背外侧前额叶皮层在公平决策中的作用： 经颅直流电刺激研究
文献类型：学位论文
| 作者 | 荣悦彤 |
| 答辩日期 | 2020-01 |
| 文献子类 | 硕士 |
| 授予单位 | 中国科学院心理研究所 |
| 授予地点 | 中国科学院心理研究所 |
| 其他责任者 | 周媛 |
| 关键词 | 经颅直流电刺激 公平 背外侧前额叶皮层 最后通牒游戏 |
| 学位名称 | 理学硕士（同等学力硕士） |
| 学位专业 | 健康心理学 |
| 其他题名 | The role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in fairness decision-making: a transcranial direct current stimulation study |
| 中文摘要 | Fairness is one of the indispensable norms in human social life. The research on fairness decision-making behavior is an auxiliary agent to improve people's cooperative behavior in social life and to establish good interpersonal relationship. Neuroimaging studies suggest that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) plays an important role in fairness decision making, but there are still inconsistent findings. In this study, we first conducted a pre-experiment to verify the validity of the main effect and interaction effect of different fairness levels and proposer types in the ultimatum game (UG), which originates from the game theory in economics. We then used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to investigate the effect of different DLPFC stimulation modalities (left anode/right cathode, left cathode/right anode and sham stimulation) on responders' acceptance rates during the UG task. In addition, we also evaluated the subjects' judgment on fairness and their emotion assessed by the positive and negative affect scale (PANAS), aiming to study whether the tDCS in the brain region of DLPFC could affect the fairness judgment of the subjects or the positive and negative emotions of the subjects. Results: (1) the main effect of fairness levels and proposer types as well as the interaction effect on acceptance rate are significant in UG experimental paradigm. (2) during the UG task, there was no significant difference in the acceptance rate across different DLPFC stimulation modalities (left anode/right cathode, left cathode/right anode and sham stimulation) at each fair level (Ps > 0.05). However, after tDCS stimulation, the acceptance rate of the three stimulation groups was different when faced with different proposers (human or computer). Specifically, in the face of the extremely unfair distribution proposed by different proposers, the acceptance rate was significantly different in the left cathode/right anode group (P=0.006) and in the sham stimulation group (P= 0.032). That is, when the proposer was a human subject, the acceptance rate was lower, which suggested that the participants can discriminatively treat extremely unfair proposals from computer partners and human partners. However, there was no significant difference in the acceptance rate in the left anode/right cathode group (P=0.428), suggesting that these participants cannot discriminatively treat extremely unfair proposals from computer partners and human partners. Similarly, at the unfair level, the acceptance rate facing the human proposer was significantly lower than that of the computer proposer in the left cathode/right anode group (P=0.046). There was no significant difference in the acceptance rate between facing the human proposer and facing the computer proposer both in the sham stimulation group and the left anode/right cathode group (Ps>0.05). At the fairness level, there was no significant difference in the acceptance rate facing the human proposer and facing the computer proposer in each of the three groups (Ps>0.05). In