• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Five-year follow-up study of multi-domain cognitive training for healthy elderly community members

    2014-12-09 03:44:06WeiFENGChunboLIYouCHENYanCHENGWenyuanWU
    上海精神醫(yī)學(xué) 2014年1期
    關(guān)鍵詞:測驗個體神經(jīng)

    Wei FENG, Chunbo LI*, You CHEN, Yan CHENG, Wenyuan WU*

    ?Original Article?

    Five-year follow-up study of multi-domain cognitive training for healthy elderly community members

    Wei FENG1, Chunbo LI2*, You CHEN3, Yan CHENG1, Wenyuan WU1*

    aged, cognition, neuropsychological tests, follow up studies, neuropsychology, China

    1. Introduction

    Signs of cognitive decline, including memory loss,decreased processing speed and difficulty concentrating,are commonly seen among elderly people.[1]Studies have found that standardized cognitive training can significantly delay cognitive decline and reduce the risk of dementia.[2-4]Most cognitive training studies in China[5]have focused on single cognitive domains such as memory, reasoning or processing speed. However,the content of such single-domain training is relatively dull and participants’ interest and compliance may diminish after a few sessions. To address this issue,our team developed an integrated multi-domain cognitive training package tailored for elderly urban community members and administered the threemonth intervention to a sample of elderly people in Shanghai in 2006. Previous reports on the study indicated that compared to cognitive functioning in a control group, individuals in the intervention group had better reasoning, memory and executive functioning at the end of the training and that these differences persisted for 1 year after the training.[6-8]The current paper reports on a 5-year follow-up assessment of the individuals enrolled in this project.

    2. Methods

    2.1 Sample

    The enrollment and follow-up of subjects for the study is shown in Figure 1. The sample were elderly residents of two neighborhoods of one of the 9 sub-districts of the Putuo District of Shanghai (one of Shanghai’s 19 districts). A total of 374 elderly community members from these neighborhoods were recruited by the neighborhood committees (i.e., local administrative offices) and screened from April to May 2006. Inclusion criteria were: (a) at least 70 years of age; (b) ability to self-care with no physical disability or severe physical disease; (c) no mental disorders; and (d) ability to read,write, see, and hear. A total of 151 elderly individuals met these inclusion criteria including 83 males and 68 females; their age ranged from 70 to 89 years with a mean (sd) age of 74.8 (3.7) years.

    Recruitment took place at the offices of the neighborhood committee. In order to avoid possible contamination due to communication between participants in the intervention and control groups,assignment to the intervention or control groups was done sequentially. The first 50 screened individuals who met eligibility criteria were asked to participate in the intervention group, the next 50 screened individuals who met eligibility criteria were asked to participate in the control group, the third group of 50 screened who met eligibility criteria were invited to participate in the intervention group, and so forth. Using this process,90 individuals were recruited in the intervention group and 61 in the control group. There were no signif i cant differences in gender (χ2=1.38, p=0.241), age (t=0.35,p=0.725), or educational level (χ2=0.39, df=3, p=0.942)between the two groups at baseline. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tongji Hospital of Tongji University and all participants provided written informed consent. Five years after the intervention(February to March in 2012), a total of 82 participants were followed-up including 49 in the intervention group and 33 in the control group. There were no signif i cant differences between those who completed the 5-year follow from the intervention and control groups in gender (χ2=1.56, p=0.212), age (t=-0.05, p=0.959), or educational level (χ2=2.98, df=3, p=0.395).

    2.2 Assessment tools

    The Chinese version of the WHO Neuropsychological Test Battery for Elderly persons (NTBE) was used to evaluate eight domains of cognitive functioning:auditory verbal learning; sorting; cancellation;language; motor functioning; visual function; spatial construction; and trail making.[9,10]The test-retest correlation coefficients for the auditory verbal learning,cancellation, visual function, spatial construction and trail making subtests ranged from 0.64-0.92; the splithalf correlation coefficient was 0.85; and the correlation coefficients between domains of NTBE ranged from 0.10 to 0.42.[11]The Stroop Color-Word Test was used to assess executive functioning by testing the accuracy and speed of reading words in different colors.[12,13]

    Baseline assessments were conducted from June to September 2006. This included physical examinations,lab tests, NTBE, the Stroop test, and a general health questionnaire.

