具象思维作业的脑电空间与频域特征研究

【作者】 张海波；

【导师】 刘天君；

【作者基本信息】 北京中医药大学 ， 针灸推拿学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 1目的本研究系高等学校博士学科点专项科研基金项目“气功锻炼中具象思维的脑电及相关的生理心理特征研究”(20060026006)的第二阶段。该课题第一阶段已经实验研究证明,具象思维是与抽象思维和形象思维相并列的一种独立的思维形式。本研究通过对具象思维、抽象思维、形象思维形式作业过程的脑电检测比较,探寻具象思维作业的脑电在不同空间(导联)、不同频带的兴奋性特征、相关性特征以及有序性特征,以期发现具象思维形式的脑电活动规律,为具象思维理论在中医、气功、心理等领域的应用提供更加充分的科学实验证据。2方法运用导师刘天君教授总结提出的“双向设计、关联检测、相互释义”的气功实验研究模式,根据实验对象的入选标准、纳入标准、排除标准、剔除标准和脱落标准,选择33例在校大学生,经过3次以上的系统培训,按照实验设计方案,进行与内在思维形式作业同步的外在脑电检测。所用仪器为日本产MR-31型脑电图仪,数据采集和提取软件是日本东京电机大学提供的ATAMAP.Ⅱfor Windows.处理分析由北京邮电大学电磁兼容和生物医学工程实验室协助完成,采用小波去噪与小波包分析处理,分解出6个频带：δ(0.8-3.1Hz)、θ(3.9-7.0Hz)、α1 (7.8-10.2Hz)、α2 (10.2-13.2Hz)、β1 (14.1-19.5Hz)、β2 (20.3-29.6Hz),输出了基于mat lab软件小波包分析的总体与分频平均功率、相关系数和小波熵数据。应用SPSS13.0统计软件,采用多元方差分析的方法,分别对①三种思维形式与各自作业前安静态平均功率的差值,②三种思维形式的相关系数,③三种思维形式与各自作业前安静态小波熵的差值进行比较分析。3结果(1)三种思维形式与各自作业前安静态的平均功率差值比较此比较可表达三种思维形式作业总体及分频带平均功率的变化强度差异。结果显示,在总体上,具象思维作业时的脑电平均功率变化强度明显高于抽象思维,二者相比有非常显著差异(P<0.01)。从各导联看,具象思维和形象思维时的脑电平均功率在大部分导联增加,在小部分导联减少,抽象思维时的脑电平均功率均为减少。6频带,具象思维作业时的脑电平均功率变化强度明显高于形象思维,二者相比有非常显著差异(P<0.01)。从各导联看,具象思维作业时的脑电平均功率在Fpl和Fp2导联增加,在其他导联减少,形象思维和抽象思维在全部导联都表现为减少。θ频带和α2频带,具象思维作业时的脑电平均功率变化强度与形象思维、抽象思维相比均无显著差异(P>0.05)。α1、β1和β2频带,具象思维作业时的脑电平均功率变化强度明显高于抽象思维,二者相比有极显著差异(P<0.001)。从各导联看,具象思维和形象思维均在部分导联(Fp1、Fp2、C3、C4、F7、F8、Fz)增加,在部分导联(01、02、T6、Pz)减少,抽象思维在全部导联都表现为减少。(2)三种思维形式的相关系数比较此比较可表达三种思维形式作业总体及分频带各导联间的相关系数差异。具象思维、抽象思维、形象思维与一般安静态的各导联间相关系数共同特点主要表现为以下两点：一是在总体与6频带前额部左右导联间出现高相关系数,θ与α1频带前额部与中央部的左右导联间出现高相关系数,α2频带右前额与中额、右前颞的导联间出现高相关系数,β1与β2频带左右半球各自的前部导联间、后部导联间出现高相关系数。二是在总体与各个分频带,都出现后枕部与前额部、前颞部导联间的低相关系数。具象思维各导联间相关系数有其自身特点,主要是导联间相关系数高,表现在以下三点：一是具象思维相关系数大多在0.2-0.9之间,抽象思维、形象思维、一般安静态相关系数在0-0.8之间,说明具象思维较抽象思维、形象思维和一般安静态的相关系数集中且偏大。二是与其他状态相比,具象思维各导联间的相关系数大的特点主要体现在总体、α2、β1和β2频带,在δ、θ和α1频带不明显。在总体上,具象思维出现以右前额(Fp2)为中心的左前额(Fp1)、中额(Fz)、右前颞(F8)的高相关系数,左枕(01)、左后颞(T5)、中顶(Pz)也出现局部高相关系数。α2频带具象思维还在右中央(C4)与中额(Fz)出现高相关系数。β1频带具象思维出现前额部(左前额Fp1、右前额Fp2)左右半球间高相关系数。β2频带具象思维出现中额(Fz)、右前额(Fp2)、右中央(C4)、右前颞(F8)区域广泛高相关系数。三是与其他状态相比,具象思维各导联间的低相关系数在总体与各分频带,都出现低相关的导联数少于其他状态的现象。(3)三种思维形式与各自作业前安静态的小波熵差值比较此比较可表达三种思维形式作业小波熵的变化强度差异。具象思维作业时脑电的小波熵变化强度明显低于形象思维,二者相比有极显著差异(P<0.001),高于抽象思维,二者相比有非常显著差异(P<0.01)。从各导联看,具象思维在部分导联(Fp1、Fp2、C3、O1、F7、T5、Pz)增加,在部分导联(C4、O2、F8、T6、Fz)减少,形象思维在全部导联均增加,抽象思维在全部导联均减少。4结论本研究的结论主要包括以下几个方面。(1)具象思维作业时脑电兴奋性空频特征具象思维作业时,脑电兴奋性显著增强,.高于抽象思维和形象思维作业。从频域上看,具象思维的兴奋度在δ频带显著高于形象思维,在α1、β1和β2频带,显著高于抽象思维。从各导联看,表现出在前额部(Fp1、Fp2)、前颞部(F7、F8)兴奋度增加,在后枕部(O1、O2)、后颞部(T5、T6)兴奋度减弱的特点。(2)具象思维作业时脑电相关性空频特征具象思维作业时导联间的相关性明显增强,脑区联络性明显加强。与其他状态相比,具象思维各导联间的高相关特点主要体现在总体、α2、β1和β2频带。在总体上,大脑右前部有以右前额为中心的广泛高相关趋势,大脑前额区、中额区和前颞区之间协调性和联络性增强。具象思维还在α2、β1、β2频带的前额部和右半球的大部分导联间表现出高相关。与其他状态相比,具象思维在总体与各分频带,都出现低相关的导联数少于其他状态的现象,说明具象思维作业时整个脑部的相关性程度较其他为强。(3)具象思维作业时脑电有序性空间特征具象思维作业时脑电有序性变化介于形象思维(有序性最弱)和抽象思维(有序性最强)之间,并且呈现双向变化。从各导联看,具象思维作业时前额部及左半球有序性降低,信号规律性减弱,复杂度较高。右半球有序性增强,信号规律性加强,复杂度较低。更多还原

