大学生情绪标签与性别标签加工时程差异的事件相关电位研究

Time-course difference between affect labeling and gender labeling in college students:An event-related potentials study

目的:比较大学生情绪标签与性别标签的加工差异,探讨情绪标签的时程。方法:选取17名在校大学生,进行情绪标签任务和性别标签任务,分别记录选择正确的情绪标签词和性别标签词的正确率与反应时。同时收集脑电数据进行事件相关电位参数分析,包括P1、早期负后波(EPN)和晚正波(LPP)三个脑电成分。其中,LPP由于时间窗口跨度宽,以50 ms为间隔,分为7段(450～500 ms、500～550 ms、550～600 ms、600～650 ms、650～700 ms、700～750 ms、750～800 ms)。结果:情绪标签反应时长于性别标签[(1095.6±218.1)ms vs.(1007.6±219.3)ms,P<0.01],但两者的正确率差异无统计学意义[(92.1±5.8)%vs.(91.5±4.6)%,P>0.05]。情绪标签仅在550～600 ms的时间窗口内,LPP波幅大于性别标签[(5.9±3.2)μv vs.(4.8±2.8)μv,P<0.05]。其他脑电成分及其他时间窗口内的LPP,情绪标签与性别标签的波幅差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。结论:本研究提示,与性别标签相比,情绪标签可能在某一时间段内存在情绪的符号加工过程,从而导致LPP波幅先上升,而标签情绪之后,又使LPP波幅下降,形成内在的情绪调节过程。

Objective： To examine the differences between affect labeling and gender labeling, so as to explore the time course of affect labeling. Methods： Seventeen healthy college students were selected and were asked to chose the appropriate label either to characterize the emotion of the faces in the affect labeling task, or to illustrate the gender in the gender labeling task, and the response time （RT） and accurate rate were recorded. Meanwhile, the event-related potentials （ERPs） were collected by the Brain Products-64 lead electroencephalograph, and the P1, early posterior negativity （EPN） and late positive potential （LPP） components were analyzed. Since the time win- dow of LPP was rather broad, it was divided into 7 parts every 50 ms, namely, 450 - 500 ms, 500 - 550 ms, 550 - 600 ms, 600 - 650 ms, 650 - 700 ms, 700 - 750 ms, and 750 - 800 ms. Results： The response time of affect labeling was longer than that of gender labeling [ （ 1095.6 ± 218. 1 ） ms vs. （ 100 7. 6 ± 219. 3） ms, P 〈 0. 01 ], but there was no significant difference between their accurate rates [（92. 1 ±5.8） % vs. （91.5 ±4. 6） %, P 〉0. 05]. Compared to gender labeling, the amplitude of LPP of affect labeling was larger, in the time window of 550 -600 ms [ （5.9 ± 3.2） μv vs. （4. 8 ±2. 8）/zv, P 〈0. 05]. As for P1, EPN, and LPP of the rest time windows, there was no significant difference between them （Is 〉0. 05）. Conclusion： The research indicates that there may be symbolic processing of affect in some time of affect labeling, which increases the amplitude of LPP, and then diminishes the amplitude of later LPP. Thus it forms the regulation of emotion in itself.