    2.3 Intervention

    Intervention group members received multi-domain cognitive training from October 2006 to January 2007.Two graduate student psychiatrists provided 24 face-toface training sessions over this 12-week period to the 90 individuals in the intervention group. The 90 individuals were divided into six groups of 15 individuals each for the training sessions. The length of each session was 60 minutes. Participation in the sessions varied from a high of 97% (87/90) at the first session to a low of 63%(57/90) at the twenty-second session; the mean level of participation over the 24 sessions was 76%. Domains of training included reasoning (i.e., the identification of patterns in a group of words, numbers, or pictures),memory (i.e., memorizing pictures and words), problem solving (i.e., forming strategies for different tasks), and behavioral exercises (i.e., handwriting and handcrafts).Each session covered one domain. After each session participants provided feedback about the difficulty level,perceived usefulness, and interestingness of the session(information that was subsequently used to restructure the sessions). Between training sessions, participants in the intervention group were encouraged to do physical exercise and to finish the homework assigned during the session (including reading, calligraphy, painting,etc.). More details about the training can be found in our previous reports on this project.[14-16]Individuals in the control group did not receive any cognitive training.

    Three months after enrollment (i.e., at the end of the cognitive training in the intervention group) and 9 months, 15 months and 63 months after enrolment all available individuals in the intervention and control groups were re-assessed using the same battery of instruments used at the baseline assessment.These evaluations were conducted by five graduate students in psychiatry who were trained in the use of the instruments and had good inter-rater reliability.The interclass correlation coefficients for the various NTBE sub-tests when these five raters simultaneously assessed four anxious elderly inpatients were all above 0.80. These evaluators were blind to the group membership of the individuals they evaluated.

    2.4 Statistical analysis

    Epidata 3.0 software was used for data entry and SPSS17.0 software was used for data analyses.Descriptive statistics, chi-squared test, one sample t-test, Mann-Whitney Z-test (continuous data that is not normally distributed), paired t-test and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were used depending on the type of data. Three separate analyses were conducted:(a) comparing baseline demographic and neuropsychological test results between the 82 individuals who completed the 5-year follow-up with the 69 who did not complete the 5-year follow-up; (b) comparing

    baseline characteristics and neuropsychological test results for the 41 intervention group individuals who did not complete the 5-year follow-up with the 28 control group individuals who did not complete the 5-year follow-up; and (c) comparing the characteristics and neuropsychological test results at baseline (adjusting for age and educational status), and at 3-months postbaseline and 63 months post-baseline (adjusting for age, educational status and baseline value) between the 49 individuals in the intervention group and the 33 individuals in the control group who completed the 5-year follow-up assessment. A total of 61 different measures (59 measures from the subtests on the NTBE and 2 measures from the Stroop Color-Word Test)were assessed at each time interval, so to limit possible bias due to multiple testing, the p-value for statistical signif i cance was set at 0.0008 (i.e., 0.05 / 61).

    Figure 1. Flowchart of the study

    3. Results

    3.1 Comparison of baseline characteristics and neuropsychological test scores between those who did and did not complete the 5-year follow-up

    At the time of the 5-year follow-up it was only possible to evaluate 54% (49/90) of the individuals originally enrolled in the intervention group and 54% (33/61) of the individuals originally enrolled in the control group. In the intervention group 12 withdrew consent, 13 moved away (typically to live with children), 12 developed serious physical illnesses that precluded participation,and 4 died. In the control group 10 withdrew consent,4 moved away, 9 developed serious physical illnesses and 5 died. It is possible that some of these dropouts,particularly those that had serious illnesses or died,were directly or indirectly related to dementia or cognitive decline. This could potentially compromise the comparability of the remaining participants.

