冠心病与抑郁症共患者情绪Stroop效应任务研究

发布时间：2018-04-28 11:15

本文选题：冠心病 + 抑郁症　；参考：《中国全科医学》2016年23期

【摘要】：目的探讨冠心病(CHD)与抑郁症共患者对负性信息是否存在注意偏向。方法选取2013年5月—2014年8月在潍坊医学院附属医院心内科住院的CHD患者44例,按照Zung氏抑郁自评量表(SDS)评分和临床精神科医生的诊断,将其分为CHD与抑郁症共患组和单纯CHD组。患者均参加情绪Stroop效应任务,记录其正确率、反应时和干扰效应。结果排除试验时身体不适、操作不当未完成试验者,CHD与抑郁症共患组13例,单纯CHD组27例。对正确率进行重复测量方差分析,结果显示:阈限类型主效应显著(F=16.08,P0.001),阈上呈现的正确率高于阈下呈现;组别主效应显著(F=6.48,P0.001),CHD与抑郁症共患组的正确率低于单纯CHD组。对反应时进行重复测量方差分析,结果显示:组别主效应显著(F=21.68,P0.001),CHD与抑郁症共患组反应时长于单纯CHD组;词汇类型主效应显著(F=83.61,P0.001),负性词反应时长于正性词和中性词;阈限类型×组别交互作用显著(F=4.34,P=0.004);组别×词汇类型交互作用显著(F=4.01,P=0.005),简单效应分析发现:CHD与抑郁症共患组正性词和负性词反应时均长于单纯CHD组(F=16.14,P0.001;F=17.11,P0.001);且CHD与抑郁症共患组负性词反应时长于正性词和中性词(F=10.09,P0.001)。对干扰效应进行重复测量方差分析,结果显示:词汇类型主效应显著(F=43.61,P0.001),负性词的干扰效应大于正性词;组别×词汇类型×阈限类型交互作用显著(F=5.73,P=0.001)。以阈限类型为参照的进一步分析发现:阈上呈现时,词汇类型主效应显著(F=5.97,P=0.001);组别×词汇类型交互作用显著(F=6.49,P0.001),简单效应分析发现:两组正性词干扰效应比较,差异无统计学意义(F=1.08,P=0.07);CHD与抑郁症共患组负性词干扰效应大于单纯CHD组(F=6.24,P0.001);CHD与抑郁症共患组和单纯CHD组负性词干扰效应均大于正性词(F=4.40,P=0.04;F=5.45,P=0.02)。结论 CHD与抑郁症共患者对阈上负性词存在干扰抑制功能障碍,存在明显的负性注意偏向。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate whether there is attention bias to negative information in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and depression. Methods 44 cases of CHD patients hospitalized in Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Weifang Medical University from May 2013 to August 2014, were divided into CHD and depression co developed group according to Zung's self rating depression scale (SDS) score and clinical psychiatrist's diagnosis. The patients participated in the CHD group. The patients participated in the emotional Stroop effect task, recorded the correct rate, the reaction time and the interference effect. The results excluded the physical discomfort in the test, unfinished operation unfinished, 13 cases of CHD and depression co development group and 27 cases of simple CHD group. The correct rate was repeated measurement analysis of variance, the result showed threshold type main effect was significant (F= 16.08, P0.001), the correct rate on the subliminal presentation was higher than that of the subliminal presentation; the group main effect was significant (F=6.48, P0.001). The correct rate of the CHD and the depression codeveloped group was lower than that of the CHD group. The repeated measurement of variance analysis showed that the group effect was significant (F= 21.68, P0.001), and the reaction time of CHD and depression was longer than that of the simple CHD group; the words were longer than the simple CHD group. The main effect of remittance type was significant (F=83.61, P0.001), negative words were longer than positive words and neutral words; threshold type X group interaction was significant (F=4.34, P=0.004); group x vocabulary type interaction was significant (F=4.01, P=0.005). The simple effect analysis found that both positive words and negative words in the group of CHD and depression were all longer than those of CHD group (F). =16.14, P0.001; F=17.11, P0.001); and the negative word response of CHD and depression codeveloped group was longer than positive words and neutral words (F=10.09, P0.001). Repeated measurements of variance analysis of interference effects showed that the main effect of lexical types was significant (F=43.61, P0.001), negative words were greater than positive words; group * vocabulary type X threshold type The interaction was significant (F=5.73, P=0.001). Further analysis of the threshold type was found: the main effect of the lexical type was significant (F=5.97, P=0.001) when the threshold was presented, and the interaction of the group * vocabulary type was significant (F=6.49, P0.001). The analysis of the simple effect analysis found that there was no statistical difference (F=1.08, P=0.07) in the two groups of positive words (F=1.08, P=0.07); CHD The negative word interference effect in the patients with depression was greater than that of the simple CHD group (F=6.24, P0.001), and the negative word interference effect of CHD and depression group and simple CHD group were greater than that of positive words (F=4.40, P=0.04; F=5.45, P=0.02). Conclusion CHD and depression co patients had a negative negative attention bias in the supra threshold negative words.

【作者单位】：潍坊医学院;潍坊医学院健康风险预警治理协同创新中心;潍坊医学院附属医院心内科;
【基金】：山东省自然科学基金资助项目(ZR2012CL11,ZR2014CL012) “健康山东”重大社会风险预测与治理协同创新中心资助项目(XT1407002)
【分类号】：R541.4;R749.4

【相似文献】