CAJ | 학술논문

高特质焦虑个体常表现出对威胁性刺激的选择性注意偏向的特点。然而其潜在的神经机制目前仍不清楚。通过记录高、低特质焦虑者各17名进行情绪加工时的ERP,比较了两组个体在选择性注意偏向发生的时间进程和相关的神经反应的差异。结果发现，高特质焦虑者诱发出更大的N1，进一步发现恐惧图片比中性图片诱发更大的N1；而低特质焦虑者诱发了更大的N2，特质焦虑得分越低，N2波幅越大。结果初步说明高特质焦虑者加工早期对恐惧图片分配了较多的注意资源，并且其抑制执行功能可能受损；而低特质焦虑者较晚开始区分恐惧图片和中性图片。这些结果提供了支持认知．动机模型的新证据。
고특질초필개체상표현출대위협성자격적선택성주의편향적특점。연이기잠재적신경궤제목전잉불청초。통과기록고、저특질초필자각17명진행정서가공시적ERP,비교료량조개체재선택성주의편향발생적시간진정화상관적신경반응적차이。결과발현，고특질초필자유발출경대적N1，진일보발현공구도편비중성도편유발경대적N1；이저특질초필자유발료경대적N2，특질초필득분월저，N2파폭월대。결과초보설명고특질초필자가공조기대공구도편분배료교다적주의자원，병차기억제집행공능가능수손；이저특질초필자교만개시구분공구도편화중성도편。저사결과제공료지지인지．동궤모형적신증거。
Anxiety is one of the most common mental disorders and has attracted attention of more and more researchers. A number of behavioral studies suggest that attentional bias towards threat among anxious populations is a relatively robust phenomenon. The attentional biases are observed not only across different experimental tasks but also across different anxiety disorders. However, studies of the neural mechanisms of this phenomenon are currently rare and inconsistent. It was found that compared to low trait anxiety （LTA）, high trait anxiety （HTA） evoked different P2 between angry and neutral faces, with a larger P2 to the angry face in some studies. In contrast, others found that threatening stimuli elicited a larger P2 in both groups. Similarly, inconsistent findings also exited for the P1. In addition, the N1 effect on the attentional bias to fearful images with a complex context is still unclear. Therefore, the present study aimed at investigating the electrophysiological markers of attention bias for fearful images with a complex context in anxiety. Participants were selected out of a pool of 70 undergraduate students. The participants were screend on the basis of their response to Spielberger＇s Trait Anxiety Inventory. Those with scores in the top quartile of the distribution （n=17, 6 males and 11 females） were assigned to the HTA group, and those in the bottom quartile of the distribution （n=17, 10males and 7 females） were assigned to the LTA group. All participants were right-handed, and had normal or corrected normal vision. ERPs were recorded when subjects viewed 30 fear and 30 neutral pictures which were presented twice. ERP data from five midline electrode sites was selected for further statistical analysis： Fz, FCz, Cz, CPz, and Pz. We measured mean amplitudes in four windows following stimulus onset： 120-140 ms （N1）, 230-250 ms （N2）, 300-500 ms （P3）, and 500-1000 ms （Slow wave, SW）. Anxiety group （HTA vs. LTA） xpicture type （fearful vs. neutral） xelectrode sites （Fz, FCz, and Cz） analysis of variance （ANOVA） was conducted on the amplitude of N1, N2, P3, and SW. For all analyses, the significance level was set at 0.05. Post-hoc testing of significant main effects was conducted using BONFERRONI method. Significant interactions were analyzed using simple-effect models. Results showed that the HTA group exhibited a enhanced N1 in comparison to the LTA group, F（2, 64） = 19.28, p 〈 0.01. And the interactions of the three factors was significant, F（1, 32） = 11.94, p〈0.01. The interactions between picture and group was significant [Cz： F（1, 32） = 6.93, p〈0.05, FCz： F（1, 32） = 5.22, p〈0.05]; compared to LTA, HTA elicited different N1 amplitude between fearful and neutral images, with enhanced N1 to the fearful images. LTA elicited enhanced N2 compared with HTA, F（1, 32） = 4.83,p 〈 0.05. A significant relation between N2 and the trait score was found by using the stepwise regression analysis, F=6.97, p〈0.05, R2--0.18. These results indicate that the HTA group allocated more attention resource to fearful images at the early emotional process stage （120-140 ms）, whereas LTA group began to distinguish fearful from neutral at the later stage （230-250 ms）. The executive function of inhibition might decrease with HTA, These results provide new evident to support the cognition-motivation model.