的一个，然而面部表情和注视方向往往共同作用影响认知加工过程，两者共同作用对社交焦虑的信息加工产生怎样的影响尚不清楚，其背后的机制也未得到研究。因此，本研究采用眼动技术和事件相关电位技术研究注视方向与面部表情的交互作用对社交焦虑个体信息加工过程的影响，探讨其相互作用的行为学证据和电生理机制。方法：研究一：使用Liebowitz社交焦虑量表(LSAS)筛查安徽医科大学本科生，根据LSAS量表得分将56名被试分为高社交焦虑组（HSA）和低社交焦虑组（LSA），采用配对的厌恶和中性面孔作为实验刺激材料并记录眼动数据。研究二：使用Liebowitz社交焦虑量表(LSAS)筛查安徽医科大学本科生，根据LSAS量表得分将40名被试分为高社交焦虑组（HSA）和低社交焦虑组（LSA），采用愤怒和中性面孔作为实验刺激材料，记录行为学数据与事件相关电位数据。结果：研究一：直视条件下，HSA组注视厌恶面孔的时间为（2311.09±521.41）ms,注视中性面孔的时间为（1910.69±607.59）ms,差异具有统计学意义（P 0.05），LSA组注视厌恶面孔与中性面孔的时间差异无统计学意义（P0.05）；斜视条件下，HSA与LSA注视厌恶面孔与中性面孔的时间差异均无统计学意义（P0.05）。研究二：在ERP结果中，注视方向主效应显著(F(1,38)=12.42, P=0.001)，直视诱发更大的N300波幅(M=1.880,SE=0.43)。组别主效应显著(F (1,38)=6.54,P=0.01)，高社交焦虑个体(M=0.972, SE=0.61)比低社交焦虑个体(M=3.19, SE=0.61)诱发更大的N300波。电极点主效应显著(F (1,38)=136.79, P=0.000.)，N300波幅在前中部电极点最大(FZ: M=0.27, SE=0.43)。情绪×注视方向×组别交互效应显著(F (1,38)=5.00, P=0.03)。简单效应分析发现，高社交焦虑组情绪×注视方向交互效应显著(F(1,38)=5.98, P=0.02)，低社交焦虑个体交互效应不显著(F(1,38)=0.23, P=0.64)。进一步研究发现，高社交焦虑个体注视方向效应在愤怒情绪条件下(F (1,38)=15.36, P=0.001)显著，在中性情绪条件下(F(1,38)=0.009, P=0.92)不显著。直视(M=0.44, SE=0.74)比斜视(M=2.02, SE=0.72)引起更大的N300波幅。两组被试行为学数据差异无统计学意义（P0.05）。结论：研究一：注视方向影响了社交焦虑个体对厌恶表情的加工，，表明直视的厌恶面孔对于HSA个体来说是一种社交威胁信息,斜视的厌恶面孔不是明确的社交威胁信息。研究二：高社交焦虑个体直视的愤怒面孔比斜视的愤怒面孔诱发更大的N300波。注视方向不影响中性面孔的加工。低社交焦虑个体未表现出注视方向和面部情绪的交互效应。
[Abstract]:Objective: social anxiety is a serious psychological problem that endangers the mental health of human beings. Information processing deviations have an important influence on the development of social anxiety. These deviations can be divided into cognitive deviations, such as attention deviation, memory deviation, negative self image and interpretation deviation, among which the attention deviation to the threat information is found. Social anxiety has an important role in the development of social anxiety. In social situations, threats related to social anxiety include threatening faces and gaze directions. The current attention bias effect on social anxiety has not yet been agreed, and previous studies have only studied two causes of facial expression and fixation. One of the elements, however, the facial expression and the direction of fixation often affect the process of cognitive processing. It is not clear how the interaction of the two effects on the information processing of social anxiety is not clear, and the mechanism behind it has not been studied. Therefore, this study uses eye movement technology and event related potential technology to study the direction and face of the face. The effect of facial expression interaction on the process of information processing of social anxiety individuals, the behavioral evidence and electrophysiological mechanism of their interaction. Methods: Study 1: the Liebowitz social anxiety scale (LSAS) was used to screen the undergraduates of Medical University Of Anhui, and 56 subjects were divided into high social anxiety group (HSA) and low social society according to the LSAS scale score. In the anxiety group (LSA), paired aversion and neutral faces were used as experimental stimuli and recorded eye movement data.
Study two: using the Liebowitz social anxiety scale (LSAS) to screen undergraduate students from Medical University Of Anhui, 40 subjects were divided into high social anxiety group (HSA) and low social anxiety group (LSA) according to the LSAS scale score. Anger and neutral face were used as experimental stimulus materials, and behavioral data and event related potential data were recorded. Under the condition of direct vision, the time for the HSA group to look at the disgust face was (2311.09 + 521.41) ms, the time for looking at the neutral face was (1910.69 + 607.59) ms, and the difference was statistically significant (P 0.05). The time difference between the disgust face and the neutral face in the LSA group was not statistically significant (P0.05). Under the strabismus condition, HSA and LSA watched the aversion face and neutral face with LSA. The time difference was not statistically significant (P0.05).
Study two: in the results of ERP, the main effect of gaze direction is significant (F (1,38) =12.42, P=0.001), and direct vision induces a greater N300 amplitude (M=1.880, SE=0.43). The main effect of the group is significant (F (1,38) =6.54, P=0.01), and the higher social anxiety individuals are more than the low social anxiety individuals. (F (1,38) =136.79, P=0.000.), N300 amplitude was maximum (FZ: M=0.27, SE=0.43) in the anterior central area (FZ: M=0.27, SE=0.43). The interaction effect of mood X direction X group was significant (F (1,38) =5.00, P=0.03). No significant (F (1,38) =0.23, P=0.64). Further studies have found that the gaze direction effect of high social anxiety individuals (F (1,38) =15.36, P=0.001) is significant in angry mood conditions (F (1,38) =0.009, P=0.92) is not significant in neutral mood conditions. There was no statistical difference in the difference of the data (P0.05).
Conclusion: Study 1: the direction of gaze affects the processing of social anxiety individuals on disgust expression, indicating that the disgust face of direct view is a social threat to HSA individuals, and the disgust face of strabismus is not a clear social threat.
Study two: the angry face directly viewed by high social anxiety individuals increased the N300 wave more than the angry face of the strabismus. The direction of fixation did not affect the processing of neutral faces. The low social anxiety individuals did not show the interaction effect of the direction of fixation and the facial emotion.

【学位授予单位】：安徽医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：B848

【参考文献】