童年创伤经历影响成年早期个体风险决策的功能性近红外脑成像技术研究

季善玲; 王琰; 陈玉宙; 杜玉昕; 贾司琦; 林鑫玉; 刘冰倩; 苏懋萱; 王睿; 王玥; 郁昊

doi:10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2024319

童年创伤经历影响成年早期个体风险决策的功能性近红外脑成像技术研究

doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2024319

1.
济宁医学院精神卫生学院，山东 272067
2.
山东省戴庄医院特检科脑电图室

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金项目 81901358

山东省自然科学基金项目 ZR2019BH001

山东省自然科学基金项目 ZR2021YQ55

山东泰山学者项目 tsqn201909146

详细信息

作者简介:
季善玲(1988-)，女，山东莒县人，博士，讲师，主要研究方向为情感计算

通讯作者:
郁昊，E-mail：yuhao@mail.jnmc.edu.cn

利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。
中图分类号: R179 B845.67 R445 R651
计量
- 文章访问数: 147
- HTML全文浏览量: 38
- PDF下载量: 30
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2024-07-02
- 修回日期: 2024-09-19
- 网络出版日期: 2024-11-02
- 刊出日期: 2024-10-25

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy of the impact of childhood traumatic experiences on risky decisions in early adulthood

1.
Institution of Mental Health, Jining Medical University, Jining (272067), Shandong Province, China

摘要

摘要: 目的利用功能性近红外脑成像技术(fNIRS)研究童年创伤经历对成年早期个体风险决策的影响，为明确童年创伤影响个体风险决策的脑机制提供参考。方法 2023年12月至2024年3月，采用分层抽样和方便抽样相结合的方法，将从济宁医学院抽取的28名童年创伤经历和32名健康大学生分为童年创伤经历组和健康对照组，所有被试参与爱荷华博弈任务的fNIRS实验。对fNIRS数据预处理后，进行脑区激活、功能连接、图论属性(度中心性、介数中心性和局部效率)分析以及受试者工作特性曲线分析。结果与健康对照组相比，童年创伤经历组在劣势牌选择次数上降低(Z=-0.88)，在右侧额极激活水平上降低(Z=-2.59)，在左侧背外侧前额叶与右侧背外侧前额叶(Z=-3.78)、左侧背外侧前额叶与右额极(Z=-3.68)的功能连接均降低(P值均 < 0.05)。童年创伤经历组右侧额下回度中心性指标高于健康对照组，左侧和右侧背外侧前额叶度中心性指标低于健康对照组(Z值分别为2.13，-2.53，-2.12)；童年创伤经历组右侧额下回介数中心度指标高于健康对照组(Z=2.47)；童年创伤经历组右侧额下回、左侧和右侧额极局部效率指标均高于健康对照组(Z值分别为2.51，2.17，2.53)(P值均 < 0.05)。ROC曲线分析显示，局部效率取得最高曲线下面积(AUC=0.68)。结论伴有童年创伤的成年早期个体更倾向于低收入、低损失的决策，并在整个风险决策过程中表现为额极激活水平降低、脑网络连接属性异常等现象，可能是由于童年创伤导致个体形成过度防御机制的神经基础。
- 虐待儿童 /
- 风险决策 /
- 功能性近红外脑成像技术 /
- 精神卫生 /
- ROC曲线 /
- 学生
Abstract: Objective To investigate the impact of childhood traumatic experiences on individual risk-taking decisions in early adulthood using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), so as to provide the reference for clarifying the brain mechanisms underlying the impact of childhood trauma on individual risky decision. Methods From December 2023 to March 2024, 28 children with childhood trauma experiences (trauma group) and 32 healthy college students (control group) were selected from Jining Medical University by a combination of stratified descent and convenient sampling methods. All subjects participated in the Iowa Game task fNIRS scanning. The brain activation, functional connectivity, graph theory properties (degree centrality, betweenness centrality, and local efficiency), and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis were performed by using pre-processing fNIRS data. Results Compared with control group, trauma group showed significantly fewer choice times in the inferior deck (Z=-0.88), and showed significantly decreased activation levels in the right frontalpolar (Z=-2.59), as well as showed significant decreased functional connectivity between left dorsolateral prefrontal and in right dorsolateral prefrontal (Z=-3.78), and between left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the right frontal pole (Z=-3.68)(P < 0.05). The central index of right inferior frontal gyrus in the trauma group was higher than that in the control group, while the central index of left and right dorsolateral frontal lobes was lower than that in the control group (Z=2.13, -2.53, -2.12, P < 0.05). The centrality index of the right inferior frontal gyrus in the trauma group was higher than that in the control group (Z=2.47, P < 0.05). The local efficiency indicators of the right inferior frontal gyrus, left and right frontal pole in the trauma group were higher than those in the control group (Z=2.51, 2.17, 2.53, P < 0.05). The results of the ROC curve analysis showed that the local efficiency achieved the highest area under the curve (AUC=0.68). Conclusions Young adults with childhood trauma experience tend to choose lower loss, and the frontal pole shows a lack of activation in the whole process of risk decision performance. The abnormalities in the brain connectivity and network properties might be the neural basis of excessive defense mechanisms that childhood trauma leads to risky decisions.
- Child abuse /
- Risk decision /
- Functional near-infrared spectroscopy /
- Mental health /
- ROC curve /
- Students
注释:

