中国卒中杂志 ›› 2016, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (09): 733-737.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5765.2016.09.004

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

脑损伤康复患者脑电心理评估与焦虑和抑郁情绪评估相关性分析

梁志锋,洪晔,张晓颖,刘松怀,刘敏,宋鲁平,刘丽旭,赵军   

  1. 1100068 北京首都医科大学康复医学院
    2中国康复研究中心心理科
    3首都医科大学临床心理系
    4中国康复研究中心神经康复科
  • 收稿日期:2016-06-27 出版日期:2016-09-20 发布日期:2016-09-20
  • 通讯作者: 刘松怀125764132@qq.com

The Correlation between Electroencephalography Mental Evaluation and Anxiety and
Depression Emotional Evaluation of Rehabilitation Patients with Brain Injury

  • Received:2016-06-27 Online:2016-09-20 Published:2016-09-20

摘要:

目的 探讨脑电心理活动评估系统在脑损伤患者心理评估应用中的有效性。 方法 由心理专业人员对52例脑损伤患者进行焦虑、抑郁情绪状态和脑电心理活动状态10项指标 评估,对脑损伤患者焦虑和抑郁情绪分别与脑电心理活动状态评估指标的相关性进行分析。 结果 不同脑电总体心理评估等级脑损伤患者中,焦虑水平状态有显著差异(χ 2=21.843, P =0.009),但抑郁水平无显著差异(χ 2=6.622,P =0.676)。相关性分析显示焦虑状态的分级水平与 总体脑电心理评估的等级呈负相关(R =-0.311,P =0.025),抑郁状态的分级与总体脑电心理评估的 等级无相关性(R =0.143,P =0.310)。焦虑状态水平与脑损伤患者的脑电心理评估分项中的脑耗能 水平(R =0.397,P<0.001)和脑疲劳水平(R =0.239,P =0.004)正相关;抑郁状态水平与脑损伤患者 的脑电心理评估的脑耗能水平(R =0.239,P =0.004)、脑疲劳水平(R =0.173,P =0.039)、内专注水 平(R =0.187,P =0.025)和困倦水平(R =0.220,P =0.008)正相关,而与脑损伤患者的脑电心理评估 分项中的外专注水平(R =-0.165,P =0.039)负相关。 结论 脑电心理活动评估系统部分指标能反映脑损伤患者的焦虑和抑郁情绪状态的变化情况,脑 电心理活动评估系统可辅助为有言语和认知功能障碍脑损伤患者的情绪状态进行评估。

文章导读: 对脑损伤患者进行脑电心理评估,并与临床常用的焦虑和抑郁量表评分进行对比和相关性分析,结果显示脑电心理评估的等级可以反映焦虑状态的情况,但不能反映抑郁状态;另外,脑电心理评估中的部分分项指标与脑损伤患者的焦虑和抑郁水平相关。

关键词: 脑损伤; 焦虑; 抑郁; 脑电评估; 心理评估

Abstract:

Objective To explore the effect of electroencephalography mental activity evaluation system applied to the mental evaluation of the patients with brain injury. Methods A total of 52 inpatients with brain injury were evaluated with 10 indexes of anxiety depression status and electroencephalography mental activity status by psychological professionals. The Spearman correlation index from SPSS 13.0 was used to analyze the correlations between each 10 indexes of electroencephalography mental activity status and the anxiety depression emotion of the 52 patients with brain injury. Results There were significant differences between various anxiety levels and the global index of electroencephalography mental evaluation (χ 2=21.843, P =0.009), and the levels of anxiety status were in significantly negative correlation with the global index of electroencephalography mental evaluation (R =-0.311, P =0.025). There weren’t significant differences between various depression levels and the global index of electroencephalography mental evaluation (χ 2=6.622, P =0.676), neither had statistic correlation (R =0.143, P =0.310). The anxiety status level was in significantly positive correlation with the energy consumption of brain (R =0.397, P< 0.001), brain fatigue (R =0.239, P =0.004). The depression status level was in significantly positive correlated with the energy consumption of brain (R =0.239, P =0.004), brain fatigue (R =0.173, P =0.039), inner focus (R =0.187, P =0.025) and brain fatigue (R =0.220, P =0.008) from the electroencephalography mental

evaluation of the patients with brain injury; also was in significantly negative correlation with the outer focus (R =-0.165, P =0.039) from the electroencephalography mental evaluation of the patients with brain injury. Conclusion Some of the indexes of electroencephalography mental activity evaluation system could reflect the change of anxiety and depression emotional status of the patients with brain injury. The electroencephalography mental activity evaluation system could assist to evaluate the emotional status of the patients with brain injury who have speech and cognitive functional disorders.

Key words: Brain injury; Anxiety; Depression; Electroencephalography evaluation; Mental evaluation