不同程度抑郁个体注意抑制能力特点研究
Study of Attention Inhibition Characteristics in Individuals with Different Degrees of Depression
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2014.44083, PDF, HTML,  被引量 下载: 3,064  浏览: 9,620 
作者: 冯正直, 张 晋：第三军医大学心理学院，重庆；陈 蓉：重庆歌乐山社区服务中心，重庆
关键词: 抑郁程度；执行功能；注意抑制能力；Degrees of Depression； Executive Function； Attention Inhibition Ability
摘要: 目的：探索不同抑郁程度个体注意抑制能力的特点。方法：利用Beck抑郁自评量表、抑郁自评量表(SDS)、汉密顿抑郁量表对所征募的被试进行前后两次测评，时间间隔为两周，最终筛选出77名符合(正常对照组、抑郁症状组和抑郁症患者组)三组入组标准的被试，均采用Stroop色词干扰测试、威斯康星卡片分类测试，数据用SPSS18.0软件进行t检验和方差分析。结果：1) 在Stroop色词干扰测试错误率方面，抑郁症患者组阈上、阈下错误率显著高于正常对照组和抑郁症状组(t = 2.17, P = 0.038)，且该组阈下错误率高于阈上错误率。2) 在Stroop色词干扰测试反应时方面，三组间阈上、阈下反应时呈现显著差异(P < 0.05)，且随着抑郁程度的加重，反应时显著延长；其中抑郁症患者组阈上反应时长于阈下反应时。3) 在威斯康星卡片分类测试中，抑郁症患者组成绩显著低于正常对照组和抑郁症状组(P < 0.05)，其他组别间差异不显著(P > 0.05)。测试中非持续性错误这一项指标，症状组和患者组数值均偏离正常值(≥24)，且患者组分值较高，提示处于抑郁状(病)态的个体出现注意抑制能力损害。结论：个体注意抑制能力高低与抑郁严重程度呈反比。
Abstract: Objective: To explore the characteristics of attention inhibition ability in individuals with different degrees of depression. Method: A total of 77 subjects were involved. They were assessed twice by Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS), Hamilton Depression Rating scale (HAMD) with intervals of two weeks. All of them were divided into three groups, including normal group, depressive symptoms group and depression group. The attention inhibition of ex-ecutive function was measured in Stroop Color-Word Test and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). The data were analyzed by SPSS18.0 in t-test and ANOVA. Results: 1) In Stroop Color-Word Test, depression group showed the highest error rate among 3 groups (t = 2.17, P = 0.038), and in this group subliminal error rate was higher than suprathreshold error rate. 2) In Stroop Color-Word Test, there were significant differences among the 3 groups on the reaction time both in subliminal and suprathreshold (P < 0.05), and with the aggravation of depressive state, reaction time became longer. In depression group, subliminal reaction time was shorter than suprathreshold reaction time. 3) In Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), the depression group shows the worst performance (P < 0.05) among 3 groups and there was no significant difference between the other two groups (P > 0.05). On Non-persistence errors (NRPE) of WCST, both depressive symptoms group and depression group got the higher scores. Conclusion: The severity of depressive state is inversely proportional to the attention inhibition ability.
文章引用：冯正直, 张晋, 陈蓉 (2014). 不同程度抑郁个体注意抑制能力特点研究. 心理学进展, 4(4), 617-624. http://dx.doi.org/10.12677/AP.2014.44083

参考文献

[1] 陈俊, 刘海燕, 张积家(2007). Stroop效应研究的新进展——理论、范式及影响因素. 心理科学, 2期, 415-418.
[2] 戴琴, 冯正直(2008). 抑郁患者的注意偏向. 心理科学进展, 2期, 260-265.
[3] 耿海燕, 朱滢(2001). STROOP效应及其反转:无意识和意识知觉. 心理科学, 5期, 553-556.
