特质焦虑大学生注意偏向的实验研究

焦虑与注意偏向的研究是近年来情绪与认知领域的热点.本研究采用点探测和线索靶子两个实验任务来探讨特质焦虑大学生注意偏向的特点及其内在机制.结果表明:(1)高特质焦虑大学生对负性情绪词附近靶刺激的反应时显著短于中性和正性情绪词附近的靶刺激.表现出一种对负性刺激的注意偏向.而低特质焦虑大学生没有出现注意偏向;(2)高低特质焦虑大学生在有效线索情况下反应时没有显著差异;在无效线索情况下.高特质焦虑大学生对以负性情绪词为线索的靶刺激反应时显著长于对其他靶刺激的反应时,表现出一种对负性刺激的空间注意的解除困难.因此,高特质焦虑个体对负性刺激的注意偏向是一种注意解除困难.     

自尊对情绪面孔注意偏向的影响

研究表明低自尊个体对负性信息表现出高度的警觉和关注,而高自尊个体相对来说注意积极地方面,但并未表现明显偏向。为了精确记录注意选择神经加工时间进程,进一步从电生理学角度对低自尊个体的负性注意偏向进行探讨,本研究运用事件相关电位（ERP）技术对不同自尊个体在点-探测任务过程中的注意偏向进行研究。实验一以129名在校大学生作为被试,以大学生面孔情绪图片（高兴、悲伤和中性）作为实验材料,结果发现,高低自尊个体之间没有出现注意偏向的差异。实验二以实验一筛选出的30名高低自尊个体作为被试,选择了更具负性情绪唤醒的愤怒图片作为实验材料（高兴、愤怒和中性）,行为数据结果发现,两组被试都没有出现注意偏向,相反,无论是在高兴面孔条件下还是在愤怒面孔条件下,低自尊个体的反应时都快于高自尊个体;电生理学数据结果发现,在低自尊个体中,在两种情绪面孔条件下,有效线索的P1峰值显著高于无效线索,而无效线索的N2pc峰值显著高于有效线索。电生理学数据表明,无论是负性的还是正性的情绪性的信息都能引起低自尊个体的更多注意,表明低自尊个体更容易受到情绪性信息的影响。     

不同自尊水平者的注意偏向

本研究分别从外显自尊和内隐自尊角度出发, 以大学生情绪面孔(高兴, 中性, 愤怒)图片为实验材料, 采用“空间线索任务”实验范式, 探讨不同自尊水平个体注意偏向的特点及其内在机制。结果表明, 在无效线索条件下, 低外显自尊个体对以愤怒为提示线索的靶刺激的反应时显著长于高兴和中性, 说明低外显自尊个体对负性情绪信息(愤怒)的注意偏向是一种注意的解脱困难; 高内隐自尊个体在无效线索条件下, 对以高兴和愤怒为提示线索的靶刺激的反应时显著长于中性, 说明高内隐自尊个体更易受到情绪性信息(愤怒和高兴)的吸引, 是一种选择性的注意维持倾向, 表现为注意的解脱困难。     

阈上和阈下不同情绪线索对返回抑制的影响

为检验返回抑制是否受线索生物学意义的调节, 分别在实验一和实验二中以阈上和阈下不同情绪效价(高兴、生气和中性)的面孔为外源性线索, 变化同时提示位置的多寡, 要求被试对靶子尽可能快而准地作探测反应。实验一发现, 三种线索情况下均出现返回抑制且效应量无显著差异; 实验二发现, 线索为中性面孔时出现返回抑制, 线索为高兴和生气面孔时未出现返回抑制。说明返回抑制受线索生物学意义的调节。阈下线索的生物学意义(情绪效价)能得到自动加工, 从而影响空间注意的转移和返回抑制机制的功用; 阈上线索的情绪效价被清晰感知时, 自上而下的注意控制机制使线索的生物学意义被忽略, 从而阻碍情绪效价功能的发挥。     

