摘要
目的研究不同类型高强迫症状（HOC）个体的注意偏好特点及与症状的相关性，初步探讨强迫障碍的神经机制。方法选取帕多瓦量表一华盛顿州立大学修订版（PI—WSUR）中文版量表总分在前7％的高强迫症状个体（HOC组）22人与PI—WSUR量表总分在后7％的低强迫症状个体（LOC组）38人，采用中文情绪词Stroop任务比较2组注意偏好有无差异；采用PI—WSUR的子量表把强迫症状分为5种亚型，HOC组各子量表得分的前50％（11人）为子量表高分组，比较不同亚型子量表高分组的注意偏好有无区别。结果HOC组和LOC组对中性词、负性词、厌恶词的反应时[（638．63±125．76）ms／（665．74±145．59）ms；（637．82±118．84）ms／（666．51±139．82）ms；（635．57±100．61）ms／（665．49±133．42）ms]差异无显著性（t=0．729，P=0．469；t=0．808，P=0．423；t=0．911，P=0．366）；不同亚型子量表高分组的注意偏好分析表明，污染／清洗强迫子量表高分组对负性词和厌恶词的反应时[（680．83±172．62）ms；（668．48±138．24）ms]显著低于中性词（696．39±174．66ms）（t=2．224，P=0．025；t=1．834，P=0．049），并且厌恶词注意偏好与症状分数存在显著相关（r=-0．648，P=0．031）。结论污染／清洗强迫的注意偏好与其他类型强迫不同，可能具有与其他强迫类型不同的神经机制。
Objective To explore the attentional biases in individuals with different types of obsessivecompulsive symptom and the correlations between the attentional bias of high obsessive compulsive symptom （HOC） and symptoms. Methods 22 individuals with HOC and 38 individuals with low obsessive compulsive （LOC） symptom completed the Chinese Emotional Stroop task that assessed the attentional bias. Comparisons were made between HOC and LOC and in different types of HOC, and the correlations between the attentional bias of HOC and symptom severity scores were searched for. Results The comparison between HOC and LOC on the reaction time of neutral, negative and disgust-related words were not significant. The contamination/washing subtype in HOC showed faster reaction time on negative and disgust-related words compared to that of neutral words,and its attentional bias exhibited significant correlation with symptom severity scores（ r = -0. 648, P = 0.031 ）. Conclusion Such infomlation point out the contamination/washing subtype may have a different neural mechanism compared to the other subtypes of OCD.
出处
《中华行为医学与脑科学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2010年第12期1063-1065,共3页
Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine and Brain Science
基金
基金项目：安徽省自然科学基金（090413147）
安徽省教育厅自然科学基金（KJ20088305）
关键词
强迫症状
污染/清洗强迫
STROOP任务
Obsessive-compulsive symptom
Contamination/washing subtype
Stroop task