    To determine whether or not individuals we evaluated five years after the intervention were representative of all enrolled individuals, we compared the baseline demographic characteristic and neuropsychological results of the 82 individuals who completed the 5-year evaluation and the 69 individuals who did not complete the 5-year evaluation. There were no significant differences between these two groups by gender (χ2=1.63, p=0.197),age (t=1.32, p=0.192), or educational level (χ2=2.05,df=3, p=0.541). Five of the 61 neuropsychological measures were different at baseline between those who did and did not complete the 5-year follow-up:compared to those who dropped out during the five years of follow-up, at baseline those who completed the 5-year evaluation had fewer correct responses on Cancellation Test 1 (24.23 [2.76] v. 25.04 [1.49],t=2.17, p=0.032) and Cancellation Test 2 (10.75 [0.47] v.10.89 [0.35], t=2.00, p=0.048), more missing items on Cancellation Test 2 (0.26 [0.47] v. 0.11 [0.35], Z=2.41,p=0.016), and required more reminders during the Trails Making A test (0.56 [0.97] v. 0.29 [0.66], Z=2.29,p=0.022) and during the Trails Making B test (1.00 [1.56]v. 0.50 [1.26], Z=2.11, p=0.009). Given the large number of tests that were compared, none of these differences were considered statistically signif i cant.

    We also compared the baseline characteristics of the 41 individuals who dropped out of the intervention group over the five years with those of the 28 individuals who dropped out of the control group over the five years. There were no significant differences between the groups by gender (χ2=0.15, p=0.808), age (t=0.57,p=0.569), or educational level (χ2=1.18, df=3, p=0.241).Only two of the 61 neuropsychological measures were different at baseline: those who dropped out of the intervention group had more inserted responses in Auditory Verbal Learning Test 1 than those who dropped out of the control group (0.49 [0.75] v. 0.11[0.32], Z=2.46, p=0.014), but those who dropped out of the control group had more inserted responses to the Auditory Verbal Learning Test 6 (1.11 [1.23] v. 0.46[0.81], Z=2.66, p=0.008). Here, again, given the large number of tests considered, neither of these differences were considered statistically signif i cant.

    3.2 Comparison of neuropsychological test results at baseline, at the end of the 3-month intervention and at 5-year follow-up for the 49 interventiongroup subjects and 33 control-group subjects who completed the 5-year follow-up

    The comparison of the baseline, 3-month and 5-year neuropsychological test results for the 49 individuals from the intervention group and the 33 individuals from the control group who completed the 5-year follow-up are shown in Table 1.

    Results for 5 of the 61 assessed measures suggest that individuals in the intervention group who completed the 5-year follow up had somewhat better baseline functioning that individuals in the control group who completed the 5-year follow-up. After controlling for age and educational level, compared to individuals in the control group, at baseline those in the intervention group had more correct responses on Cancellation Test 1 (p=0.006), fewer missing items on Cancellation Test 1 (p=0.005) and Cancellation Test 3 (p=0.040), and better results on the Contact Function Test (p=0.029)and the Semantic Relations Test (p=0.003). But none of these differences reached our pre-determined level of statistical signif i cance (p=0.0008).

    At the end of the three-month intervention (or 3 months after enrollment in the control group), after controlling for age, educational level and baseline level of the measure, 6 of the 61 test scores suggested that the cognitive functioning of the intervention group was better than that of the control group: compared to the control group, individuals in the intervention group recalled more items on the Naming Recall Test(p=0.020), had a higher score on the Semantic Relations Test (p=0.020), performed better on the Visual Matching and Reasoning Test (p=0.036), had less duplicated responses in the Auditory Verbal Learning Test 7(p=0.024), had fewer errors on Trails Making Test A(p=0.033), and had less color interference in the Stroop Color-Word Test (p=0.017).