1) 利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。

HTML全文

表 1 不同组别调查对象基本情况信息比较(x ± s)

Table 1. Comparison of basic information among survey subjects in different groups(x ± s)

组别	人数	受教育年限/年	PHQ-9得分^*	情感虐待^*	躯体虐待^*	性虐待^*	情感忽视	躯体忽视	CTQ总分
童年创伤经历组	28	16.89±1.68	2.00(0.00, 5.00)	7.00(5.00, 16.50)	8.00(5.00, 15.50)	5.00(5.00, 11.50)	12.94±5.37	10.33±2.79	48.56±15.56
健康对照组	32	16.64±2.27	2.00(0.75, 4.00)	5.00(5.00, 5.25)	5.00(5.00, 5.00)	5.00(5.00, 5.00)	6.88±2.24	6.17±1.62	28.79±3.75
t/Z值		0.41	-0.06	-2.75	-4.20	-2.27	6.21	7.27	7.80
P值		0.68	0.95	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.02	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01
注： ^*数据不符合正态分布，用M(P₂₅，P₇₅)表示。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 不同组别大学生IGT行为学结果比较[M(P₂₅，P₇₅)，次]

Table 2. Comparison of IGT behavioral results among college students in different groups[(M(P₂₅, P₇₅), time]

组别	人数	block 1	block 2	block 3	block 4	block 5
童年创伤经历组	28	-6.00(-14.00, -3.00)	-8.00(-13.00, 0.00)	-6.00(-14.00, 0.00)	0.00(-12.00, 11.00)	0.00(-12.10, 11.50)
健康对照组	32	-4.00(-8.00, 0.00)	0.00(-6.00, 2.00)	-1.00(-6.00, 4.50)	0.00(-4.50, 4.00)	0.00(-4.30, 4.20)
Z值		-1.86	-1.51	-1.67	-0.20	-0.21
P值		0.06	0.13	0.10	0.84	0.82

组别	人数	牌A	牌B	牌C	牌D	劣势牌	优势牌
童年创伤经历组	28	17.00(8.50, 21.00)	30.00(26.00, 58.00)	23.00(16.75, 29.50)	24.00(16.00, 26.50)	49.00(39.50, 78.50)	48.00(21.50, 57.00)
健康对照组	32	17.00(10.75, 23.00)	32.50(23.00, 51.00)	13.00(5.50, 27.00)	24.00(14.50, 33.50)	52.50(41.75, 66.25)	47.50(33.75, 57.25)
Z值		-0.53	-0.64	2.00	0.48	-0.88	-0.84
P值		0.60	0.52	0.04	0.63	0.03	0.40

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 不同组别大学生图论属性差异通道数值比较[M(P₂₅，P₇₅)]

Table 3. Comparison of graph theory attribute differences and channel values among college students in different groups[M(P₂₅, P₇₅)]

