基于α频带脑电功率谱分析具象思维形式的独立性特征

摘要

目的 通过脑电检测分析具象思维这种独具东方特色的思维方法,在α频带功率谱的变化,探寻其独立性特征.方法 选择69名在校大学生为受试对象,通过思维作业培训后,应用脑电同步检测具象思维、抽象思维、形象思维作业过程的脑电变化,应用功率谱分析方法,提取α频带(包含α1和α2两个频带)的相对功率,对3种思维形式和一般安静态进行比较.结果 α1频带,具象思维形式分布与一般安静态、形象思维形式、抽象思维形式之间比较,均有极显著性差异(P＜0.001);3种思维形式与一般安静态区别明显,功率均高于一般安静态,3者并行排列分布,且无线性交叉,界限清楚,具象思维形式的空间分布特点表现出Fz高功率、01与F7趋于一致性、C3导联呈高功率反应.α2频带,具象思维形式与一般安静态之间比较,有极显著性差异(P ＜0.001),而与形象思维形式、抽象思维形式之间比较,无显著性差异(P＞0.05);3种思维形式的相对功率值无显著性差异,但与一般安静态的差异显著,具象思维形式的空间分布表现为O2与T6导联表现高功率.结论 α频带从不同角度、程度上显示出3种思维形式之间的差异,显示出具象思维形式的独立性特征.%Objective To analyze concrete thinking with oriental characteristics by using electroencephalogram (EEG) examination, and discover the independence characteristics based on the changes of power spectrum in a-frequency range. Methods After training of mental tasks, 69 students from universities were selected, and their EEG changes were detected during the processes of concrete thinking, abstract thinking and thinking in images. The relative power was extracted from a-frequency range (including α1-frequency range and α2-frequency range) by applying power spectrum analysis. The three thinking forms were compared with common static state. Results In a,-frequency range, the comparison in distribution among concrete thinking, common static state, thinking in images and abstract thinking showed greatly significant difference (P < 0.001). The three thinking forms had higher power than common static state, and showed parallel arrangement distribution and clear boundaries without linear cross. The characteristics of spatial distribution of concrete thinking showed Fz high power, lead 01 and lead F7 tending to consistency, and lead C3 showing high power reaction. In α2-frequency range, the comparison between concrete thinking and common static state showed greatly significant difference (P < 0. 001) , and showed no significant difference compared with thinking in images and abstract thinking (P>0. 05). The relative power values of the three thinking forms had no significant difference, but had significant difference compared with common static state. The spatial distribution of concrete thinking showed lead 02 and lead T6 having high power. Conclusion From different angles and in varying degrees, α-frequency range shows the difference among the three thinking forms and independent characteristics of concrete thinking.