摘要目的:探究检查型与清洗型强迫症患者在反应抑制和情绪加工方面是否存在特异性的行为学特征。方法:前瞻性收集2020年1月至2022年12月在湘雅二医院心理咨询门诊和湖南省脑科医院临床心理科门诊就诊的共75例强迫症患者的临床资料，包含40例检查型强迫症患者（检查组），其中男24例、女16例、年龄14~34（22.1±5.0）岁，35例清洗型强迫症患者（清洗组），其中男12例、女23例、年龄14~41（22.6±6.7）岁。同期招募年龄匹配的健康对照人群（健康对照组）80名，其中男37名、女43名、年龄14~25（20.8±1.9）岁。所有被试均完成Go/No-go任务和Hariri任务，并采集行为学数据。采用耶鲁-布朗强迫症状维度量表评估强迫症不同症状是否存在及其严重程度，使用流调中心用抑郁量表和状态焦虑问卷检测被试的抑郁和焦虑程度。采用3（组别：检查型强迫症组、清洗型强迫症组和健康对照组）×2（任务类型：Go任比No-go任务/几何图形比情绪面孔）的重复测量方差分析比较Go/No-go和Hariri任务不同条件的行为学指标上的组间差异。结果:检查组与清洗组在抑郁、焦虑量表上的得分均显著高于对照组（ F=85.43、32.33，均 P<0.05）。No-go任务中，组别×任务的交互效应显著（ F3（2，152）=3.23， P3=0.042，偏 η32=0.04）：在检查组中，No-go任务的正确率显著小于Go任务的正确率（0.821比0.893， P<0.001）；在检查组与对照组中，检查组的正确率显著小于对照组（0.821比0.876， P=0.005）；在清洗组与对照组中，任务类型效应均不显著（ P>0.05）。负性情绪面孔匹配任务中，组别×任务的交互效应显著（ F3（2，152）=4.91， P3=0.009，偏 η32=0.06）：匹配情绪面孔时，清洗组的正确率显著小于对照组（0.879比0.936， P=0.001），而检查组与对照组比较差异无统计学意义（ P>0.05）；在匹配图形时，组间差异无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。此外，3组被试匹配图形的正确率均显著大于匹配情绪面孔的正确率（匹配图形正确率：检查组=0.936，清洗组=0.929，对照组=0.943；匹配情绪面孔正确率：检查组=0.877，清洗组=0.844，对照组=0.917）（均 P<0.05）。 结论:检查型强迫症与清洗型强迫症患者在反应抑制和情绪加工任务中各有特异性的行为学受损模式，检查型强迫症以反应抑制受损为主，而清洗型强迫症以情绪加工受损为主。

abstractsObjective:This study aims to explore whether there are specific behavioral deficits of response inhibition and emotional processing in patients with checking obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and those with washing OCD.Methods:A cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2020 to December 2022, collecting clinical data from 75 OCD patients at the outpatient psychological consultation clinic of Xiangya Second Hospital and the clinical psychology department of Hunan Brain Hospital. The sample included 40 OCD patients with checking type (checking group, 24 males, 16 females, aged 14-34 years, mean age 22.1±5.0 years) and 35 OCD patients with washing type (washing group, 12 males, 23 females, aged 14-41 years, mean age 22.6±6.7 years). An age-matched healthy control group (control group) of 80 individuals (HCs, 37 males and 43 females, aged 14-25 years, mean age 20.8±1.9 years) was also recruited. All participants completed the Go/No-go task and Hariri task with behavioral data recorded. The Dimensional Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale was used to assess the severity of OCD symptoms. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and State Anxiety Inventory (STAI) were used to assess the severity of depression and anxiety. A 3 (group: checking OCD, washing OCD and HC)×2 (task type: Go vs. No-go/Shape vs. Face) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the behavioral performance across tasks.Results:Compared with HC group, both checking OCD group and washing OCD group had significantly higher scores in depression and anxiety ( F=85.43, 32.33,both P<0.05). When performing Go/No-go task, a significant group×task interaction effect was observed ( F3(2, 152)=3.23, P3=0.042, partialη32=0.04). In the checking OCD group, No-go accuracy was significantly lower than Go accuracy (accuracy=0.821 vs. 0.893, P<0.001); the checking OCD had significantly lower accuracy than HC in the No-go task (accuracy=0.821 vs. 0.876, P=0.005); there were no significant group differences between the washing OCD and HC in the No-go task ( P>0.05). When performing Hariri task, a significant group×task interaction effect was found ( F3(2, 152)=4.91, P3=0.009, partial η32=0.06). The washing OCD group showed significantly lower accuracy in matching emotional faces than the control group (0.879 vs. 0.936, P=0.001), whereas the checking OCD group showed no significant difference from the HC ( P>0.05); there were no significant group differences in shape matching task ( P>0.05). The accuracy of shape matching task was significantly higher than face matching task in the three groups (shape: checking OCD=0.936,washing OCD=0.929,HC=0.943; face:checking OCD=0.877,washing OCD=0.844,HC=0.917;all P>0.05). Conclusions:Checking OCD and washing OCD exhibit distinct behavioral impairment patterns in response inhibition and emotional processing. Checking-type OCD is primarily characterized by impaired response inhibition, whereas washing-type OCD is mainly associated with deficits in emotion processing.