检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]安徽医科大学第一附属医院神经科,合肥230022
出 处:《中华医学杂志》2013年第9期681-683,共3页National Medical Journal of China
基 金:基金项目:国家自然科学基金(81171273);国家自然科学基金青年基金(31000503);“973”项目子课题(2011CB707805)
摘 要:目的 观察癫痫患者在风险不明确条件下的决策能力是否改变.方法 采用风险概率不明确的爱荷华博弈测试(IGT)对25例在2011年6月至2012年3月在安徽医科大学第一附属医院诊断为癫痫的患者和25名健康被试者进行风险决策能力研究.统计学处理运用了方差分析(ANOVA),独立样本t检验等分析方法,取α=0.05为检验差异显著性水准.结果 与健康对照组相比,EP患者在风险不明确条件下的决策能力较差.表现为:癫痫组净得分(-4.56±10.26)低于健康对照组(4.32±24.14)两者差异有统计学意义(t=-2.23,P=0.029);两组被试在5个block中,block3(健康对照组:2.40±7.07;癫痫组:-1.44±3.98)和block5(健康对照组:4.00±7.46;癫痫组:0.00±4.51)上健康对照组的净得分高于癫痫组净得分(block3,F=3.950,P=0.022;block5,F=6.416,P=0.027).结论 癫痫患者在风险概率不明确条件下存在有明显的决策能力改变.Objective To investigate the ability of decision making under ambiguity condition in epileptics.Methods Twenty-five epileptics (EP) at our hospital during June 2011 to March 2012 and 25 healthy controls (HC) were surveyed by Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) with ambiguous probability.Statistical analyses were performed with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent sample t test.And α =0.05denoted the level of significant differences.Results As compared with HC,the epileptics were impaired in decision-making under ambiguity and scored lower in IGT (EP:-4.56 ± 10.26; HC:4.32 ±24.14; t =-2.23,P =0.029).A comparison between the scores of subjects on 5 blocks suggested:HC subjects scored higher on block 3 (HC:2.40 ± 7.07 ; EP:-1.44 ± 3.98) and block 5 (HC:4.00 ± 7.46 ; EP:0.00 ±4.51) than the scores of EP subjects (block 3,F =3.950,P =0.022,block 5,F =6.416,P =0.027).Conclusion The EP patients have significant impairment in decision-making under ambiguity.
分 类 号:R742.1[医药卫生—神经病学与精神病学]
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:18.190.219.46