[1]冯申梅,常 行,陈 玮,等.心理疲劳与框架类型对风险决策的影响[J].新乡医学院学报,2021,38(2):156-160.[doi:10.7683/xxyxyxb.2021.02.012]
 FENG Shenmei,CHANG Hang,CHEN Wei,et al.Influence of psychological fatigue and frame type on risk decision[J].Journal of Xinxiang Medical University,2021,38(2):156-160.[doi:10.7683/xxyxyxb.2021.02.012]
点击复制

心理疲劳与框架类型对风险决策的影响
分享到:

《新乡医学院学报》[ISSN:1004-7239/CN:41-1186/R]

卷:
38
期数:
2021年2
页码:
156-160
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2021-02-05

文章信息/Info

Title:
Influence of psychological fatigue and frame type on risk decision
作者:
冯申梅1常 行1陈 玮2朱金富1
(1.新乡医学院心理学院,河南 新乡 453003;2.日照市精神卫生中心心理咨询中心,山东 日照 276800)
Author(s):
FENG Shenmei1CHANG Hang1CHEN Wei2ZHU Jinfu1
(1.Department of Psychological,Xinxiang Medical University,Xinxiang 453003,Henan Province,China2.Psychological Counseling Center,Mental Health Center of Rizhao City,Rizhao 276800,Shandong Province,China)
关键词:
心理疲劳框架效应风险决策事件相关电位
Keywords:
psychological fatigueframing effectrisk decisionsevent-related potentials
分类号:
B842
DOI:
10.7683/xxyxyxb.2021.02.012
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 探讨心理疲劳与框架类型对风险决策的影响。方法 选择2017年3月至2017年6月新乡医学院与河南科技学院40名在校大学生为被试者,采用配对设计将40名被试者分为心理疲劳组和对照组,每组20例。心理疲劳组受试者接受Flanker范式诱导心理疲劳,对照组受试者自由活动1.5 h,2组受试者于干预后均接受经济风险决策任务测试。分别于干预前后,对2组受试者进行斯坦福困倦量表(SSS)评分。观察2组受试者接受经济风险决策任务测试正确率,采用E-prime2.0编程呈现刺激并使用NeuroScan 事件相关电位记录仪记录2组受试者接受经济风险决策任务测试的反应时和脑电波形。结果 干预前,2组被试者SSS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。对照组被试者干预前、后SSS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);心理疲劳组被试者干预后SSS评分高于干预前及对照组干预后(P<0.05)。在反应时方面,心理疲劳主效应、框架类型主效应及二者交互均不显著(>P>0.05);在正确率方面,2组框架类型主效应显著(F=11.427,P<0.01),心理疲劳主效应、框架类型与心理疲劳交互作用均不显著(P>0.05)。在P3波幅方面,组别与脑区的交互作用显著(F=3.277,P<0.05);心理疲劳组被试者顶区P3波幅显著高于中央区和额区(P<0.05)。组别与单侧化的交互作用处于统计学边缘显著(f>P<0.10)。框架类型与脑区的交互作用处于统计学边缘显著(f>P<0.05)。负性框架下被试者顶区p3波幅大于中央区(>P<0.05)。框架类型×单侧化的交互作用显著(f>P<0.05)。>结论 心理疲劳个体在正性框架下倾向于规避选项,在负性框架下倾向于风险选项;在右脑顶区分配了更多的注意与认知资源;负性框架下在中脑额区分配了更多的认知资源。
Abstract:
Objective To explore the influence of psychological fatigue and frame type on risk decision.Methods  Forty college students in Xinxiang Medical College and Henan University of Science and Fechnology from March 2017 to June 2017 were selected as the subjects,and they were divided into the psychological fatigue group and control group by using paired design,with 20 cases in each group.The psychological fatigue of subjects in the psychological fatigue group were induced by using flanker paradigm,the subjects in the control group were free to move for 1.5 h.The subjects in the both groups were received the economic risk decision task after intervention.The scores of stanford sleepiness scale (SSS) of the subjects in the two groups were evaluated before and after intervention.The accuracy rate of economic risk decision task test of the subjects in the two groups was observed.E-Prime 2.0 was used to present stimulus,and NeuroScan even-related potential electroencephalogram recorder was used to record the reaction time and electroencephalogram shape of the subjects in the two groups.Results Before intervention,there was no significant difference in SSS score of subjects between the two groups (P>0.05).There was no significant difference in the SSS score of subjects in the control group before and after the intervention (P>0.05)after intervention,the SSS score of subjects in the psychological fatigue group was higher than that before intervention and that of control group after intervention (P<0.05).in the="" reaction="" time,the="" main="" effect="" of="" psychological="" fatigue,the="" frame="" type="" and="" interaction="" fatigue="" were="" not="" significant="" (P>0.05)in the accuracy rate,the main effect of frame type was significant (F=11.427,P<0.01),but the="" main="" effect="" of="" psychological="" fatigue="" and="" interaction="" frame="" type="" mental="" were="" not="" significant="" (P>0.05).In P3 amplitude,the interaction of group and brain area was significant (F=3.277,P<0.05)the p3="" amplitude="" in="" parietal="" area="" was="" significantly="" higher="" than="" that="" central="" and="" frontal="" region="" of="" subjects="" the="" psychological="" fatigue="" group="" (P<0.05).the interaction="" of="" group="" and="" unilateralization="" was="" statistically="" marginal="" significant="" (f="2.523,<i">P<0.10)the p3="" amplitude="" in="" the="" right="" brain="" was="" higher="" than="" that="" left="" of="" subjects="" psychological="" fatigue="" group,but="" difference="" statistically="" marginal="" significant="" (P<0.10).the interaction="" of="" frame="" type="" and="" brain="" area="" was="" statistically="" marginal="" significant="" (f="2.876,<i">P<0.10)under the="" positive="" frame,the="" p3="" amplitude="" in="" central="" area="" of="" subjects="" was="" greater="" than="" that="" frontal="" region="" (P<0.05).the p3="" amplitude="" in="" parietal="" area="" of="" subjects="" was="" greater="" than="" that="" central="" under="" negative="" frame="" type(P<0.05).the interaction="" of="" framing="" type="" and="" lateralization="" was="" significant="" (f="3.300,<i">P<0.05)the p3="" amplitude="" in="" central="" area="" of="" subjects="" under="" negative="" frame="" was="" higher="" than="" that="" positive="" (P<0.05).>Conclusion Psychological fatigue individuals tend to avoid options in the positive frame and risk options in the negative framemore attention and cognitive resources were allocated to the right parietal areaunder the negative framework,more cognitive resources were allocated in the frontal area of the midbrain.