    At the time of the 5-year follow-up, after adjusting for age, educational level and the baseline value for the measure, intervention group individuals performed better than control group individuals on three measures of the Trails Making A Test – fewer errors (p=0.041),fewer minor errors (p=0.026), and fewer reminders(p=0.045). They also performed better on two measures of Cancellation Test 3—more correct responses(p=0.015) and fewer missed items (p=0.018). None of these differences reached our pre-determined level of statistical signif i cance (p=0.0008).

    Table 1. Comparison of scores of 59 neuropsychological measures from the Neuropsychological Test Battery for Elderly persons and 2 measures from the Stroop Color-Word Test between the 49 individuals in the cognitive training intervention group and 33 individuals in the control group who completed all three evaluations at baseline, 3 months post-enrollment and 63 months post-enrollment

    Table 1. Comparison of scores of 59 neuropsychological measures from the Neuropsychological Test Battery for Elderly persons and 2 measures from the Stroop Color-Word Test between the 49 individuals in the cognitive training intervention group and 33 individuals in the control group who completed all three evaluations at baseline, 3 months post-enrollment and 63 months post-enrollment (cont’d)

    Table 1. Comparison of scores of 59 neuropsychological measures from the Neuropsychological Test Battery for Elderly persons and 2 measures from the Stroop Color-Word Test between the 49 individuals in the cognitive training intervention group and 33 individuals in the control group who completed all three evaluations at baseline, 3 months post-enrollment and 63 months post-enrollment (cont’d)

    Table 1. Comparison of scores of 59 neuropsychological measures from the Neuropsychological Test Battery for Elderly persons and 2 measures from the Stroop Color-Word Test between the 49 individuals in the cognitive training intervention group and 33 individuals in the control group who completed all three evaluations at baseline, 3 months post-enrollment and 63 months post-enrollment (cont’d)

    Table 1. Comparison of scores of 59 neuropsychological measures from the Neuropsychological Test Battery for Elderly persons and 2 measures from the Stroop Color-Word Test between the 49 individuals in the cognitive training intervention group and 33 individuals in the control group who completed all three evaluations at baseline, 3 months post-enrollment and 63 months post-enrollment (cont’d)

    4. Discussion

    4.1 Main findings

    Among individuals who were followed up five years after enrollment, after adjusting for baseline cognitive functioning, age and education there were no differences on a wide range of neurocognitive tests between those who had received a three-month cognitive training program and those who had not received the training. These results are based on 54%follow-up of the original sample so the failure to find a difference could be due to differential dropout from the two groups. But the proportion of dropouts was identical in the two groups (46%) and we found few differences in the baseline characteristics and neuropsychological prof i le of those who completed the study versus those who dropped out. Moreover, there were also few differences between those who dropped out from the intervention group versus those who dropped out of the control group. These results strongly suggest that the lack of differences in neuropsychological functioning five years after the three-month cognitive training course is real; it is not likely due to differential dropout rates in the two groups.

    Thus our results do not confirm results from other countries that report long-term effectiveness of cognitive training. For example, Ball and colleagues randomly assigned 2832 community members aged 65 to 94 years into a memory training group, a reasoning training group, a processing speed training group and a control group; after 6 weeks of cognitive training, scores on corresponding cognitive functioning tests were improved and participants’ cognitive functioning and daily functioning were signif i cantly better than those of the control group five years after the intervention.[17-19]

    Why were we unable to replicate Ball’s findings?The sample size of Ball’s study was 18-fold larger than the sample size in our study so his study had the statistical power to identify small differences that we could not identify. Ball’s study had younger participants(starting at 65 years of age while our study started at 70 years of age) so it’s possible that a smaller proportion of the subjects in his study were affected by age-related decline (i.e., mild cognitive impairment) that would swamp the positive effects of a short cognitive training program. Most importantly, 60% of the participants in Ball’s study were given reinforcement training 11 months and 35 months after the initial cognitive training, limiting the attenuation of the training effect over time; we did not conduct any booster sessions over the five-year follow-up period. The younger age of participants and use of booster training sessions in Ball’s study were probably also a factor in the higher 5-year follow-up rate in his study compared to ours (67% v.54%).

