生理回饋訓練與放鬆訓練對大學生焦慮與憂鬱反應之影響效果

Effect of Biofeedback Training and Relaxation Training on Anxiety and Depressive Reactions of College Students

王慶福(Ching-Fu Wang) ； 鍾麗珍(Li-Chen Chung) ； 王郁茗(Yu-Ming Wang) ； 何應瑞(Ying-Jui Ho) ； 賴德仁(Te-Jen Lai)

《中山醫學雜誌》 18卷2期 (2007/12) Pp. 255-270

https://doi.org/10.30096/CSMJ.200712.0009

摘要

目的：本研究探討生理回饋訓練與放鬆訓練分別對大學生焦慮與憂鬱反應傾向的影響效果。
方法：研究採等組前後測設計，以志願的大學生共三十二人隨機分派。實驗A組(n=9)施予六週之生理回饋訓練；實驗B組(n=12)僅施予六週之放鬆訓練。控制組(n=11)則並未接受生理回饋與放鬆訓練。前後測除記錄肌電位、膚電反應、心跳速率、呼吸速率與指溫等生理數據變化外，並施測焦慮與憂鬱量表，以考驗生理回饋訓練與放鬆訓練的影響效果。
結果：焦慮與憂鬱量表的後測得分，根據前測分數調整後，都以放鬆訓練的實驗B組得分最低，不過共變數分析結果並未達顯著差異。以無母數分析的克－瓦二氏等級變異數分析(Kruskal-Wallis Test)結果顯示，前測各量表三組都未達顯著差異，而貝克憂鬱量表後測達顯著差異(X^2=6.04, p=.049)，事後比較顯示兩個實驗組的憂鬱反應都低於控制組。生理指標與預期的結果較符合的是膚電反應與呼吸速率，根據基礎階段調整的後測數值，都以生理回饋實驗A組的得分最低，但共變數分析結果也未達顯著差異。克－瓦二氏等級變異數分析結果，三組的呼吸速率後測四個放鬆階段平均值則有顯著差異(X^2=6.33, p=.042)，生理回饋組在呼吸速率的放鬆效果優於放鬆訓練組與控制組。
結論：研究結果顯示，生理回饋訓練以及放鬆訓練的效果並未得到強力的支持。只有憂鬱反應後測得分顯示生理回饋組與放鬆訓練組都低於控制組；以及生理回饋訓練組在呼吸速率的放鬆效果略優於放鬆訓練組與控制組。

關鍵字

生理回饋訓練 ； 放鬆訓練 ； 焦慮 ； 憂鬱

並列摘要

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore and compare the effects of biofeedback training and relaxation training on anxiety and depression in college students.
Method: Volunteers, all medical school students, were randomly assigned into two experimental groups and a control group. Subjects in experimental group A (n=9) completed a 6-week relaxation program using biofeedback training, and those in experimental group B (n=12) completed a 6-week relaxation training using other methods. Controls (n=11) did not participate in any type of relaxation training. Before and after the whole training program, the subjects, including the controls, were administered the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-Ⅱ) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). Electromyography, skin conductance, finger temperature, heart rate and respiratory rate were used as indices of biofeedback training.
Results: Compared with pre-test scores, the adjusted post test of BAI and BDI-Ⅱ of the group learning relaxation skills other than biofeedback were lower than the other groups, though not significantly different. Based on our Kruskal-Wallis Test, three groups has significantly different post BDI-Ⅱ results (X^2=6.04, p=.049). Posteriori comparisons indicated that depression symptoms of the two experimental groups were lower than control group. With regards the physical indices, SC and respiratory rate changed as expected in the relaxation groups. Using baseline of post test as covariance, the adjusted post test of SC and respiratory rate of biofeedback training group were lower than the other groups, though the results of ANCOVA were not significantly different (p=.05 level). Kruskal-Wallis Test indicated that the post test of respiratory rate in four relaxation stages were significantly different among three groups (X^2=6.33, p=.042). Posteriori comparisons indicated that respiratory rate of biofeedback training group A were lower than the other two groups.
Conclusions: The effects of biofeedback training and relaxation training were not strongly supported. The only significant difference we found was in depressive reactions. Relaxation training group and biofeedback training group had significantly lower depressive scores that than the control group. With regard to respiratory rate, the biofeedback group were found to have better relaxation effect than the other two groups.

並列關鍵字

biofeedback training ； relaxation training ； anxiety ； depression