| 本文已被：浏览 154次 下载 170次 |
码上扫一扫！ |
| 基于Go/No-Go范式的多任务操作实验评估军校学员的反应抑制能力 |
| 张倩1,吴可嘉2,赵红旗1,范硕1,江楠楠1,杨川锐1,唐露露3,余浩1* |
|
|
(1. 海军军医大学(第二军医大学)海军特色医学中心航空生理心理训练队, 上海 200433;
2. 国防大学政治学院心理攻防作战与训练教研室, 上海 201602;
3. 中国人民解放军七七六〇六部队政治工作部, 拉萨 850000
*通信作者) |
|
| 摘要: |
| 目的 探索军校学员在多任务操作情境中的反应抑制能力特点。方法 选择127名军校学员作为被试，采用Go/No-Go范式进行测试，通过重复测量方差分析和分布检验等方法探索模拟驾驶任务的干扰对被试Go/No-Go测试表现的影响。结果 对127名被试的测试结果显示，在击中率和虚报率上存在干扰任务和Go试次比例的交互作用，即在没有干扰任务时60%试次比例与40%试次比例条件下被试的击中率和虚报率差异无统计学意义（均P＞0.05），而在有干扰任务时60%试次比例条件下被试的击中率和虚报率大于40%试次比例条件（均P＜0.01）。在击中率、虚报率和辨别力指标d’上干扰任务的主效应显著（均P＜0.01），即干扰任务降低了被试的击中率和辨别力、增大了虚报率。不同被试在有无干扰任务时辨别力的变化不同，根据无干扰任务与有干扰任务时辨别力指标d’的差值的平均数加减1个标准差，可将被试分为易受干扰组23人（18.11%）、不易受干扰组20人（15.75%）和中间组84人（66.14%）。结论 干扰任务增加了军校学员在多任务操作时的心理负荷，降低了其反应抑制能力，且军校学员的反应抑制能力存在个体差异。 |
| 关键词: 军校学员 反应抑制 多任务操作 Go/No-Go范式 模拟驾驶 冲突监测理论 资源限制理论 |
| DOI：10.16781/j.CN31-2187/R.20220421 |
| 投稿时间：2022-05-18修订日期：2023-10-10 |
| 基金项目:全军装备军内科研项目（20AZ1001），海军军医大学（第二军医大学）海军特色医学中心强基计划（21M1001），海军军医大学（第二军医大学）校级课题（2023QN042）. |
|
| Evaluation of reaction inhibition among military university students by multitasking operation based on Go/No-Go paradigm |
| ZHANG Qian1,WU Kejia2,ZHAO Hongqi1,FAN Shuo1,JIANG Nannan1,YANG Chuanrui1,TANG Lulu3,YU Hao1* |
(1. Aviation Physiological and Psychological Training Team, Naval Medical Center, Naval Medical University (Second Military Medical University), Shanghai 200433, China;
2. Department of Psychological Offensive and Defensive Operations and Training, Political College of National Defense University of PLA, Shanghai 201602, China;
3. Department of Political Work, No. 77606 Troop of PLA, Lhasa 850000, Xizang Autonomous Region, China
* Corresponding author) |
| Abstract: |
| Objective To explore the characteristics of response inhibition of military university students during multitasking operation. Methods Repeated measures of ANOVA as well as distribution test were employed to explore how the performance of 127 military university students in Go/No-Go test was affected by simulated driving task. Results The test results of 127 participants showed that there was a interaction between the interference task and the Go trial proportion on the hit rate and false alarm rate, that is, no significant difference was observed between the 60% and 40% of trial proportion without interference task (both P＞0.05), but the hit rate and false alarm rate in the 60% trial proportion condition were significantly higher than those in the 40% trial proportion condition under interference task (both P＜0.01). In addition, significant main effects of interference task were observed on hit rate, false alarm rate, and discrimination index d’ (all P＜0.01), that is, the interference task reduced the hit rate and discrimination, but increased the false alarm rate. Moreover, individual differences existed in the discrimination index d’ changes, and the participants were divided into easily disturbed group (n＝23, 18.11%), undisturbed group (n＝20, 15.75%), and intermediate group (n＝84, 66.14%) by adding or subtracting 1 standard deviation from the mean of the difference. Conclusion The interference tasks increase the psychological load of military university students during multitasking operation, and impair the response inhibition; and individual differences exist in response inhibition. |
| Key words: military university students response inhibition multitasking operation Go/No-Go paradigm simulated driving conflict monitoring theory resource limitation theory |
