注意缺陷多动障碍与正常儿童冲突监测功能比较研究
发布时间：2019-05-28 11:00
【摘要】：第一部分不同亚型注意缺陷多动障碍儿童家庭环境与行为比较 目的：对注意缺陷多动障碍常见亚型的家庭环境与冲突监测功能进行比较，寻求ADH行为问题的危险因素，探讨不同亚型认知损伤的差异。方法：选择ADHD注意缺陷型(ADHD-I型)和混合型（ADHD-C型）各39例、正常儿童38名，进行Conners父母问卷PSQ、家庭环境量表FES-CV的评定和空间整合Simon-Stroop任务的完成。结果：量表：①PSQ：ADHD-I型和ADHD-C型的品行问题、学习问题、冲动-多动及多动指数与正常组比较，差异有统计学意义（P0.05）；两亚型间上述4个评分差异有统计学意义；②FES-CV：ADHD-I型和ADHD-C型的亲密度、情感表达、矛盾性、知识性、娱乐性、控制性与正常组比较，差异有统计学意义（P 0.05）；两亚型间矛盾性评分差异有统计学意义。行为学：Simon不一致（Siin）和Stroop不一致(Stin)条件，ADHD-I型和ADHD-C型的反应正确率(Siin：0.76±0.13，0.69±0.13；Stin：0.82±0.10，0.78±0.08)和反应时（Siin：876.4±97.34ms，，893.8±130.1ms；Stin：864.4±91.82ms，860.2±125.0ms）与正常组(Siin：0.81±0.11，810.4±136.1；Stin：0.87±0.08，797.4±136.1ms)比较，差异有统计学意义（P0.05）；两亚型间Siin及Stin的正确率差异有统计学意义；Pearson相关分析：FES-CV某些环境因素与ADHD儿童的行为特点存在不同程度相关性。结论：不良的家庭环境是ADHD儿童发生行为问题的危险因素，且ADHD-C型的家庭、行为问题较ADHD-I型突出。ADHD两亚型均存在冲突监测功能缺损，损伤程度有所不同，ADHD-C型较ADHD-I型重。 第二部分ADHD儿童冲突监测功能事件相关电位与行为学研究 目的：对注意缺陷多动障碍（ADHD）儿童完成干扰任务的行为学和事件相关电位（ERP）进行分析，探讨ADHD儿童是否存在冲突监测功能损伤，寻求ADHD儿童ERP各成分在不同导联的变化特点及意义。方法：选择ADHD儿童112例、正常儿童101名，进行空间整合Simon-Stroop任务的完成。结果：行为学：Simon不一致（Siin）和Stroop不一致(Stin)条件，ADHD组的反应错误率(Siin：0.27±0.12，Stin：0.19±0.10)和反应时(Siin：890.35±93.15，Stin：858.15±95.63)与正常组(Siin：0.18±0.14，820.40±106.8；Stin：0.15±0.16，816.94±104.7)比较，差异有统计学意义（P0.05）；事件相关电位（ERP）：N1和P2成分：波幅和潜伏期在Fz、Fcz、Cz导联上与正常组比较，差异有统计学意义，但不存在条件主效应；N2a和N2b成分：波幅和潜伏期在Fz、Fcz导联上与正常组比较，差异有统计学意义，同时存在条件主效应；P3成分：波幅和潜伏期在Cz、Pz导联上与正常组比较，差异有统计学意义，同时存在条件主效应。结论：ADHD儿童存在冲突监测功能损伤，且整个认知加工过程中，ERP不仅早期成份存在异常，且晚期成分也有异常。ERP各成分所代表的意义有所不同，不同导联ERP主成分的变化特点也不同。在Fz、Fcz导联上,N1、N2成分变化最为明显，N2代表冲突监测功能的指标；Cz导联是观察P2成分差异的最好区域，N1、P2与视觉注意力，忽略无关信息能力有关；而P3成分则主要在Pz导联上呈现，是衡量ADHD儿童认知功能的客观指标之一。
[Abstract]:Comparison of family environment and behavior of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in different subtypes of the first part Objective: To compare the family environment and the conflict monitoring function of the common subtype of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and to find the risk factors of ADH behavior and to explore the difference of the cognitive impairment of different subtypes. Methods:39 cases of ADHD-type (ADHD-I) and mixed type (ADHD-C) and 38 normal children were selected. The evaluation of the family environment scale FES-CV and the completion of the Simon-Stroop were completed. The results were as follows: Q: ADHD-I and ADHD-C. The difference was significant (P0.05). The difference of four scores between the two subcategories was of statistical significance (P <0.05); the difference of the four scores between the two subcategories was of statistical significance; the AFIES-CV: ADHD-I and ADHD-C were close to each other. The difference in degree, emotion expression, contradiction, knowledge, entertainment and control was statistically significant (P 0.05). There was a statistical difference in the difference between the two subcategories. Presense. Behavior: Simon's Inconsistent (Siin) and Stroop Inconsistent (Stin) conditions, ADHD-I and ADHD-C