【Abstract】 1. PurposeAs a part of the doctoral research program of higher education (project No.20060026006), this article is for the second stage of study on the characters of Objective Thinking in Qigong practice in terms of brain electrical activity and its psychological and physiological related characters. In the first stage of this program, it has been proved that Objective Thinking is another way of thinking, apart from Abstractive Thinking and Imaginative Thinking. By comparing the results of Electroencephalogram (EEG) in three ways of thinking, the second stage tends to discover the characters in terms of the intensity and ordering of brain-electrical signal, the location in encephalic regions and its related characters, in order to define the brain electrical activity in Objective Thinking. Therefore, this study will provide evidences with more sufficient scientific experiments that could be used in the study of Objective Thinking in the fields, such as Chinese Medicine, Qigong and Psychology etc.2.MethodsBy applying the model proposed by Professor Liu Tianjun on Qigong experimental study known as "Two-way layout, correlated detection and mutual paraphrase." Following the standards of taking samples and the plan of experimental design, there were total of 33 undergraduate students had been selected to take the EEG tests designed for testing in different ways of thinking, after over three times of systematic training. The testing equipment used is MR-31, made in Japan. And the software for collecting and analysing data adopted is ATAMAP. II for windows, provided by Tokyo Denki University, Japan. The data processing work was fulfilled by the Biological Engineering Llab of Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications. By adopting the methods of wavelet domain de-noising and wavelet packet, total six of frequency bands had been resolved,δ(0.8-3. 1Hz),θ(3.9-7.0Hz).α1 (7.8-10.2Hz)、α2 (10.2-13.2Hz)、β1(14.1-19.5Hz)、β2(20.3-29.6Hz), also for the population and average capacity and correlation coefficient and wavelet entropy data. Using the statistic software of SPSS13.0 and adopting the method of multivariate analysis of variance, there are three sets of variance had been analysed respectively in the resting state of three ways of thinking as follows:①average capacities;②the correlation coefficient;③wavelet packet.3.Results(1)Variances on the average capacity in the resting state of different ways of thinking0The comparison on the variances explains the degree of change in terms of the population and average capacity in the resting state of different ways of thinking.It turns out that, in the population band, the average capacity of EEG is significant higher in Objective Thinking comparing to Abstractive Thinking. The variance (P<0.01) is highly significant. In terms of the number of leads, both for Objective Thinking and Imaginative Thinking, the numbers increased for most of the parts, the rest reduced. Regards to Abstractive Thinking, the numbers all reduced; inδband, the average capacity of EEG is significant higher in Objective Thinking comparing to Imaginative Thinking. The variance (P<0.01) is highly significant. In terms of the number of leads, for Objective Thinking, the numbers increased at Fp1 & Fp2, the rest reduced. Regards to Abstractive Thinking and Imaginative Thinking, the numbers all reduced; inθ&α2 band, the average capacity of EEG is not significant among three ways of thinking(P>0.05); inα1、β1 &β2 band, the average capacity of EEG is significant higher in Objective Thinking comparing to Abstractive Thinking. The variance (P<0.001) is extremely significant. In terms of the number of leads, both for Objective Thinking and Imaginative Thinking, the numbers increased for most of the parts, the rest reduced. Regards to Abstractive Thinking, the numbers all reduced.