    4.2 Limitations

    The main limitation in this study is the relatively small sample size, which was magnif i ed by the high dropout rate (46%) at the time of the 5-year follow-up. Given the comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests conducted (with 61 independent measures) an initial sample size of 151 individuals and a follow-up sample size of 82 individuals is much too small. The requirement to adjust the results for age, educational status and baseline values further weakened the power of the tests to identify differences between groups or over time. Thus many of the negative results in the study could be due to Type II errors – that is, failure to identify important differences between groups because the study sample was too small. Moreover, several of the indices used in the neuropsychological battery employed are not normally distributed, so it would be preferable to use non-parametric tests (e.g., Mann-Whitney tests) to compare the results across groups.

    4.3 Implications

    The belief that a short cognitive training program can have a prolonged effect on the cognitive functioning of elderly individuals is attractive, but probably not realistic. Changing the long-term trajectory of cognitive functioning, particularly in the elderly cohort who are experiencing a natural decline in their mental functioning, will probably require sustained and repetitive effort to encourage elderly individuals to adopt a ‘cognitively healthy lifestyle’ just like earlier public health efforts focused on getting middle-age and elderly adults to adopt a ‘heart-healthy’ lifestyle.

    Given the advanced age of respondents in these studies there is inevitably going to be a high dropout rate as the follow-up period is extended. Most of these dropouts are not preventable; many respondents develop serious illnesses that prevent participation,some died and some move away (often to live with their children). Only about one-third (22/68) of those who dropped out in our study withdrew consent, so even if it is possible to make the programs so engaging that all participants are willing to continue participation, there will still be relatively high dropout rates. Sample sizes for such studies need to take this into consideration and the analysis of long-term outcomes must assess the possibility that there is differential rates and types of dropouts in the intervention and control groups and, if so, adjust the results accordingly.

    When using comprehensive neuropsychological batteries with dozens of measures to compare groups or to compare a single group over time the likelihood of identifying statistically significant differences is greatly increased due to the number of statistical tests being conducted, particularly if the sample is large. In this scenario the ‘signif i cant’ tests or measures will change every time the intervention is repeated and researchers may exhaustively debate the reasons for the differences in their studies without realizing that many of these results are statistical artifacts. To prevent this from happening, intervention research for cognitive training must move towards hypothesis-based testing in which the effectiveness of the outcome is based on a small number of specific measures identified before starting the intervention. The fishing expeditions for ‘signif i cant variables’ that many researchers currently undertake using the huge neuropsychological batteries currently available will not advance knowledge in the field.

    Conflict of interest

    The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to this manuscript.

    Funding

    This study was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (81200831 and 30770769), the China National Science and Technology Pillar Projects(2009BAI77B03), and the Shanghai Health Bureau(2012038).

    1. McAuley E, Kramer AF, Colcombe SJ. Cardiovascular fitness and neurocognitive function in older adults: a brief review.Brain Behav Immun. 2004;18(3): 214-220

    2. Wang JQ, Wu WY. [Research progress in cognitive training in old people]. Tongji Da Xue Xue Bao (Yi Xue Ban). 2010;31(3): 125-128. Chinese. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-0392.2010.03.032

    3. Gates N, Valenzuela M. Cognitive exercise and its role in cognitive function in older adults. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2010;12(1): 20-27. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11920-009-0085-y

    4. Shen Y, Li CB, Wu WY. [Cognitive aging, brain plasticity in old people and cognition reservation]. Zhonghua Xin Wei Yi Xue Yu Nao Ke Xue Za Zhi. 2009;18(8): 765-766. Chinese