[4] 季俊霞, 江钟立, 贺丹军, 等(2008). 基底核损伤与额叶损伤对注意力和短时记忆的影响. 中国康复医学杂志, 4期, 301-304.
[5] 鞠海燕, 江玉娟, 杨怡, 等(2011). 抑郁症患者治疗前后执行功能变化的研究. 疑难病杂志, 9期, 653-655.
[6] 李敏, 沈政, 黎海蒂(2002). 前额叶与执行控制. 中国行为医学科学, 3期, 356-357.
[7] 刘哲宁, 赵俊雄, 陈筱章, 等(2003). 抑郁症患者威斯康星卡片分类测验和连续操作测验的初步研究. 中国心理卫生杂志, 10期, 690-692.
[8] 苏晖, 江开达(2006). 抑郁症的认知功能障碍. 上海精神医学, 4期, 244-245.
[9] 苏晖, 江开达, 徐一峰, 等(2006). 抑郁症首次发病患者治疗前后认知功能的研究. 中华精神科杂志, 1期, 20-23.
[10] 汪向东, 王希林, 马弘编(1999). 心理卫生评定量表手册(增订版). 北京: 中国心理卫生杂志社.
[11] 徐晔, 陈晋东(2008). 首发与复发性抑郁症患者执行功能的比较. 中国健康心理学杂志, 11期, 1271-1273.
[12] 张喜燕, 杜亚松, 龚云, 等(2012). 青少年重症抑郁症患儿执行功能的特点. 实用儿科临床杂志, 13期, 1016-1018.
[13] 周晓林(2004). 执行控制: 一个具有广阔理论前途和应用前景的研究领域. 心理科学进展, 5期, 641-642.
[14] 周雅(2013). 情绪唤起对执行功能的作用. 心理科学进展, 7期, 1186-1199.
[15] Alekseev, A. A., & Rupchev, G. E. (2013). Relationship between executive function and everyday functioning in schizophrenia (in Russian sample). Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 86, 183-187.
[16] Donaldson, C., Lam, D., & Mathews, A. (2007). Rumination and attention in major depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 2664-2678.
[17] Fossati, P., Ergis, A. M., & Allilaire, J. F. (2001). Problem-solving abilities in unipolar depressed patients: Comparison of performance on the modified version of the Wisconsin and the California sorting tests. Psychiatry Research, 104, 145-156.
[18] Funahashi, S. (2001). Neuronal mechanisms of executive control by the prefrontal cortex. Neuroscience Research, 39, 147- 165.
[19] Gohier, B., Ferracci, L., Surguladze, S. A., Lawrence, E., El, H. W., & Kefi, M. Z., et al. (2009). Cognitive inhibition and working memory in unipolar depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 116, 100-105.
[20] Harvey, P. O., Le Bastard, G., Pochon, J. B., Levy, R., Allilaire, J. F., & Dubois, B., et al. (2004). Executive functions and updating of the contents of working memory in unipolar depression. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 38, 567-576.
[21] Koster, E. H., De Lissnyder, E., & De Raedt, R. (2013). Rumination is characterized by valence-specific impairments in switching of attention. Acta Psychologica (Amst), 144, 563-570.
[22] Koster, E. H., De Lissnyder, E., Derakshan, N., & De Raedt, R. (2011). Understanding depressive rumination from a cognitive science perspective: The impaired disengagement hypothesis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 138-145.
[23] Markela-Lerenc, J., Kaiser, S., Fiedler, P., Weisbrod, M., & Mundt, C. (2006). Stroop performance in depressive patients: A preliminary report. Journal of Affective Disorders, 94, 261-267.
[24] Merriam, E. P., Thase, M. E., Haas, G. L., Keshavan, M. S., & Sweeney, J. A. (1999). Prefrontal cortical dysfunction in depression determined by Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 780-782.
[25] Paelecke-Habermann, Y., Pohl, J., & Leplow, B. (2005). Attention and executive functions in remitted major depression patients. Journal of Affective Disorders, 89, 125-135.