type of reaction accuracy (Siin: 0.76-0.13, 0.69-0.13; Stin: 0.82-0.10, 0.78-0.08) and reaction (Siin: 876.4-97.34 ms, 893.8-130.1 ms; Stin: 864.4-91.82 ms, 860.2-125.0 ms) and normal group (Siin: 0.81-0.11, 810.4-136.1; Sti N: 0.87 (0.08, 797.4, 136.1 ms), the difference was statistically significant (P0.05); the difference of the accuracy of the two subtypes of Siin and Stin was of statistical significance; Pearson correlation analysis: some of the environmental factors of the FES-CV were related to the behavior characteristics of the ADHD children. Sex. Conclusion: The poor family environment is the risk factor of the behavior of ADHD children, and the ADHD-C family and behavior problems are higher than that of the ADHD-I type. The two subtypes of ADHD have the function of conflict monitoring, the degree of damage is different, and the ADHD-C type is higher than that of the ADHD-I type. The second part of the ADHD children's conflict monitoring function event-related potential and line Objective: To study the behavior and event-related potential (ERP) of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Measure the function damage and seek the change of each component of the ADHD children's ERP in different leads Methods:112 children with ADHD were selected,101 normal children, and Simon-Stroop in space. Results: The behavior of Simin and Stroop did not agree (Stin). The reaction error rate of ADHD group (Siin: 0.27-0.12, Stin: 0.19-0.10) and reaction time (Siin: 890.35-93.15, Stin: 858.15-95.63) and normal group (Siin: 0.18-0.14, 820.40-106.8; Stin: 0.15-0.16, 816.94-104) (7) The difference was significant (P0.05); the event-related potential (ERP): N1 and P2: the amplitude and the latency were compared with the normal group in Fz, Fcz and Cz, but there was no conditional main effect; the components of N2a and N2b: amplitude and latent period Compared with the normal group in Fz and Fcz, there was a significant difference in the Fz and Fcz. The main effect of the condition was that the amplitude and the latent period were compared with the normal group in Cz and Pz, and the difference was of statistical significance. Conclusion: In the whole cognitive process, the early component of ADHD is not only abnormal but also in the late stage. There is also an exception. The meaning of the representative of the ERP components is different, and the change of the principal component of the different lead ERP The characteristic is also different. In Fz, Fcz guide, the change of the component of N1 and N2 is the most obvious, and the N2 represents the index of the conflict monitoring function; the Cz lead is the best area for observing the difference of the P2 component, N1, P2 is related to the visual attention, and the independent information ability is ignored; and the P3 component is mainly in Pz. The presentation on the guide is a measure of the cognitive function of the ADHD children.
