目的运用自我面孔识别认知心理学范式,探讨人格解体障碍病人是否存在自我加工过程的异常。方法对17例符合精神障碍诊断标准与统计手册第4版(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,Fourth Edition,DSM-Ⅳ)的人格解体...目的运用自我面孔识别认知心理学范式,探讨人格解体障碍病人是否存在自我加工过程的异常。方法对17例符合精神障碍诊断标准与统计手册第4版(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,Fourth Edition,DSM-Ⅳ)的人格解体障碍病人以及17例年龄、性别、受教育年限匹配的正常被试进行自我面孔识别的测查。实验要求被试分别通过右手按键混合了任意两种面孔特征的合成面孔(自我-名人,名人-陌生人,自我-陌生人)中其中一种面孔身份及马赛克图片进行识别,记录被试对"自我"图片和"他人"图片的反应速度,取平均值作为被试对该面孔的反应时间(ms),以每个实验条件下被试对马赛克图片的识别时间为基准计算反应时间比。结果重复方差分析显示,被试分组的主效应差异有统计学意义(F=20.57,P=0.001),不同图片任务的主效应差异有统计学意义(F=3.67,P=0.031),被试组别与图片类型之间交互作用差异有统计学意义(F=10.75,P=0.001)。人格解体障碍病人对名人图片的识别速度慢于陌生人图片[(1.21±0.42)vs(1.06±0.21),P=0.001],对自我图片和名人图片的识别速度慢于正常被试[(1.12±0.30)vs(0.99±0.09),P=0.000;(1.21±0.42)vs(1.01±0.06),P=0.000],对陌生图片的识别速度与正常被试组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。Pearson相关性分析显示,人格解体障碍病人对名人图片的反应时间比与剑桥人格解体量表总分(r=0.516,P=0.034)和熟悉性条目分数(r=0.498,P=0.042)呈正相关。结论人格解体障碍病人对熟悉性面孔的识别速度减慢并且与临床症状相关,提示其熟悉性加工可能受损。展开更多
目的研究人格解体患者认知功能损害及与临床症状和社会功能的相关性。方法对符合精神障碍诊断标准与统计手册第5版(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,Fifth Edition,DSM-V)中诊断标准以及剑桥人格解体量表(Cambri...目的研究人格解体患者认知功能损害及与临床症状和社会功能的相关性。方法对符合精神障碍诊断标准与统计手册第5版(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,Fifth Edition,DSM-V)中诊断标准以及剑桥人格解体量表(Cambridge Depersonalization Scale,CDS)评分≥70分的48例人格解体障碍患者,以及32例健康被试者分别采用连线测验(Trail Making Test A,TMTA)、符号编码、霍普金斯词语学习测验(Hopkins Verbal Learning Test Revised,HVLT-R)、简易视觉记忆测验(Brief Visuospatial Memory Test Revised,BVMT-R)、持续操作测验(Continuous Performance Test,CPT)和Stroop色-词测验进行认知功能评估,采用功能大体评定量表(Global Assessment Function,GAF)对社会功能进行评估,并采集一般人口学资料、临床信息后对相关信息进行分析。结果人格解体患者组与健康对照组在认知功能的TMTA(P=0.03)、HVLT-R(P=0.01)、BVMT-R(P=0.01)、Stroop测验(P=0.01)等方面差异有统计学意义;人格解体患者组内用药组与未用药组对认知功能的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。人格解体患者组与健康被试组GAF评分差异有统计学意义(P=0.00);认知功能中Stroop测验、CPT与临床症状呈负相关(r=-0.455,P<0.05;r=-0.292,P<0.05),TMTA与社会功能呈负相关(r=-0.300,P<0.05),Stroop测验、BVMT-R与社会功能呈正相关(r=0.352,P<0.05;r=0.344,P<0.05),但关系密切程度偏弱。结论人格解体患者存在认知功能损害及社会功能下降,认知功能中注意/警觉能力与临床症状评分呈负相关,认知功能与社会功能有相关性,认知功能受损可导致社会功能下降。展开更多
AIM To examine the associations of test anxiety(TA) in written vs oral exam situations with social anxiety(SA).METHODS A convenience sample of 204 students was recruited at the Technische Universit?t Dresden(TU Dresde...AIM To examine the associations of test anxiety(TA) in written vs oral exam situations with social anxiety(SA).METHODS A convenience sample of 204 students was recruited at the Technische Universit?t Dresden(TU Dresden,Germany) and contacted via e-mail asking to complete a cross-sectional online survey based on established questionnaires.The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the TU Dresden.Full data of n = 96 students were available for dependent t-tests and correlation analyses on the associations of SA and TA respectively with trigger events,cognitions,safety behaviors,physical symptoms and depersonalization.Analyses were run using SPSS.RESULTS Levels of TA were higher for fear in oral exams than for fear in written exams(M = 48.1,SD = 11.5 vs M = 43.7,SD = 10.1 P < 0.001).Oral TA and SA were positively correlated(Spearman's r = 0.343,P < 0.001;Pearson's r = 0.38,P < 0.001) contrasting written TA and SA(Spearman's r = 0.17,P > 0.05;Pearson's r = 0.223,P > 0.05).Compared to written TA,triggerevents were more often reported for oral TA(18.2% vs 30.3%,P = 0.007);which was also accompanied more often by test-anxious cognitions(7.9% vs 8.5%,P = 0.001),safety behavior(8.9% vs 10.3%,P < 0.001) and physical symptoms(for all,P < 0.001).CONCLUSION Written,but not oral TA emerged being unrelated to SA and may rather not be considered as a typical facet of SA disorder.展开更多