    5. Feng W, Li CB, Wu WY. [Cognitive intervention on aging].Shanghai Jing Shen Yi Xue. 2006;18(3): 172-174. Chinese

    6. Feng W, Li CB, Wu WY, Chen Y, Cheng Y. [Efficacy of comprehensive cognitive training for community healthy elderly: a controlled trial]. Zhonghua Jing Shen Ke Za Zhi. 2008;41(3): 152-155. Chinese. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1006-7884.2008.03.007

    7. Feng W, Li CB, Cheng Y, Wu WY. [Long-term effects of composite cognitive training for community healthy elderly:one year follow-up]. Lin Chuang Jing Shen Bing Xue. 2009;19(3): 145-147. Chinese

    8. Feng W, Wu WY, Chen Y, Cheng Y, Li CB. [Effects of compositive cognitive training for healthy community elders in reasoning ability: a controlled trial]. Zhonghua Xing Wei Yi Xue Yu Nao Ke Xue Za Zhi. 2011;20(12): 1125-1127. Chinese. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-6554.2011.12.023

    9. Xue HB, Xiao SF, Li CB, He YL, Wu WY, Zhang MY. [The neuropsychological test battery for elderly people].Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2005;85(42): 2961-2965. Chinese

    10. World Health Organization. World Health Organization.Battery of Cognitive Assessment Instrument for Elderly.Geneva: WHO, 1996. 5-8

    11. Xue HB, Xiao SF, Zhang MY. [Reliability and validity of neuropsychological test battery for the elderly]. J Intern Med Concepts Pract. 2007;2(2): 103-105. Chinese. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3760/j:issn:0376-2491.2005.42.005

    12. Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychology. 1935, 18(6) : 643-662

    13. van Boxtel MP, ten Tusscher MP, Metsemakers JF, Willems B,Jolles J. Visual determinants of reduced performance on the Stroop color-word test in normal aging individuals. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2001;23(5): 620-627

    14. Xue ZQ, Feng W, Li CB,Wu WY. [Short-term effect of cognitive training intervention in community elders].Lin Chuang Jing Shen Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2007;17(5):292-295. Chinese. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-3220.2007.05.002

    15. Feng W, Li CB, Chen Y, Cheng Y, Wu WY. Integrative cognitive training for healthy elderly Chinese in community: A controlled study. Biomedical Research. 2013;24(2): 223-229 16. Cheng Y, Wu W, Feng W, Wang J, Chen Y, Shen Y, et al. The effects of multi-domain versus single-domain cognitive training in non-demented older people: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Medicine. 2012;10: 30. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-30

    17. Ball K, Berch DB, Helmers KF, Jobe JB, Leveck MD, Marsiske M, et al. Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288(18): 2271-2281. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.18.2271

    18. Willis SL, Tennstedt SL, Marsiske M, Ball K, Elias J, Koepke KM, et al. Long-term effects of cognitive training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults. JAMA.2006;296(23): 2805-2814. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.23.2805

    19. Unverzaqt FW, Smith DM, Rebok GW, Marsiske M, Morris JN, Jones R, et al. The Indiana Alzheimer disease center’s symposium on mild cognitive impairment. Cognitive training in older adults: lessons from the ACYIVE study. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2009;6(4): 375-383