特质焦虑个体在高难度Stroop任务下的情绪启动效应

通过问卷法,选取特质焦虑和非特质焦虑被试作为本实验的研究对象,考察了正性、负性、中性三种不同的情绪对不同特质焦虑个体认知抑制的影响。在Stroop任务之前呈现三种情绪图片,结果发现,相比非特质焦虑被试,特质焦虑被试的Stroop效应量更大;特质焦虑被试和非特质焦虑被试在正性和负性情绪条件下的Stroop效应量均更大。说明特质焦虑被试的认知抑制功能存在不足,正性和负性情绪对特质焦虑和非特质焦虑被试的认知抑制均存在阻碍作用。     

高、低自尊个体对负性情绪注意偏向的眼动研究

采用"点探测任务"实验范式,选取29名大学生被试,用眼动仪记录被试观察情绪图片的眼动轨迹,考察高、低自尊个体注意偏向的内部加工机制。结果表明:低自尊个体对正性情绪图片的总注视时间显著短于高自尊个体,即低自尊个体缺乏对正性情绪图片的注意偏向,对负性情绪图片不存在注意警觉和注意维持,存在注意回避;高自尊个体对负性情绪图片的总注视时间显著长于正性情绪图片,即对负性情绪图片存在注意偏向。     

情感性动机网络使用者对负性情绪线索的前注意偏向

采用修改后的分离式Stroop任务,通过两个实验考察了基于人际情感性动机的网络使用者在双线索竞争条件下的前注意加工特性。研究结果表明,相对于信息获取型被试,在中性线索与负性情绪线索匹配条件下,人际情感型被试对负性情绪线索表现出显著的前注意加工偏向,但在中性线索和情感满足线索匹配条件下,该类被试对情感满足线索未表现出前注意加工偏向。该研究为解释人际情感型动机者的病理性网络使用行为的情绪机制提供了实验证据。     

高低强迫清洗倾向个体对负性情绪注意偏向的差异

摘 要 本研究采用返回抑制范式,以诱发厌恶、恐惧和中性情绪的图片为线索,考察高、低强迫清洗倾向个体对负性情绪刺激注意偏向的差异及其发生机制。结果表明：（1）被试对诱发厌恶和恐惧的图片均产生了注意偏向且注意偏向是由注意解除困难所引起;（2）被试对诱发厌恶图片的注意偏向程度显著大于对诱发恐惧图片的注意偏向程度;（3）高、低强迫清洗倾向个体对诱发厌恶和恐惧图片的注意偏向程度之间的组间差异均不显著。     

阈上阈下不同面孔表情下的注视线索提示效应

为考察阈上、阈下不同面孔表情下的注视线索提示效应, 实验以阈上和阈下面孔的不同注视朝向为提示线索, 同时变化面孔表情, 要求被试迅速和准确地对随后出现的靶刺激(大写字母)的呈现位置做出判断。结果显示, 在阈上呈现条件下, 注视线索提示效应显著, 且该效应不受面孔表情的影响。在阈下呈现条件下, 注视线索提示效应显著, 但该效应受到了面孔表情的调节, 表现为在注视线索无效时, 判断目标位置所需反应时在正性、负性面孔表情下显著长于中性面孔条件。上述结果说明, 阈上知觉时, 面孔表情虽被清晰感知, 但个体自上而下的控制机制使其被忽略, 因而未能影响个体的注意偏向; 阈下知觉时, 面孔表情得到自动加工, 并影响了个体的注意偏向。     

社交焦虑个体对于不同威胁信息的注意偏向

目的:研究社交焦虑个体对不同类型词语的注意偏向。方法:被试41名,采用情绪Stroop范式,研究词与非词不同比例条件下高低社交焦虑个体对不同类型词(被关注词、被评价词、躯体威胁性词、中性词和非词)的注意偏向。结果:在词和非词比例高的条件下,高社交焦虑组在负性评价词和受他人关注词上的Stroop效应显著大于低社交焦虑组。结论:高社交焦虑个体对负性评价和他人关注的词语存在注意偏向。     