文摘目的运用自我面孔识别认知心理学范式,探讨人格解体障碍病人是否存在自我加工过程的异常。方法对17例符合精神障碍诊断标准与统计手册第4版(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,Fourth Edition,DSM-Ⅳ)的人格解体障碍病人以及17例年龄、性别、受教育年限匹配的正常被试进行自我面孔识别的测查。实验要求被试分别通过右手按键混合了任意两种面孔特征的合成面孔(自我-名人,名人-陌生人,自我-陌生人)中其中一种面孔身份及马赛克图片进行识别,记录被试对"自我"图片和"他人"图片的反应速度,取平均值作为被试对该面孔的反应时间(ms),以每个实验条件下被试对马赛克图片的识别时间为基准计算反应时间比。结果重复方差分析显示,被试分组的主效应差异有统计学意义(F=20.57,P=0.001),不同图片任务的主效应差异有统计学意义(F=3.67,P=0.031),被试组别与图片类型之间交互作用差异有统计学意义(F=10.75,P=0.001)。人格解体障碍病人对名人图片的识别速度慢于陌生人图片[(1.21±0.42)vs(1.06±0.21),P=0.001],对自我图片和名人图片的识别速度慢于正常被试[(1.12±0.30)vs(0.99±0.09),P=0.000;(1.21±0.42)vs(1.01±0.06),P=0.000],对陌生图片的识别速度与正常被试组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。Pearson相关性分析显示,人格解体障碍病人对名人图片的反应时间比与剑桥人格解体量表总分(r=0.516,P=0.034)和熟悉性条目分数(r=0.498,P=0.042)呈正相关。结论人格解体障碍病人对熟悉性面孔的识别速度减慢并且与临床症状相关,提示其熟悉性加工可能受损。
文摘目的研究人格解体患者认知功能损害及与临床症状和社会功能的相关性。方法对符合精神障碍诊断标准与统计手册第5版(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,Fifth Edition,DSM-V)中诊断标准以及剑桥人格解体量表(Cambridge Depersonalization Scale,CDS)评分≥70分的48例人格解体障碍患者,以及32例健康被试者分别采用连线测验(Trail Making Test A,TMTA)、符号编码、霍普金斯词语学习测验(Hopkins Verbal Learning Test Revised,HVLT-R)、简易视觉记忆测验(Brief Visuospatial Memory Test Revised,BVMT-R)、持续操作测验(Continuous Performance Test,CPT)和Stroop色-词测验进行认知功能评估,采用功能大体评定量表(Global Assessment Function,GAF)对社会功能进行评估,并采集一般人口学资料、临床信息后对相关信息进行分析。结果人格解体患者组与健康对照组在认知功能的TMTA(P=0.03)、HVLT-R(P=0.01)、BVMT-R(P=0.01)、Stroop测验(P=0.01)等方面差异有统计学意义;人格解体患者组内用药组与未用药组对认知功能的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。人格解体患者组与健康被试组GAF评分差异有统计学意义(P=0.00);认知功能中Stroop测验、CPT与临床症状呈负相关(r=-0.455,P<0.05;r=-0.292,P<0.05),TMTA与社会功能呈负相关(r=-0.300,P<0.05),Stroop测验、BVMT-R与社会功能呈正相关(r=0.352,P<0.05;r=0.344,P<0.05),但关系密切程度偏弱。结论人格解体患者存在认知功能损害及社会功能下降,认知功能中注意/警觉能力与临床症状评分呈负相关,认知功能与社会功能有相关性,认知功能受损可导致社会功能下降。
基金approved by the ethics committee of the TU Dresden(EK-NR.205062013)
文摘AIM To examine the associations of test anxiety(TA) in written vs oral exam situations with social anxiety(SA).METHODS A convenience sample of 204 students was recruited at the Technische Universit?t Dresden(TU Dresden,Germany) and contacted via e-mail asking to complete a cross-sectional online survey based on established questionnaires.The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the TU Dresden.Full data of n = 96 students were available for dependent t-tests and correlation analyses on the associations of SA and TA respectively with trigger events,cognitions,safety behaviors,physical symptoms and depersonalization.Analyses were run using SPSS.RESULTS Levels of TA were higher for fear in oral exams than for fear in written exams(M = 48.1,SD = 11.5 vs M = 43.7,SD = 10.1 P < 0.001).Oral TA and SA were positively correlated(Spearman's r = 0.343,P < 0.001;Pearson's r = 0.38,P < 0.001) contrasting written TA and SA(Spearman's r = 0.17,P > 0.05;Pearson's r = 0.223,P > 0.05).Compared to written TA,triggerevents were more often reported for oral TA(18.2% vs 30.3%,P = 0.007);which was also accompanied more often by test-anxious cognitions(7.9% vs 8.5%,P = 0.001),safety behavior(8.9% vs 10.3%,P < 0.001) and physical symptoms(for all,P < 0.001).CONCLUSION Written,but not oral TA emerged being unrelated to SA and may rather not be considered as a typical facet of SA disorder.