|Alternative Title||Comparing Neural Correlates of Risky Decision-making and Resting-state Functional Connectivity between Risky and Safe Drivers|
|Place of Conferral||中国科学院心理研究所|
|Keyword||风险驾驶 风险决策 BART 停止信号灯任务 fMRI 静息态|
以往大量的研究致力于从人口统计学、人格、态度、认知以及社会心理因素等各个方面解释风险驾驶行为中的个体差异，但神经机制角度的研究还很缺乏。一个难点在于驾驶是一个包含多种认知过程的动态复杂行为，无法很好地区分与冒险相关的成分;在脑成像设备中安装驾驶模拟器也对实验要求较高。近年来，一些研究者从速度知觉、反应抑制和风险决策等基本认知任务出发，考察高、低风险驾驶员在这些认知过程中的脑活动差异，为风险驾驶的个体差异提供了一些神经层面的研究思路和证据。另外，大量研究在酗酒、吸烟、物质依赖等日常生活中的冒险行为个体差异的问题上己经做出了一定的探索，揭示了不同风险水平的人在广泛的脑区活动上的差异(包括静息态下和任务态下)，也为风险驾驶的个体差异提供了间接的解释途径。总得来说，风险驾驶个体差异神经层面的研究还很缺乏。本研究采用两个自然风险决策任务一一气球模拟风险任务(BART和停止信号灯任务，用功能磁共振成像(Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging,fMRI手段探究高、低风险驾驶员，主要是年轻男性驾驶员，在风险决策任务中的脑活动差异和静息态下的脑功能连接差异，试图从任务态和静息态两方面揭示风险驾驶个体差异的神经朴L制。研究一采用38名22-35岁的男性驾驶员被试，让他们完成两个风险决策任务:用Dula危险驾驶量表和驾驶行为调查表这两个常用的驾驶行为量表测量风险驾驶行为。发现风险决策任务表现与风险驾驶量表得分存在显著的正相关。研究二采用2230岁的年轻男性被试，让高风险驾驶组(n = 16)和低风险驾驶组(n = 16)完成两个风险决策任务并进行fMRI扫描，发现在BART的决策阶段，高风险组的与认知控制、冲突监控和错误检测有关的脑区(主要是DLPFC, ACC/mPFC)随风险水平的升高激活减弱的程度更大，这可能意味着高风险组自我控制失效得更快;在停止信号灯任务的反馈阶段，面对负性反馈时，高风险组的ACC/mPFC激活更强，这可能意味着高风险组‘需要调动更多的认知资源来面对这种结果和预期的冲突，或者对他们来说，负性反馈是一个更意外的结果，反映了他们在风险预期上的欠缺。研究三对同一批被试进行静息态fMRI扫描，选取了双侧ISFG, ACC、脑岛、尾状核、OFC这十个ROI,发现高风险组的双侧ACC}}FG正向功能连接更弱，这可能意味着高风险组在风险抑制上各脑区间的协同配合更差;左侧OFC一右侧中央前回负向功能连接更弱，可能意味着高风险组个体更容易将奖赏加工、风险寻求与行动协同起来，而做出连续的风险性行为。综上所述，本研究首次用fMRI手段探索了风险驾驶个体差异在风险决策任务及静息态脑功能连接上的表现，为理解风险驾驶的个体差异增添了神经层面的证据。
The frequent occurrence of road traffic accidents has always been a threat to the entire society. Among the factors that affect the occurrence of accidents, human factors have caused more than 90% of accidents to occur. Therefore, it is a very meaningful job to understand and identify high-risk drivers.
A large number of researches have been devoted to explaining the individual differences in risky driving from various aspects such as demographics, personalities, attitudes, cognition, and psychosocial factors. However, there is a lack of research concerning the neural mechanisms. One difficulty is that driving is such a dynamic and complex behavior that involves multiple cognitive processes that it's difficult to distinguish risk-related components. The installation of driving simulators in brain imaging equipment also requires a high level of experimentation. In recent years, some researchers have investigated the differences of brain activities between high- and low-risk drivers in basic cognitive tasks such as speed perception, response inhibition, and risky decision-making, providing some evidence for individual differences of risky driving. In addition, a great deal of researches have been conducted on the individual differences of risk-taking behaviors in the daily life, such as drinking, smoking, and substance dependence, revealing the differences of brain activities both during tasks and resting-state. This also provides indirect research directions and possible theory basis for individual differences of risky driving. In general, there is still a lack of research referring to individual differences of risky driving from the angle of neural machanisms. This study used two natural risky decision-making tasks-Balloon Analogue Risk Task- (BART) and Stoplight task, and used Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to explore the differences of brain activities of high- and low-risk drivers (mainly young males), as well as resting-state functional connectivities. In study 1，38 male drivers whose age ranged from 22 to 359 performed the two risky decision-making tasks, whose daily risky driving behavior was measured with two scales: Dula Dangerous Driving Index and Driver Behavior Questionnaire. We found a positive correlation between the performance of risky decision-making tasks and the scores of risky driving scales. Study 2 using young male participants whose age ranged from 22 to 30, compared brain activity in high-risk (n=16) and low-risk (n=16) drivers while they performed the two tasks during fMRI. Results showed that, at the decision phase of BART，that was more intense down-regulation of brain acitivity of brain regions related to control, conflict monitoring, and error detection (mainly DLPFC, ACC/mPFC) in the high-risk group, which may mean the self control of high-risk group fails faster In the feedback phase of the Stoplight task, the ACC/mPFC activation in the face-of negative feedback was stronger in the high-risk group, which may mean that they needs to mobilize more cognitive resources to face this conflict, or for them, negative feedback is a more unexpected result, reflecting their lack of risk expectations. In study 3, resting-state IIVIRI was conducted among the same participants as study 2, and 10 ROIs including bilateral SFG/ACC/insula/caudate/OFC were selected, revealing that the high-risk group had weaker positive functional connectivity between the bilateral ACC-IFG. This may imply that they have poorer synergy in brain regions related to risk-aversion. Nigh-risk group also had weaker negative FC between left OFC-Precentral, which may mean that individuals more easily combine reward processing, risk seeking and action. In summary this study for the first time used fMRI to explore the reflection of individual differences of risky driving on risky decision-making tasks and resting-state functional connectivies, and added neural-level evidence to better understanding the individual differences of risky driving.
|郑婷婷. 高、低风险驾驶员在风险决策任务和静息态下的脑活动差异[D]. 中国科学院心理研究所. 中国科学院大学,2018.|
|Files in This Item:|
|郑婷婷-硕士学位论文.pdf（5766KB）||学位论文||限制开放||CC BY-NC-SA||Application Full Text|
|Recommend this item|
|Export to Endnote|
|Similar articles in Google Scholar|
|Similar articles in Baidu academic|
|Similar articles in Bing Scholar|
Items in the repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.