Attentional Bias for Threat: Evidence for Delayed Disengagement from Emotional Faces

The present paper reports three new experiments suggesting that the valence of a face cue can influence attentional effects in a cueing paradigm. Moreover, heightened trait anxiety resulted in increased attentional dwell-time on emotional facial stimuli, relative to neutral faces. Experiment 1 presented a cueing task, in which the cue was either an "angry", "happy", or "neutral" facial expression. Targets could appear either in the same location as the face (valid trials) or in a different location to the face (invalid trials). Participants did not show significant variations across the different cue types (angry, happy, neutral) in responding to a target on valid trials. However, the valence of the face did affect response times on invalid trials. Specifically, participants took longer to respond to a target when the face cue was "angry" or "happy" relative to neutral. In Experiment 2, the cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was increased and an overall inhibition of return (IOR) effect was found (i.e., slower responses on valid trials). However, the "angry" face cue eliminated the IOR effect for both high and low trait anxious groups. In Experiment 3, threat-related and jumbled facial stimuli reduced the magnitude of IOR for high, but not for low, trait-anxious participants.These results suggest that: (i) attentional bias in anxiety may reflect a difficulty in disengaging from threat-related and emotional stimuli, and (ii) threat-related and ambiguous cues can influence the magnitude of the IOR effect.     

不同位置的情绪面孔加工对返回抑制的影响

分别将情绪面孔图片作为线索（实验一）或靶子（实验二）呈现,利用线索-靶子范式考察了定位任务中情绪面孔加工对返回抑制的影响。结果发现：以不同情绪面孔作为线索时,返回抑制稳定出现,表现出与情绪加工的分离;而当情绪面孔作为靶子时,与中性面孔相比,情绪面孔引发的返回抑制量显著较小。该研究表明,在定位任务中,返回抑制不受线索生物性的影响,但是会受到靶子性质的影响,反映出机体在不同条件下对空间注意和情绪加工的灵活性。     

抑郁个体对情绪面孔的返回抑制能力不足

探讨抑郁对情绪面孔返回抑制能力的影响。以贝克抑郁量表、自评抑郁量表、CCMD-3和汉密顿抑郁量表为工具筛选出了正常对照组、抑郁康复组和抑郁患者组各17名被试进行了真人情绪面孔线索-靶子任务的行为学实验和事件相关电位(ERP)实验。在线索靶子范式中, 靶子在线索消失后出现, 被试对靶子的位置作出反应。行为学实验显示线索靶子间隔时间(stimulus onset asynchronies, SOA)为14ms时, 正常对照组对中性面孔有返回抑制效应, 抑郁康复组对所有面孔均存在返回抑制效应, 患者组对愤怒、悲伤面孔和中性面孔存在返回抑制效应; SOA为250ms时三组被试均对悲伤面孔存在返回抑制能力不足, 以患者组最突出, 康复组对高兴面孔存在返回抑制能力不足; SOA为750ms时正常组对悲伤面孔存在返回抑制效应, 康复组对高兴和悲伤面孔存在返回抑制能力不足, 患者组对悲伤面孔存在返回抑制能力不足, 对愤怒面孔存在返回抑制效应。在SOA为750ms的条件下, ERP波形特点为正常组对高兴面孔线索P3波幅大于其他组, 对高兴面孔无效提示P1波幅小于其他面孔, 对悲伤面孔有效提示P1波幅小于高兴面孔, 对高兴面孔有效提示P3波幅大于患者组, 对悲伤面孔无效提示P3波幅大于其他组; 康复组对悲伤面孔线索P3波幅大于其他面孔, 对高兴面孔有效提示P3波幅大于患者组, 对悲伤面孔无效提示P3波幅小于正常组; 患者组对悲伤面孔线索P1波幅大于其他组、P3波幅大于其他面孔, 对悲伤面孔无效提示P3波幅小于正常组, 高兴面孔有效提示P3波幅小于其他组。提示抑郁患者对负性刺激有返回抑制能力不足, 这种对负性刺激抑制能力的缺失导致抑郁个体难以抗拒负性事件的干扰而受到不良情绪状态的困扰, 所以他们可能更多的体验到抑郁情绪, 并致使抑郁持续和发展。而抑郁康复个体对高兴、悲伤面孔均有返回抑制能力不足, 这让康复个体能同时感受到正、负性刺激, 从而能保持一种认知和情绪上特定的平衡。     