【学位授予单位】：苏州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：R749.94
本文编号：2486996
[Abstract]:Comparison of family environment and behavior of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in different subtypes of the first part Objective: To compare the family environment and the conflict monitoring function of the common subtype of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and to find the risk factors of ADH behavior and to explore the difference of the cognitive impairment of different subtypes. Methods:39 cases of ADHD-type (ADHD-I) and mixed type (ADHD-C) and 38 normal children were selected. The evaluation of the family environment scale FES-CV and the completion of the Simon-Stroop were completed. The results were as follows: Q: ADHD-I and ADHD-C. The difference was significant (P0.05). The difference of four scores between the two subcategories was of statistical significance (P <0.05); the difference of the four scores between the two subcategories was of statistical significance; the AFIES-CV: ADHD-I and ADHD-C were close to each other. The difference in degree, emotion expression, contradiction, knowledge, entertainment and control was statistically significant (P 0.05). There was a statistical difference in the difference between the two subcategories. Presense. Behavior: Simon's Inconsistent (Siin) and Stroop Inconsistent (Stin) conditions, ADHD-I and ADHD-C type of reaction accuracy (Siin: 0.76-0.13, 0.69-0.13; Stin: 0.82-0.10, 0.78-0.08) and reaction (Siin: 876.4-97.34 ms, 893.8-130.1 ms; Stin: 864.4-91.82 ms, 860.2-125.0 ms) and normal group (Siin: 0.81-0.11, 810.4-136.1; Sti N: 0.87 (0.08, 797.4, 136.1 ms), the difference was statistically significant (P0.05); the difference of the accuracy of the two subtypes of Siin and Stin was of statistical significance; Pearson correlation analysis: some of the environmental factors of the FES-CV were related to the behavior characteristics of the ADHD children. Sex. Conclusion: The poor family environment is the risk factor of the behavior of ADHD children, and the ADHD-C family and behavior problems are higher than that of the ADHD-I type. The two subtypes of ADHD have the function of conflict monitoring, the degree of damage is different, and the ADHD-C type is higher than that of the ADHD-I type. The second part of the ADHD children's conflict monitoring function event-related potential and line Objective: To study the behavior and event-related potential (ERP) of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Measure the function damage and seek the change of each component of the ADHD children's ERP in different leads Methods:112 children with ADHD were selected,101 normal children, and Simon-Stroop in space. Results: The behavior of Simin and Stroop did not agree (Stin). The reaction error rate of ADHD group (Siin: 0.27-0.12, Stin: 0.19-0.10) and reaction time (Siin: 890.35-93.15, Stin: 858.15-95.63) and normal group (Siin: 0.18-0.14, 820.40-106.8; Stin: 0.15-0.16, 816.94-104) (7) The difference was significant (P0.05); the event-related potential (ERP): N1 and P2: the amplitude and the latency were compared with the normal group in Fz, Fcz and Cz, but there was no conditional main effect; the components of N2a and N2b: amplitude and latent period Compared with the normal group in Fz and Fcz, there was a significant difference in the Fz and Fcz. The main effect of the condition was that the amplitude and the latent period were compared with the normal group in Cz and Pz, and the difference was of statistical significance. Conclusion: In the whole cognitive process, the early component of ADHD is not only abnormal but also in the late stage. There is also an exception. The meaning of the representative of the ERP components is different, and the change of the principal component of the different lead ERP The characteristic is also different. In Fz, Fcz guide, the change of the component of N1 and N2 is the most obvious, and the N2 represents the index of the conflict monitoring function; the Cz lead is the best area for observing the difference of the P2 component, N1, P2 is related to the visual attention, and the independent information ability is ignored; and the P3 component is mainly in Pz. The presentation on the guide is a measure of the cognitive function of the ADHD children.
【学位授予单位】：苏州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：R749.94
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 刘丽;冯斌;欧阳颖;俸曦;谢丹丹;傅师亭;吴玫;;事件相关电位和Conners家长量表在注意缺陷多动障碍儿童的应用比较[J];重庆医学;2010年14期
2 张凯峰;徐秀;;注意缺陷多动障碍儿童的事件相关脑电位研究[J];中国儿童保健杂志;2008年02期
3 范娟;杜亚松;王立伟;;Conners父母用症状问卷的中国城市常模和信度研究[J];上海精神医学;2005年06期
4 聂陆一,王改青,王慧聪;注意缺陷多动障碍儿童患者的事件相关电位研究[J];临床神经病学杂志;2003年04期
5 王玉平,杨静;认知事件相关电位冲突负波-N270与脑认知活动的关系[J];中国临床康复;2004年01期
6 梁福成,董军,韩玉荣;多动症儿童与认知事件相关电位的实验研究[J];心理科学;2002年02期
7 ;儿童注意缺陷多动障碍诊疗建议[J];中华儿科杂志;2006年10期
8 杨慧明;毛萌;;注意缺陷多动障碍的诊治进展[J];中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版);2006年06期
9 刘豫鑫,王玉凤;注意缺陷多动障碍儿童认知特点的研究[J];中华医学杂志;2002年06期
10 静进;吴丙辰;麦坚凝;杨文翰;杨思渊;;注意缺陷多动障碍儿童的社会适应行为特征[J];中国实用儿科杂志;2007年07期
本文编号：2486996
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/yixuelunwen/jsb/2486996.html
最近更新
教材专著