addition, there were no significant differences in the response time across different DLPFC stimulation modalities (Ps>0.05). (3) there was a trend towards significance in the difference of fairness judgment on human or computer proposer across different DLPFC stimulation modalities (P=0.14). Specifically, no differences in fairness judgment on human or computer proposer in the sham group and the left anode/right cathode group, but the proposers from human partner was judged less unfair than those from computer group in the left cathode/right anode group. (4) There was no significant difference in positive or negative emotion across different DLPFC stimulation modalities (Ps > 0.05). Conclusion: We validated the effectiveness of the ultimatum game on investigating the effects of fairness and proposer type on responders’ acceptance rate. Using this UG task, we found that single-time tDCS stimulation on the DLPFC has no significant influence on the responders’ acceptance rate, but after receiving the left anode/right cathode tDCS participants could not discriminatively treat extremely unfair proposals from computer partners and human partners, unlike those participants receiving sham or the left cathode/right anode tDCS. This finding suggest the ability of the right DLPFC in integrating information and making decisions was depressed during the left anode/right cathode tDCS and thus further supports the unique role pf the right DLPFC in fairness decision making. Future studies can further clarify the role of the left or right DLPFC in fairness decision-making behavior, and further explore the neural mechanism of fairness decision-making behavior from the perspective of brain network by combining tDCS with functional magnetic resonance imaging. |
| 英文摘要 | 公平是人类社会生活中不可缺少的行为规范之一。对公平决策行为的研究是改善人们在社会生活中合作行为以及建立良好人际关系的辅助剂。神经影像研究提示背外侧前额叶皮层(dorsolateral prefrontal cortex，DLPFC)在公平决策中起重要作用。在本论文中，我们先进行了预实验，验证源于经济学中博弈论的最后通牒游戏范式（ultimatum game, UG）中不同公平水平以及提议者类型的主效应以及交互效应的有效性。然后，我们应用经颅直流电刺激技术（transcranial direct current stimulation，tDCS）考察了在UG任务中，不同DLPFC刺激方式（左侧阳极/右侧阴极、左侧阴极/右侧阳极、假刺激）对回应者接受率的影响。此外，我们还测评了受试对公平性的判断以及正性负性情绪自评量表（the positive and negative affect scale ,PANAS），旨在研究DLPFC脑区经颅直流电刺激是否会影响受试的公平性判断或影响受试的正性以及负性情绪。 我们发现：（1）UG实验范式中不同公平水平的决策行为以及提议者类型的主效应以及交互效应显著。（2）UG任务中，DLPFC脑区的不同tDCS刺激类型组在各公平水平的接受率无显著差异（Ps＞0.05）；然而，tDCS刺激后面对不同提议者（人或计算机）的情境下三个刺激组别的选择出现了差异。具体结果为：面对不同提议者提出的极不公平分配方案时，左侧阴极/右侧阳极组的接受率有显著差异（P=0.006），假刺激组的接受率有显著差异（P=0.032），即当提议者是人类被试时，接受率更低，提示受试可以区分人或计算机提议者，但左侧阳极/右侧阴极组的接受率无显著性差异（P=0.428），提示其不能区分人与计算机提议者的区别；在不公平水平下，左侧阴极/右侧阳极组面对人类提议者时的接受率显著低于面对计算机提议者（P=0.046），假刺激组和左侧阳极/右侧阴极组的接受率则均无显著性差异（Ps＞0.05）；公平水平下，左侧阳极/右侧阴极组、左侧阴极/右侧阳极组和假刺激组面对人机两种情境接受率均无显著性差异（Ps＞0.05）。而不同经颅直流电刺激类别对各公平水平下的反应时均无显著差异（Ps＞0.05）。（3）背外侧前额叶的经颅直流电刺激后各组间对人和计算机提议者的公平性判断的差异有显著性趋势，主要体现在假刺激组和左侧阳极/右侧阴极组受试对人和计算机提议者的公平性判断无显著差异，左侧阴极/右侧阳极组对人类提议者方案的公平性判断分低于计算机提议者；（4）背外侧前额叶的经颅直流电刺激后各组间的正负性情绪分无显著性差异（Ps＞0.05）. 结论：我们通过预实验验证了最后通牒游戏对不同公平水平以及提议者类型的有效性。并且采用了UG实验发现单次DLPFC脑区tDCS刺激虽然对公平决策行为本身无明显影响，但左侧阳极/右侧阴极刺激后受试不能区分由人或计算机提出的不公平分配方案，提示了右侧DLPFC在根据情境做决策的能力受到了抑制，进一步支持了右侧DLPFC在公平决策中的独特作用。未来的研究可以进一步厘清左侧、右侧DLPFC在公平决策行为中的作用，并结合功能磁共振成像等技术从脑网络的角度进一步深入探讨公平决策行为的神经机制。 |
| 语种 | 中文 |
| 源URL | [http://ir.psych.ac.cn/handle/311026/41546]  |
| 专题 | 心理研究所_健康与遗传心理学研究室 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | 荣悦彤. 背外侧前额叶皮层在公平决策中的作用： 经颅直流电刺激研究[D]. 中国科学院心理研究所. 中国科学院心理研究所. 2020. |
入库方式： OAI收割
来源：心理研究所
浏览0
下载0
收藏0
其他版本
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。