Selective Processing of Threat Cues in Subjects with Panic Attacks
Selective Processing of Threat Cues in Subjects with Panic Attacks
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/02699938808410924
复制
发表时间：
1988-01-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Roth, Walton T.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ehlers, Anke;Margraf, Juergen;Roth, Walton T.
先前的研究表明，患有广泛性焦虑症、恐惧症和强迫症的患者对与其各自疾病相关的威胁线索表现出注意力偏差。两项研究使用改良的斯特鲁普颜色命名任务来评估惊恐发作受试者的注意力偏差。在研究 1 中，向 24 名恐慌症患者和 24 名正常对照者出示了三张卡片，其中包含与身体伤害、分离或社交尴尬相关的威胁词。对这些卡片和包含匹配的非威胁词的控制卡之间的颜色命名时间进行了比较。两组的反应时间差异方向相反，患者在命名威胁词的颜色方面往往较慢，而对照组则较快。在研究 2 中，向 18 名非临床恐慌者和 18 名对照者展示了分别包含物理威胁词、中性控制词或颜色词的卡片。恐慌者在颜色命名威胁词方面表现出比对照组更大的干扰，但在颜色命名颜色词方面则没有。结果与惊恐发作受试者对威胁相关材料的注意偏差一致。讨论了“自发”恐慌发作的心理生理学模型的含义。
Previous research has demonstrated that patients with generalised anxiety disorder, phobias, and obsessive-compulsive disorder show an attentional bias towards threat cues related to their respective disorders. Two studies are presented that used a modified Stroop colour naming task to assess attentional bias in subjects with panic attacks. In Study 1, 24 panic disorder patients and 24 normal controls were presented three cards containing threat words related to physical harm, separation, or social embarrassment. Colour naming times were compared between these cards and control cards containing matched non-threat words. Reaction time differences in the two groups were in opposite directions, patients tending to be slower in colour naming threat words, and controls, faster. In Study 2, 18 non-clinical panickers and 18 controls were presented cards containing physical threat words, neutral control words, or colour words, respectively. Panickers showed greater interference than controls in colour naming threat words but not in colour naming colour words. The results are consistent with an attentional bias for threat-related material in subjects with panic attacks. Implications for psychophysiological models of 'spontaneous' panic attacks are discussed.