| Background: Nowadays,communication plays an essential role in society.Because of the increasing academic pressure and employment pressure,a large number of students are confronted with pressure in daily communication.As a process of social recognition,the face recognition serves as an effective standard to evaluate whether a person’s communication is healthy or not.Face is of great importance in the life of college students,such as the identification of a person’s identity,motivation,or intention is a key requirement for people to adapt to the environment as a social species.At present,in order to prove their point of view,most of the facial recognition researchers are,through the brain cortex,using brain potentiometer to expand the current signal to current conversion data(event-related potential).There is no doubt that the event-related potential is an important way to explore the ability to identify the face of the portal.Methods: In order to provide this paper with sufficient experimental data,we can write the experimental process and design the relevant experiment procedure from the perspective of basketball and badminton as well as the visual ability.The subjects of this experiment are the undergraduate students from College of Physical Education,Shandong Normal University.They are all male students who are randomly selected,with badminton players and basketball players being 30 respectively.All the sixty players have never suffered from congenital disease,mental illness and other illness,and haven’t taken any drugs a month before the experiment.Moreover,they are required to be healthy and to get used to using the right hand.After the experiment began,the first 20 photos for the practice appears,that is,each experimental photo in the record data before the subjects familiar with it again.After the end of the exercise,the computer monitor prompts the experiment to start,the subjects themselves according to the computer monitor prompts to press any key to start the experiment,press the button at the same time pay attention to the computer in the collection of EEG information to save the data,the end of the experiment Immediately after the collection of preservation of behavioral data and EEG data.After the experiment,the EED data collected begin to be analyzed by the evoked potential analysis software(16-307)Brain Vision Analyzer,based on which the filter writing will be done.Manual EO removal will be completed when the color of 32 bits Point displays redor the VEOG value on the Mapping view is more than 5μv and the corrugated regular changes in the action removed.Artifacts will be manually removed which refers to check if the value of the "Percent of data" is more than 20% in the Channels display column of the Show Statistics after opening the next menu of Raw Data Inspection.If it is over the value,record and remove it.Data segmentation and other analysis steps are delivered to analyze the process and import data manually analysis.The imported data will be input into Excel spreadsheet.The line exists the question marks of the data will be removed and saved.The data were collected at SPSS,making the badminton group and the basketball group an independent sample T test.Results: Compared with the response time data of the badminton group,it was found that there was a significant difference(P = 0.00 <0.05).The athlete of the basketball project was obviously faster than the badminton player in the time of responding to the facial stimulus.In the comparison of errors,it was found that the correct rate of basketball was low but there was no significant difference(P = 0.519> 0.05).(P = 0.049 <0.05).The P300 amplitude of the basketball group was higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.389),but the P300 of the basketball group was higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.408> 0.05).The N170 latency of the basketball group was significantly lower than that of the badminton(P = 0.408>0.05).The N170 amplitude of the basketball group was not significantly higher than that of the feathers(P = 0.082> 0.05).The P300 latency of the basketball group was significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.86> 0.05).(P = 0.86> 0.05).The P300 amplitude of the basketball group was higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.036 <0.05).The P300 latency of the basketball group was higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.86> 0.05)(P= 0.0757> 0.05).The N170 amplitude of basketball was shorter than that of badminton N170(P= 0.82> 0.05).The latency of basketball N170 was higher than that of badminton N170(P =0.0757> 0.05).(P = 0.049 <0.05).The amplitude of P300 in the basketball group was significantly higher than that in the badminton group(P = 0.49> 0.05).The incubation period of the basketball group N170 was significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.049<0.05)(P = 0.0014> 0.05).The N170 amplitude of basketball group was significantly shorter than that of badminton N170(P = 0.043 <0.05).(P = 0.696> 0.05).The P300 amplitude of the basketball group was significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.039 <0.05).The basketball group N170(P <0.05)was higher than that of the badminton group(P =(P =0.28> 0.05).The N170 amplitude of the basketball group was not significantly shorter than that of the badminton N170(P = 0.224> 0.05).(P = 0.006 <0.05).The amplitude of P300 in basketball group was significantly lower than that in badminton group(P = 0.991> 0.05);basketball group N170(P = 0.006 <0.05)(P = 0.446> 0.05).The N170 amplitude of the basketball group was not significantly worse than that of the badminton N170(P = 0.400> 0.05).(P = 0.378> 0.05).The P300 amplitude of the basketball group was not significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.076> 0.05).The basketball group was significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.378> 0.05)The latency of N170 was not significantly shorter than that of badminton group(P = 0.344> 0.05).P = 0.446> 0.05).The N170 amplitude of the basketball group was not significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P =0.400> 0.05).The N170 amplitude of the basketball group was not significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.406> 0.05).(P = 0.378> 0.05).The P300 amplitude of the basketball group was not significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.076>0.05).The basketball group was significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P =0.378> 0.05)(P = 0.344> 0.05).The N170 amplitude of the basketball group was significantly shorter than that of the badminton N170(P = 0.045 <0.05).(P = 0.129> 0.05).The P300 amplitude of the basketball group was significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P= 0.01 <0.05).The basketball group N170(P <0.01)was significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.129> 0.05)(P = 0.798> 0.05).The N170 amplitude of the basketball group was significantly lower than that of the badminton group(P = 0.05 = 0.05).The N170 amplitude of the basketball group was significantly lower than that of the badminton group(P =0.798> 0.05).(P = 0.442> 0.05).The P300 amplitude of the basketball group was not significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.696> 0.05).The basketball group P300 had no significant effect on the P300 latency of the basketball group(P = 0.648> 0.05).The N170 amplitude of the basketball group was not significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.065> 0.05).(P = 0.322> 0.05).The P300 amplitude of the basketball group was not significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.255> 0.05).The basketball group was significantly higher than that of the badminton group(P = 0.322> 0.05)(P= 0.027 <0.05).The N170 amplitude of N170 was significantly lower than that of badminton group(P = 0.063> 0.05).(P = 0.025 <0.05).The amplitude of P300 in the basketball group wassignificantly lower than that in the badminton group(P = 0.255> 0.05);the basketball group N170(P = 0.642> 0.05).The N170 amplitude of the basketball group was not significantly shorter than that of the badminton N170(P = 0.282> 0.05).Conclusion: the Individual item badminton athletes with collective item group basketball athletes in the face of face stimulus response speed.Individual item of badminton athletes with collective item group of basketball players in the face of face stimulus in different potential differences of amplitude and latency and basketball player than badminton players face face stimulation using fewer resources.Suggest that students who don’t like to communicate more to participate in collective item like basketball. |
PDF Full Text Request