返回抑制过程中情绪面孔加工优先：ERPs研究

返回抑制(IOR)是指注意过程中个体对已搜索过的位置进行抑制, 从而在随后该位置上出现目标时发生注意重新定向或反应变慢的过程。本研究使用ERPs技术, 采用线索-靶子范式, 考察了情绪目标辨别任务中IOR的发生过程及二者的神经机制。结果发现, 与无效线索相比, 有效线索下的P1波幅更小, N1波幅更大, 正性、负性面孔N170的波幅比中性面孔大。表明当要求被试做情绪辨别任务时, IOR与对情绪信息的反应之间发生了分离, 表现出情绪加工的优先。这说明IOR和情绪偏向是发生在两种不同神经通路上的适应机制, 也为进一步探究注意与情绪的关系问题提供了来自神经电生理学的证据。     

老年抑郁个体注意偏向的发生阶段

本研究以老年抑郁量表、自评抑郁量表和汉密顿抑郁量表为工具筛选出老年抑郁个体和老年正常对照组为研究对象,通过空间线索化范式,以及分离的情绪Stroop范式考察了刺激呈现时间、线索呈现条件对老年抑郁个体注意偏向的影响,并探讨了老年抑郁个体注意偏向的发生阶段。研究结果表明：（1）在空间线索任务中,当刺激呈现时间为250ms或500ms时,老年抑郁组与老年正常组的返回抑制效应在各种情绪刺激下均无显著差异（P>0.05）,即老年抑郁个体没有呈现出对任何情绪刺激类型的注意偏向现象;当刺激呈现时间为750ms或1000ms时,老年抑郁组的返回抑制效应在不同情绪刺激条件下差异显著,F(2, 66)=3.22,P=0.046,而老年正常组则不存在返回抑制效应在情绪刺激类型上的差异（P>0.05）,提示老年抑郁组对不同情绪类型的刺激注意返回抑制能力不同;进一步检验得知：返回抑制效应在悲伤条件下,存在组间差异,分别是F(1, 33)=10.03,P=0.003;F(1, 33)=18.21,P=0.000,即老年抑郁组的返回抑制效应弱于老年正常组。（2）在Stroop实验中,老年抑郁组在单中性、双中性与单悲伤面孔、中性悲伤面孔、双悲伤面孔线索类型下的反应时差异显著;且当线索类型为单悲伤面孔、中性悲伤面孔、双悲伤面孔时,老年抑郁组与老年正常组的反应时差异均显著,即老年抑郁组的反应时明显长于老年正常组,F(1, 41) = 5.37,P=0.026;F(1, 41) = 7.08,P=0.011;F(1, 41) = 7.28,P=0.010;而当线索类型为单中性和双中性面孔时,老年抑郁组与老年正常组的反应时差异不显著（P>0.05）;提示抑郁组可能在自动化注意选择分配期存在注意偏向。研究认为,老年抑郁个体的注意偏向可能发生在注意初始分配阶段和解释阶段,且受加工深度的影响。在刺激呈现时间较长的条件下,注意偏向的效应更明显。     

Interacting effects of worry and anxiety on attentional disengagement from threat

