检查型与清洗型强迫症患者的反应抑制及情绪加工行为学特征分析  

Response inhibition and emotion processing in checking and washing symptom subtypes of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder

作　　者：曹万依 刘朝霞 郑凯莉 彭婉蓉 杨会会 钟明天 蚁金瑶[1] Cao Wanyi;Liu Zhaoxia;Zheng Kaili;Peng Wanrong;Yang Huihui;Zhong Mingtian;Yi Jinyao(Medical Psychological Center,the Second Xiangya Hospital,Central South University,Changsha 410011,China;Center for Studies of Psychological Application,School of Psychology,South China Normal University,Guangzhou 510631,China)

机构地区：[1]中南大学湘雅二医院医学心理中心,长沙410011 [2]华南师范大学心理学院心理应用研究中心,广州510631

出　　处：《中华精神科杂志》2025年第4期250-258,共9页Chinese Journal of Psychiatry

基　　金：国家自然科学基金(31871112)。

摘　　要：目的探究检查型与清洗型强迫症患者在反应抑制和情绪加工方面是否存在特异性的行为学特征。方法前瞻性收集2020年1月至2022年12月在湘雅二医院心理咨询门诊和湖南省脑科医院临床心理科门诊就诊的共75例强迫症患者的临床资料,包含40例检查型强迫症患者(检查组),其中男24例、女16例、年龄14~34(22.1±5.0)岁,35例清洗型强迫症患者(清洗组),其中男12例、女23例、年龄14~41(22.6±6.7)岁。同期招募年龄匹配的健康对照人群(健康对照组)80名,其中男37名、女43名、年龄14~25(20.8±1.9)岁。所有被试均完成Go/No-go任务和Hariri任务,并采集行为学数据。采用耶鲁-布朗强迫症状维度量表评估强迫症不同症状是否存在及其严重程度,使用流调中心用抑郁量表和状态焦虑问卷检测被试的抑郁和焦虑程度。采用3(组别:检查型强迫症组、清洗型强迫症组和健康对照组)×2(任务类型:Go任比No-go任务/几何图形比情绪面孔)的重复测量方差分析比较Go/No-go和Hariri任务不同条件的行为学指标上的组间差异。结果检查组与清洗组在抑郁、焦虑量表上的得分均显著高于对照组(F=85.43、32.33,均P<0.05)。No-go任务中,组别×任务的交互效应显著(F_(3(2,152))=3.23,P 3=0.042,偏η_(3)^(2)=0.04):在检查组中,No-go任务的正确率显著小于Go任务的正确率(0.821比0.893,P<0.001);在检查组与对照组中,检查组的正确率显著小于对照组(0.821比0.876,P=0.005);在清洗组与对照组中,任务类型效应均不显著(P>0.05)。负性情绪面孔匹配任务中,组别×任务的交互效应显著(F_(3(2,152))=4.91,P 3=0.009,偏η_(3)^(2)=0.06):匹配情绪面孔时,清洗组的正确率显著小于对照组(0.879比0.936,P=0.001),而检查组与对照组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);在匹配图形时,组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。此外,3组被试匹配图形的正确率均显著大于匹配情绪面孔的正确率(匹配图�ObjectiveThis study aims to explore whether there are specific behavioral deficits of response inhibition and emotional processing in patients with checking obsessive-compulsive disorder(OCD)and those with washing OCD.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2020 to December 2022,collecting clinical data from 75 OCD patients at the outpatient psychological consultation clinic of Xiangya Second Hospital and the clinical psychology department of Hunan Brain Hospital.The sample included 40 OCD patients with checking type(checking group,24 males,16 females,aged 14-34 years,mean age 22.1±5.0 years)and 35 OCD patients with washing type(washing group,12 males,23 females,aged 14-41 years,mean age 22.6±6.7 years).An age-matched healthy control group(control group)of 80 individuals(HCs,37 males and 43 females,aged 14-25 years,mean age 20.8±1.9 years)was also recruited.All participants completed the Go/No-go task and Hariri task with behavioral data recorded.The Dimensional Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale was used to assess the severity of OCD symptoms.The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale(CES-D)and State Anxiety Inventory(STAI)were used to assess the severity of depression and anxiety.A 3(group:checking OCD,washing OCD and HC)×2(task type:Go vs.No-go/Shape vs.Face)repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the behavioral performance across tasks.ResultsCompared with HC group,both checking OCD group and washing OCD group had significantly higher scores in depression and anxiety(F=85.43,32.33,both P<0.05).When performing Go/No-go task,a significant group×task interaction effect was observed(F_(3(2,152))=3.23,P 3=0.042,partialη_(3)^(2)=0.04).In the checking OCD group,No-go accuracy was significantly lower than Go accuracy(accuracy=0.821 vs.0.893,P<0.001);the checking OCD had significantly lower accuracy than HC in the No-go task(accuracy=0.821 vs.0.876,P=0.005);there were no significant group differences between the washing OCD and HC in the No-go task(P>0.05).When performing

关 键 词：强迫性障碍 检查型强迫症 清洗型强迫症 反应抑制 情绪加工 

分 类 号：R749.7[医药卫生—神经病学与精神病学]