参考文献/References:

[1] 郭思媛,马捷,韩晨霞,等.心理疲劳的研究进展[J].现代生物医学进展,2016,16(5):993-997.
[2] 马捷,杨一格,李峰,等.耳针疗法对职业人群心理疲劳患者的康复机制研究[C]//中国康复研究中心.北京:第9届北京国际康复论坛论文集,2014:584-588.
[3] 龚韵,李菁.我国职业女子篮球运动员心理疲劳现状调查分析[J].中国体育教练员,2020,28(3):39-41.
[4] PAGEAUX B,LEPERS R,DIETZ K C,et al.Response inhibition impairs subsequent self-paced endurance performance[J].Eur J Appl Physiol,2014,114(5):1095-1105.
[5] 彭嘉熙,赵鹿鸣,方鹏,等.睡眠剥夺对风险决策的影响机制探讨[J].心理科学进展,2020,28(11):1789-1799.
[6] SILVA K,PATRIANAKOS J,CHEIN J,et al.Joint effects of peer presence and fatigue on risk and reward processing in late adolescence[J].J Youth Adolesc,2017,46(9):1878-1890.
[7] HEAD J,TENAN M S,TWEEDELL A J,et al.Prior mental fatigue impairs marksmanship decision performance[J].Front Physiol,2017,8:680.
[8] 黄文强,杨沙沙,于萍.风险决策的神经机制:基于啮齿类动物研究[J].心理科学进展,2016,24(11):1767-1779.
[9] 张凤华,方侠辉,刘书培,等.决策框架和调节定向对模糊规避的影响[J].中国临床心理学杂志,2015,23(6):963-967.
[10] 周微.调节定向和框架类型对风险决策影响的ERP研究[D].新乡:新乡医学院,2017.
[11] 王璐璐,李永娟.心理疲劳与任务框架对风险决策的影响[J].心理科学进展,2012,20(10):1546-1550.
[12] 辛媛媛,张笑,邓垠,等.风险对两类跨期选择的影响:一项ERP研究[J].心理学探新,2014,34(4):311-315.
[13] 程天驰.心理疲劳对选择性注意影响的ERP研究[D].西安:西安体育学院,2014.
[14] HODDES E,ZARCONE V,SMYTHE H,et al.Quantification of sleepiness:a new approach[J].Psychophysiology,1973,10(4):431-436.
[15] TVERSKY A,KAHNEMAN D.The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice[J].Science,1981,211(4481):453-458.
[16] 王凯.突发事件下决策者的框架效应研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2010.
[17] 付若冰,李朋朋,杜秀芳,等.封面故事与损益框架对不同调节定向个体风险寻求的影响[J].心理技术与应用,2020,8(10):611-618.
[18] 宋之杰,王小辉,尚俊辰,等.基于眼动追踪试验的焦虑情绪对风险决策框架效应的影响研究[J].科技与管理,2015,17(1):30-31.
[19] 段锦云,卢志巍,张涵碧.权力感对风险决策框架效应的影响[J].心理科学,2016,39(2):413.
[20] 王一托.恐惧应激影响大脑认知功能的功能磁共振成像研究[D].北京:军事科学院,2018.
[21] 代祺,张中奎.基于认知负荷角度的消费者网购决策的实证研究[J].统计与决策,2016(14):59-62
[22] 蔡德亮,周振和,张中兴.多梗死性痴呆患者事件相关电位特征研究[J].新乡医学院学报,2005,22(3):233- 235.
[23] 赵敬国,崔晴晴.六周虚拟现实运动对大学生认知能力影响的事件相关电位测评[J].生物医学工程研究,2017,36(3):254-257.

更新日期/Last Update: 2021-02-05