(2) Variances on the correlation coefficient of different ways of thinkingThe comparison on the variances explains the correlation of leads in terms of the population and respective bands of different ways of thinking.According to the correlation coefficients in the leads of the population bands, the correlation is high in Objective Thinking at Fp2, Fp1, F8 and Fz; and also high at O1, T5 & Pz. In a2 band, it shows a significant correlation among the area of right central area (C4) with frontal midline point (Fz); inβ1 band, it shows a significant correlation between Fp1 & Fp2; the same inβ2 band in the areas of Fz, Fp2, C4 and F8.In the population and other bands, the result shows the number of the low correlation leads is less in the state of Objective Thinking than any of the other ways. It reveals that Objective Thinking shows highly significant correlation among the leads of the brain.(3) Variances on the wavelet entropy in the resting state of different ways of thinkingThe comparison on the variances explains the wavelet entropy of population in the resting state of different ways of thinking.It shows the wavelet entropy is lower in Objective Thinking comparing to Imaginative Thinking, there is a significant variance between these two (P<0.001). And it is higher than Abstractive Thinking. The variance is also significant (P<0.01). In terms of the number of leads, it increased partially at the points of Fp1、Fp2、C3、O1、F7、T5、Pz and reduced at the points of C4、O2、F8、T6、Fz. Regards to Imaginative Thinking, the numbers are all increased. And for Abstractive Thinking, the numbers are all reduced.4. ConclusionsThe conclusions of the study include the following aspects: (1)Features on the activity and spatial & frequency characters of EEG in Objective ThinkingThe activity of EEG is increasing. Comparing with Imaginative Thinking, inδband, it becomes more active in Objective Thinking; comparing with Abstractive Thinking, inα1、β1 &β2 band, it becomes more active in Objective Thinking. In terms of spatial character, it reveals strong activity in the points of Fp1 & Fp2, also F7 & F8, and less activity in the points of O1 & O2,T5 & T6.(2)Features on the correlation and spatial & frequency characters of EEG in Objective ThinkingThe correlation in Objective Thinking is highly significant. In the population bands, the correlation is high in Objective Thinking at right front area including Fp2, Fp1, F8 and Fz. This points out a trend of generally high correlation in the right hemisphere around the point of Fp2. It shows high correlation inα2,β1 andβ2 band in the forehead and right hemisphere.(3)Features on the ordering and spatial characters of EEG in Objective ThinkingThe ordering of EEG shows a bi-directional change. In terms of spatial characters, the ordering of forehead and left hemisphere reduced, the signal is high complexity. The ordering of right hemisphere is high, the signal is less complexity.更多还原