目的·探究酒精使用障碍（alcohol use disorder，AUD）患者在不同情绪背景下的抑制控制表现及心理机制，了解情绪调节困难对抑制控制功能的影响。方法·招募28名男性AUD住院患者（AUD组）和28名年龄、受教育程度相匹配的健康对照（健康对照组）。采用情绪Go/Nogo任务（愤怒/中性表情面孔）评估被试行为抑制功能，结合层级贝叶斯漂移扩散模型（hierarchical drift-diffusion model，HDDM）量化他们的认知参数（漂移率、决策阈值、非决策时间）。通过情绪调节困难量表（Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale，DERS）和酒精使用障碍筛查量表（Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test，AUDIT）进行临床评估，并运用bootstrap法检验有调节的中介效应模型。结果·AUD组在DERS总分及所有子维度（目标导向行为、冲动控制、策略获取、情绪清晰性）得分均高于健康对照组，差异有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。行为层面，与健康对照组相比，AUD组误按率［F_（1，54）=8.62，P=0.005］与遗漏率［F_（1，54）=4.28，P=0.043］更高，且愤怒面孔刺激反应时普遍延长［F_（1，54）=12.26，P=0.001］。认知建模显示AUD组漂移率显著低于健康对照组［F_（1，54）=15.56，P<0.001］，提示信息加工效率受损。有调节的中介模型显示，在愤怒面孔刺激条件下，漂移率部分中介组别对误按率的影响，总间接效应值为9.564​（95%CI 3.874~16.387）；进一步分析表明，高水平情绪调节困难（比平均值高1个标准差）条件下间接效应增强至10.133​（95%CI 3.963~17.927），而低水平（比平均值低1个标准差）时效应为9.011（95%CI 3.778~14.921）。结论·AUD患者信息加工效率的降低部分解释了患者的抑制控制功能障碍，且该影响与个体情绪调节能力存在关联。提示社会威胁信息加工异常可能是AUD患者，特别是在情绪调节能力较弱的个体抑制控制功能损害的重要影响因素。

Objective ·To investigate the performance and psychological mechanisms of inhibitory control in patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD) under different emotional contexts, and to examine the influence of emotion regulation difficulties on inhibitory control. Methods ·A total of 28 male AUD inpatients (AUD group) and 28 age- and education-matched healthy controls (HC group) were recruited. The emotional Go/Nogo task (angry/neutral facial expressions) was used to evaluate the subjects' behavioral inhibition, and the hierarchical drift-diffusion model (HDDM) was used to quantify the cognitive parameters (drift rate, decision threshold, and non-decision time). The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) and Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) were used for clinical evaluation. The moderated mediation effects were tested by bootstrap method. ​ Results ·The AUD group scored higher than the HC group on the DERS total score and all sub-dimensions (goal-directed behavior, impulse control, strategy access, and emotional clarity), and the difference was statistically significant (all P<0.05). At the behavioral level, compared with the HC group, the AUD group had elevated commission error rates [F_(1,54)=8.62, P=0.005] and omission error rates [F_(1,54)=4.28, P=0.043], and the reaction time of angry face stimuli was generally prolonged [F_(1,54)=12.26, P=0.001]. Cognitive modeling showed that the drift rate of the AUD group was significantly lower than that of the HC group [F_(1,54)=15.56, P<0.001], indicating impaired information processing efficiency. The moderated mediation model showed that, under the condition of angry face stimuli, the drift rate partially mediated the relationship between group and commission error rate, and the total indirect effect value was 9.564 (95%CI 3.874‒16.387). Further analysis showed that the conditional indirect effect increased to 10.133 (95%CI 3.963‒17.927) at high levels of emotion regulation difficulty (one standard deviation above the mean), and to 9.011 (95%CI 3.778‒14.921) at low levels (one standard deviation below the mean). Conclusion ·The deficits in information processing efficiency of AUD patients partly explains the impairment of inhibitory control, and this effect is associated with individual emotion regulation capacity. It is suggested that abnormal processing of social threat information may be an important factor affecting the impairment of inhibitory control in AUD patients, especially in individuals with weak emotion regulation ability.