Recent work suggests that the ability to disengage attention from threatening information is impaired in people who suffer from anxiety and dysphoria. It has been suggested that this impaired ability to disengage from threat might specifically be associated with the tendency to perseverate about threat (i.e., worry), which is a main characteristic of anxiety disorders and a wide range of other psychopathologies. However, no studies have yet addressed this issue. The present study examined whether trait worry as well as worry intensity after experimental worry induction are associated with impaired ability to disengage attention from threatening cues (angry faces), independently from or in conjunction with anxiety. Sixty-one participants performed a visual cueing experiment that required detection of a target stimulus at one of two possible locations. Prior to the target neutral, happy or angry facial cues appeared at one of these two locations; when there is a relatively long period between the cue and the target (>300 ms), an overall faster responding to invalidly cued trials relative to validly cued trials is believed to indicate inhibition of return (IOR) to a recently attended location. A reduced IOR for angry faces was only found when both trait worry and anxiety were high. When anxiety was kept constant, both trait worry and state worry were associated with enhanced IOR for neutral faces instead. The results seem to suggest that specific threat-related deficiencies in IOR may be a function of the co-occurrence of worry and anxiety.     

Attentional biases for angry faces: Relationships to trait anger and anxiety

In two experiments selective attention to angry faces was investigated in relation to trait anger and anxiety. A pictorial emotional Stroop task comparing colour-naming latencies for neutral and angry faces was employed. In Experiment 1 using an unmasked task, individuals scoring high on trait anger showed an attentional bias for angry faces. In Experiment 2, unmasked and masked versions of the task were used. Individuals were selected on low and high trait anxiety, but there was no indication of a relation between attentional bias scores and anxiety. When individuals were subsequently reallocated to groups on the basis of trait anger scores, the high anger group showed an attentional bias for angry faces in the unmasked and the masked task. Results are discussed in relation to recent neurobiological findings from our laboratory, as reflecting an evolutionary-evolved, content-specific response to the facial expression of anger.     

返回抑制和情绪信息注意偏向的竞争：来自眼动的证据

返回抑制与情绪注意偏向是研究视觉注意的两个视角,二者的优先性一直存在争议。本研究采用线索—靶子范式,在靶子位置呈现情绪图片,结合眼动技术,对整体反应时进行分解,探讨情绪信息与实验任务相关条件下的返回抑制和情绪注意偏向。结果发现：返回抑制效应出现;情绪信息与实验任务的相关性影响了个体对情绪信息早期的注意捕获;有效线索对情绪信息的加工抑制有限,情绪信息的加工表现出了自动化倾向。     

Attentional bias in high- and low-anxious individuals: Evidence for threat-induced effects on engagement and disengagement

Attentional bias to threatening visual stimuli (words or pictures) is commonly present in anxious individuals, but not in non-anxious people. There is evidence to show that attentional bias to threat can be induced in all individuals when threat is imposed by threat not of symbolic nature, but by cues that predict aversive stimulation (loud noise or electric shock). However, it is not known whether attentional bias in such situations is still influenced by individual differences in anxiety. This question was addressed in two experiments using a spatial cuing task in which visual cues predicted the occurrence of an aversive event consisting of a loud human scream. Speeded attentional engagement to threat cues was positively correlated with trait anxiety in Experiment 1. Experiment 2 showed that speeded attentional engagement was present only in participants selected for high anxiety but not in low-anxious participants. In both experiments, slower disengagement from threat cues was found in all participants, irrespective of their trait anxiety levels.     

Attentional bias in high- and low-anxious individuals: evidence for threat-induced effects on engagement and disengagement

Attentional bias to threatening visual stimuli (words or pictures) is commonly present in anxious individuals, but not in non-anxious people. There is evidence to show that attentional bias to threat can be induced in all individuals when threat is imposed by threat not of symbolic nature, but by cues that predict aversive stimulation (loud noise or electric shock). However, it is not known whether attentional bias in such situations is still influenced by individual differences in anxiety. This question was addressed in two experiments using a spatial cuing task in which visual cues predicted the occurrence of an aversive event consisting of a loud human scream. Speeded attentional engagement to threat cues was positively correlated with trait anxiety in Experiment 1. Experiment 2 showed that speeded attentional engagement was present only in participants selected for high anxiety but not in low-anxious participants. In both experiments, slower disengagement from threat cues was found in all participants, irrespective of their trait anxiety levels.