情绪启动与语义启动在SOA为250ms时的ERP比较研究

发布时间：2018-07-26 09:40

【摘要】：情绪启动和语义启动的强弱快慢以及加工过程是独立还是平行一直是研究者关注的热点，而现有的研究大多是对两种启动进行间接对比，本研究使用经过匹配的实验材料和相同的实验任务，结合ERP技术对情绪启动和语义启动做直接比较，，以期为现有的两种启动之间的比较给出更为直接和客观的证据，并对它们之间的争论做出一些解释。方法：采用经过标准化匹配的实验材料和“图—词”范式，设置SOA为250ms，实验任务分别为情绪效价判断任务和语义分类任务，使用事件相关电位技术对自动化加工水平下的情绪启动和语义启动之间的异同作比较研究。结果：对行为结果的分析表明，在SOA=250ms时出现了典型的情绪启动和语义启动效应，均表现为启靶关系一致时促进对目标刺激的加工，启靶关系不一致时阻碍对目标刺激的加工。LPC的潜伏期结果分析发现，启靶关系主效应显著，F (1,18)=6.164，p 0.05，偏η2=0.256。相比于启靶不一致关系(128.7ms)，启靶一致时LPC的潜伏期更短(122.5ms)；将各条件与其相应的基线条件进行配对样本t检验，结果发现：在P4，P3，Pz点上，情绪启动不一致条件的潜伏期显著长于相应的基线条件；在Pz点上，情绪启动一致条件的潜伏期显著短于相应基线条件。Beta波分析结果表明，在目标刺激后200-300ms时间段内，启动类型与电极位置交互作用显著，校正后F (4.20075.604)=2.671，p 0.05，偏η2=0.129；进一步t检验发现在F4电极位置处，相比于语义启动，情绪启动的能量增强（ERS）更大。除小波分析外，行为结果和脑电数据的分析均未见与任务有关的交互作用。结论：1.在自动化加工水平上，在对信息的认知评价阶段，人脑对情绪信息流更加敏感；2.在自动化加工水平上，情绪启动和语义启动的加工速度相同；3.在自动化加工水平上，情绪启动和语义启动是相对独立的两个过程。
[Abstract]:The speed of emotional priming and semantic priming and whether the processing process is independent or parallel has always been the focus of attention of researchers, but most of the existing studies are indirect comparison of the two kinds of priming. In this study, the matched experimental materials and the same task were used to directly compare emotional priming and semantic priming with ERP technology, in order to provide more direct and objective evidence for the comparison between the two kinds of priming. And make some explanation to the argument between them. Methods: using standardized matching experimental materials and "graph word" paradigm, the SOA was set to 250 ms.The experimental tasks were emotion titer judgment task and semantic classification task, respectively. Event-related potentials were used to compare the similarities and differences between emotional priming and semantic priming at automated processing level. Results: the analysis of behavioral results showed that there were typical emotional priming and semantic priming effects in SOA=250ms, both of which promoted the processing of target stimuli when the starting-target relationship was the same. The results of latency analysis of LPC, which hinders the processing of target stimulation when the relationship between the target and the target is inconsistent, shows that the main effect of the starting-target relationship is significant (F _ (1 / 18) 6.164 / p 0.05, 畏 _ (2) = 0.256). The incubation period of LPC is shorter (122.5ms) than that of 128.7ms, and it is found that at the point of P4 / P3 / Pz, each condition is matched with its corresponding baseline condition. The incubation period of emotional priming inconsistent condition was significantly longer than that of corresponding baseline condition, and at Pz, the latency of emotional priming consistent condition was significantly shorter than that of corresponding baseline condition. Beta wave analysis showed that, in the 200-300ms period after target stimulation, the latency of the condition was significantly shorter than that of the corresponding baseline condition. After correction, F (4.20075.604) 2.671 (p) 0.05, 畏 _ (2) (0.129). Further t test showed that the energy of emotional activation was greater than that of semantic priming at F4 electrode position. With the exception of wavelet analysis, there was no interaction between behavioral results and EEG data. Conclusion 1. At the level of automation, the human brain is more sensitive to the flow of emotional information in the cognitive evaluation of information. At the level of automation, the processing speed of emotional priming and semantic priming is the same as that of semantic priming. At the level of automation, emotional priming and semantic priming are two relatively independent processes.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：B842

【参考文献】