组别	人数	DC			BC(右侧额下回)	LE
组别	人数	右侧额下回	右侧背外侧前额叶	左侧背外侧前额叶	BC(右侧额下回)	右侧额下回	右侧额极	左侧额极
童年创伤经历组	28	2.63(0.93，4.12)	2.08(1.14，3.26)	2.40(1.52，3.18)	2.40(0.09，6.86)	0.23(0.14，0.26)	0.26(0.25，0.29)	0.27(0.25，0.28)
健康对照组	32	1.47(0.42，2.81)	2.89(1.75，4.36)	3.09(2.15，4.14)	0.87(0.00，4.24)	0.17(0.09，0.22)	0.23(0.21，0.27)	0.24(0.21，0.28)
Z值		2.13	-2.12	-2.53	2.47	2.51	2.53	2.17
P值		0.04	0.04	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.04

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 基于量表、IGT行为学及fNIRS的AUC排序

Table 4. Sorting of AUC based on the scales, IGT behaviors and fNIRS

排序	变量	AUC值(95%CI)	标准误	渐进值
1	LE右侧额极	0.68(0.53~0.82)	0.07	0.03
2	LE右侧额下回	0.68(0.52~0.83)	0.08	0.04
3	LE左侧额极	0.67(0.52~0.82)	0.08	0.04
4	DC右侧额下回	0.66(0.50~0.82)	0.08	0.06
5	BC右侧额下回	0.64(0.50~0.79)	0.08	0.09
6	劣势牌	0.57(0.40~0.75)	0.09	0.38
7	牌B	0.55(0.39~0.72)	0.09	0.52
8	牌D	0.54(0.36~0.72)	0.09	0.63
9	受教育年限	0.54(0.38~0.70)	0.08	0.64
10	Block 4	0.52(0.32~0.71)	0.10	0.84
11	Block 5	0.52(0.32~0.71)	0.10	0.84
12	PHQ-9	0.50(0.31~0.68)	0.09	0.95
13	牌A	0.46(0.29~0.62)	0.09	0.60
14	优势牌	0.43(0.25~0.61)	0.09	0.40
15	Block 2	0.37(0.21~0.54)	0.09	0.13
16	Block 3	0.36(0.20~0.52)	0.08	0.10
17	DC右侧额极	0.36(0.20~0.51)	0.08	0.08
18	Block 1	0.35(0.18~0.51)	0.09	0.06
19	DC右侧背外侧前额叶	0.34(0.19~0.49)	0.08	0.06
20	牌C	0.33(0.17~0.50)	0.09	0.05
21	激活水平右侧额极	0.28(0.14~0.42)	0.07	0.01
22	FC左侧背外侧前额叶-右侧背外侧前额叶	0.20(0.08~0.31)	0.06	0.00
23	FC左侧背外侧前额叶-右侧额极	0.19(0.08~0.29)	0.05	0.00

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(28)

