轻度认知功能障碍认知任务负载下脑电特征研究

发布时间：2018-03-14 12:45

  本文选题：阿尔茨海默病　切入点：认知功能障碍　出处：《天津医科大学》2016年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：目的探讨MCI患者和正常老年人在闭目安静状态、任务负载状态下脑电信号变化特征,以期为MCI临床诊断提供客观指标。方法选择2015年3月-2016年3月在天津医科大学总医院神经内科就诊的MCI患者20例作为MCI组,另选择与之性别、年龄及受教育年限等相匹配的健康志愿者20例作为对照组。分别进行蒙特利尔认知评估量表(MoCA)、记忆障碍自评量表(AD8)、医院焦虑抑郁量表(HADS)、简易智能状态检查(MMSE)和临床记忆量表(CMS)评分,应用数字化脑电图记录系统分别采集MCI组及HC组在安静状态、任务负载状态下脑电信号,在MATLAB7.04平台上计算脑电复杂度(Lemple-Zie Complexity,LZC)及时频分析,采用SPSS19.0对结果进行比较分析。结果1、MCI组MMSE、MOCA评分均低于HC组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。2、HC组的记忆商及其各项分测验分值除图像自由回忆外均高于MCI组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。3、组间比较:安静状态下,HC组在左额、左颞区及FP1、F7导联LZC值大于MCI组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);认知状态下,HC组LZC值在右额区、右半球及FP2导联高于MCI组,而在左额区、左颞区、左半球及FP1导联低于MCI组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)组内比较:在安静状态下,左右半球比较,HC组LZC值在左额、左顶、左半球LZC值大于右侧,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);而MCI组为右额叶LZC值大于对侧,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。不同认知状态下比较,HC组在任务状态下左额区、左顶区、左侧半球及FP1、P3处的LZC值均低于安静状态(P0.05);MCI组右额区及FP2导联脑电LZC值低于安静状态,差异有统计学意(P0.05)。4、两组在认知状态下脑电时频图比较图片连续呈现阶段(0-3秒):在HC组导联,未见明显功率分布;MCI组FP1、F7导联可见10Hz左右甚至可达β频带的功率分布,功率值较HC组偏高,FP2、F8、O1、O2导联亦未见明显功率分布。在连续图片呈现后至探测图片出现阶段(4-8秒):组间比较:trial进行4-8秒,开始时HC组FP1、F7导联功率明显低于相应的MCI组,但功率的频率分布范围达40-80Hz(γ频带),较MCI组(4-30Hz,θ-β频带)广泛,约2s后HC组出现明显的高功率值,频率主要集中在10Hz左右(α频带)。组内比较:HC组在Fp1、FP2、F7、F8、O1、O2均可见trial 3S后功率值增高;而MCI组仅在FP2、F8、O1、O2导联增高,在FP1、F7导联未见明显改变,仍保持高功率,功率频带分布范围从θ到β频段(4-30Hz)。结论1、神经心理量表是诊断及评估MCI的不可缺少的工具。适当的认知功能检测量表可针对性评估MCI患者的不同认知侧面。2、在非线性角度,安静状态下,MCI组脑电LZC值左侧优势消失,出现左顶叶、左额叶及右侧脑区代偿;LZC值可用做MCI早期功能改变的客观研究工具。3、在线性角度,MCI脑电存在高频成分缺失,并且左前额及左前颞区在认知负载状态欠缺活跃度增强,可能存在功能障碍。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate the characteristics of EEG changes in the patients with MCI and the normal elderly under the condition of closed eyes and task load. Methods from March 2015 to March 2016, 20 MCI patients in the Department of Neurology, General Hospital of Tianjin Medical University were selected as MCI group, and their sex was chosen. Twenty healthy volunteers matched in age and years of education were treated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale (MOCAA), the Self-Rating memory Disorder scale (AD8), the Hospital anxiety and Depression scale (HADSE), the simple Mental State examination (MMSE), and the Clinical Cognitive Assessment scale (MMSE). Bed memory scale (BMS) score, The EEG signals of MCI group and HC group were collected by digital EEG recording system under the condition of quiet state and task load respectively. The EEG complexity was calculated on MATLAB7.04 platform and the frequency of EEG was analyzed by Lemple-Zie Complexity (LZC) in time. Results 1 the scores of MMSE MOCA in MMSE MCI group were lower than those in HC group. There was significant difference in memory quotient (MQ) and its subtest scores in MMSE group compared with HC group (P 0.05). The scores of MMSE MOCA in MMSE MCI group were higher than those in MCI group except image free recall. The difference was statistically significant (P 0.05). 3. Comparison between groups: the LZC value of left frontal, left temporal area and FP1F7 lead in HC group was higher than that in MCI group, and the LZC value of HC group was higher in right frontal area, right hemispheres and FP2 lead than MCI group in cognitive state. In the left frontal region, the left temporal region, the left hemisphere and the FP1 lead group, the difference was statistically significant (P 0.05). The LZC values in the left and right hemispheres were higher than those in the left frontal, left parietal, and left hemispheres groups in the rest state, and the LZC values in the left frontal, left parietal and left hemispheric hemispheres were higher than those in the right. The difference was statistically significant (P 0.05), while in MCI group the LZC value of right frontal lobe was higher than that of contralateral side, and the difference was statistically significant (P 0.05). The left frontal area and left parietal area were compared in different cognitive states in HC group. The LZC values in the left hemisphere and FP1 / P3 were lower than those in the rest P0.05 / MCI group, and the LZC values of the right frontal area and the FP2 lead were lower than those in the quiet state. The difference was statistically significant (P0.05 路4). In the cognitive state, the EEG time-frequency images of the two groups showed a continuous phase of 0-3 seconds: in the lead of HC group, there was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no obvious power distribution in the FP1F7 lead of MCI group, and the power distribution could even reach 尾 band at about 10 Hz. The power value was higher than that in HC group, and there was no obvious power distribution in lead FP2F8O1O _ 2. The power of lead FP1F7 in HC group was obviously lower than that in MCI group at the beginning, and the power of lead FP1F7 in HC group was obviously lower than that in MCI group at the beginning. But the frequency distribution range of power is 40-80 Hz (纬 band is wider than that of MCI group 4-30 Hz, 胃-尾). After about 2 seconds, HC group has obvious high power value, and the frequency is mainly about 10 Hz (伪 frequency band). The power value of trial 3s is higher in Fp1 / FP2F7F8O1O1O _ 2 group than in Fp1 / FP2F7F8O1O1O _ 2 group. However, in the MCI group, only in the FP2F8F8O1O1O 2 lead increased, but no obvious change was found in the FP1F7 lead, and the high power was maintained in the MCI group. Conclusion 1. The neuropsychological scale is an indispensable tool for the diagnosis and evaluation of MCI. Appropriate cognitive function measurement scales can be used to evaluate the cognitive profile of patients with MCI. In the quiet group, the left dominance of LZC disappeared, and the left parietal lobe, left frontal lobe and right brain region compensatory LZC value could be used as an objective tool to study the early functional changes of MCI. There was a loss of high frequency components in the linear angle. Moreover, the left forehead and left anterior temporal region were not active in cognitive load state, and there might be dysfunction.
【学位授予单位】：天津医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：R749.1
，

本文编号：1611266