[1]	GLADISH N, MERRILL S M, KOBOR M S. Childhood trauma and epigenetics: state of the science and future[J]. Curr Environ Health Rep, 2022, 9(4): 661-672. doi: 10.1007/s40572-022-00381-5
[2]	LI T, MAO Z, ZHAO L, et al. Childhood trauma and its influence on the clinical features of bipolar disorder[J]. Child Abuse Negl, 2023, 141: 106203. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106203
[3]	DVIR Y. Childhood trauma and psychosis[J]. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin North Am, 2022, 31(1): 91-98. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2021.08.002
[4]	ROGERSON O, BAGULEY T, O'CONNOR D B. Childhood trauma and suicide[J]. Crisis, 2023, 44(5): 433-441. doi: 10.1027/0227-5910/a000886
[5]	CABANIS M, OUTADI A, CHOI F. Early childhood trauma, substance use and complex concurrent disorders among adolescents[J]. Curr Opin Psychiatry, 2021, 34(4): 393-399. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000718
[6]	WELSH M C, PETERSON E, JAMESON M M. History of childhood maltreatment and college academic outcomes: indirect effects of hot execution function[J]. Front Psychol, 2017, 8: 1091. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01091
[7]	CAMCHONG J, ENDRES M, FEIN G. Decision making, risky behavior, and alcoholism[J]. Handb Clin Neurol, 2014, 125: 227-236.
[8]	BUELOW M T. Disruptions of mood: positive and negative affect, depressive disorders, and bipolar disorders[M]. New York: Risky Decision Making in Psychological Disorders, 2020: 113-134.
[9]	HILLEM R L, LOW B S. The role of future unpredictability in human risk-taking[J]. Hum Nat, 1997, 8(4): 287-325. doi: 10.1007/BF02913037
[10]	STERZER P, ADAMS R A, FLETCHER P, et al. The predictive coding account of psychosis[J]. Biol Psychiatry, 2018, 84(9): 634-643. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.05.015
[11]	BECHARA A, DAMASIO A R, DAMASIO H. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex[J]. Cognition, 1994, 50(1/3): 7-15.
[12]	ONO Y, KIKUCHI M, HIROSAWA T, et al. Reduced prefrontal activation during performance of the Iowa Gambling Task in patients with bipolar disorder[J]. Psychiatry Res, 2015, 233(1): 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2015.04.003
[13]	OVERMAN W H, PIERCE A. Iowa Gambling Task with non-clinical participants: effects of using real + virtual cards and additional trials[J]. Front Psychol, 2013, 4: 935.
[14]	BIARS J W, JOHNSON N L, NESPECA M, et al. Iowa Gambling Task performance in Parkinson disease patients with impulse control disorders[J]. Arch Clin Neuropsychol, 2019, 34(3): 310-318. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acy036
[15]	BAEZA-VELASCO C, GUILLAUME S, OLIÉ E, et al. Decision-making in major depressive disorder: subjective complaint, objective performance, and discrepancy between both[J]. J Affect Disord, 2020, 270: 102-107. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.064
[16]	LI R, HOSSEINI H, SAGGAR M, et al. Current opinions on the present and future use of functional near-infrared spectroscopy in psychiatry[J]. Neurophotonics, 2023, 10(1): 013505.
[17]	FREEMAN L C. Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification[J]. Soc Networks, 1979, 1(3): 215-239.
[18]	FREEMAN L C, BORGATTI S P, WHITE D R. Centrality in valued graphs a measure of betweenness based on network flow[J]. Soc Networks, 1991(13): 141-154.
[19]	高平. 伴童年创伤经历大学生的抑郁倾向现状、特点及干预研究[D]. 重庆: 重庆师范大学, 2023. GAO P. A study on the status, characteristics and intervention of depressive tendencies among university students with traumatic childhood experiences[D]. Chongqing: Chongqing Normal University, 2023.
[20]	KROENKE K S R L, WILLIAMS J B W. The PHQ-9 validity of a brief depression severity measure[J]. J General Inter Med, 2001, 16(9): 606-613. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
[21]	HE J, ZHONG X, GAO Y, et al. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form (CTQ-SF) among undergraduates and depressive patients[J]. Child Abuse Neglect, 2019, 91: 102-108. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.03.009
[22]	WOO T F, LAW C K, TING K H, et al. Distinct causal influences of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex in multiple-option decision making[J]. Cerebral Cortex, 2022, 32(7): 1390-1404. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhab278
[23]	GARCÍA-HERNÁNDEZ J P, IRIBE-BURGOS F A, CORTES P M, et al. Cortical functionality during reversal learning on a decision-making task in young men[J]. Brain Res, 2022, 1791: 147998. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2022.147998
[24]	LAUREIRO-MARTÍNEZ D, CANESSA N, BRUSONI S, et al. Frontopolar cortex and decision-making efficiency: comparing brain activity of experts with different professional background during an exploration-exploitation task[J]. Front Human Neurosci, 2014, 7: 927.
[25]	HOGEVEEN J, MULLINS T S, ROMERO J D, et al. The neurocomputational bases of explore-exploit decision-making[J]. Neuron, 2022, 110(11): 1869-1879. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2022.03.014
[26]	LIN Z, NIE C, ZHANG Y, et al. Evidence accumulation for value computation in the prefrontal cortex during decision making[J]. Proceedings Nat Acad Sci, 2020, 117(48): 30728-30737. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2019077117
[27]	BONACICH P. Power and centrality a family of measures[J]. Am J Soc, 1987, 92(5): 1170-1182. doi: 10.1086/228631
[28]	FREEMAN L C. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness[J]. Sociometry, 1977, 40(1): 35-41. doi: 10.2307/3033543