    社區(qū)健康老年人多域認(rèn)知訓(xùn)練的5年隨訪研究

    馮威,李春波,陳優(yōu),成燕,吳文源

    老年人;認(rèn)知;神經(jīng)心理學(xué)測試;隨訪研究;神經(jīng)心理學(xué);中國

    Background:Cognitive training, a safe non-pharmacological intervention, may help mitigate cognitive decline and prevent the development of dementia in elderly individuals.Objective:Evaluate the long-term effects of cognitive training among healthy elderly community members.Methods:Healthy individuals 70 years of age or older from one urban community in Shanghai were screened and the 151 individuals who met inclusion criteria were assigned either to an intervention group (n=90) or a control group (n=61). The intervention involved twice-weekly training in reasoning, memory, and strategy that continued for 12 weeks (a total of 24 sessions). Participants were assessed at baseline and at 12 weeks, and 5 years after enrollment using the Chinese versions of the Neuropsychological Test Battery for Elderly persons(NTBE), the Stroop Color-Word Test, and a general health questionnaire.Results:Forty-nine (54%) intervention group subjects and 33 (54%) control group subjects completed the 5-year follow-up. There were few differences in the baseline neurocognitive measures of those who did and did not complete the 5-year follow-up, and there were few differences between those who dropped out of the intervention group compared to those who dropped out of the control group. At the 5-year follow-up,individuals in the intervention group performed better than those in the control group on only 5 measures (in the Trails Making A Test and the Cancellation Test 3) of the 61 measures assessed by NTBE and the Stroop tests,but none of these differences met the pre-determined required level of statistical signif i cance (p=0.0008).Conclusion:We do not conf i rm the results of previous studies that report long-term benef i ts of brief cognitive training courses for elderly community residents. Our failure to identify differences in cognitive functioning five years after cognitive training is not likely due to differential dropout between the intervention and control groups but may be related to the relatively small sample and the large number of measures being assessed.Future intervention studies for cognitive training in the elderly should be hypothesis driven (i.e., focused on a single outcome measure of interest), use much larger samples, and include regular booster sessions as part of the cognitive training package.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2014.01.005

    1Department of Psychiatry, Tongji Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

    2Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

    3Shanghai Yangpu District Mental Health Center, Shanghai, China

    *correspondence: Wenyuan WU: wuwy@#edu.cn; Chunbo LI: chunbo_li@yahoo.com

    A full-text Chinese translation will be available at www.saponline.org from April 15, 2014.

    背景:認(rèn)知訓(xùn)練是一種安全的非藥物干預(yù),可能幫助老年個體減輕認(rèn)知功能減退和預(yù)防癡呆癥。目標(biāo):評估社區(qū)健康老年人認(rèn)知訓(xùn)練的長期效果。方法:上海某城市社區(qū)70歲及以上的健康老年人進(jìn)行篩選后,151名符合納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的個體被分配至干預(yù)組(n=90)和對照組(n=61)。干預(yù)組每周接受兩次推理、記憶和策略的訓(xùn)練,持續(xù)12周(共24次)。于基線、12周、和入組后5年時,使用《老年人神經(jīng)心理測驗中文版》(NTBE)、《斯特魯色詞測驗》、和《一般健康問卷》分別對個體進(jìn)行評估。結(jié)果:干預(yù)組49人(54%)和對照組33人(54%)完成了5年的隨訪。完成與未完成5年隨訪的個體之間在基線時的神經(jīng)認(rèn)知測量沒有顯著差異,并且干預(yù)組脫落個體和對照組脫落個體之間也沒有差異。5年隨訪時,干預(yù)組個體在NTBE和斯特魯色詞測驗的61項評估中僅有5項評分(路徑A測試和劃消測驗3)比對照組好,但這些差異沒有達(dá)到預(yù)先確定的統(tǒng)計學(xué)水平(p=0.0008)。結(jié)論:我們沒有證實以往研究的結(jié)果,它們報導(dǎo)對社區(qū)中老年居民進(jìn)行簡要認(rèn)知培訓(xùn)會有長期效果。我們無法證實認(rèn)知訓(xùn)練五年后認(rèn)知功能的差異不可能是由干預(yù)組和對照組脫落不同所致,但可能與樣本相對較小和評估項目數(shù)目太多有關(guān)。今后對于老年人認(rèn)知訓(xùn)練的干預(yù)研究應(yīng)該建立在假設(shè)的基礎(chǔ)上(即專注于感興趣的單個測量結(jié)果),使用更大的樣本,并將定期強化課程納入認(rèn)知訓(xùn)練。

    (received: 2013-01-16; accepted: 2013-03-29)

    Dr. Wei Feng received her Bachelor’s degree in clinical medicine in 2004 and a PhD in biomedicinal engeneering in 2009 from Tongji University School of Medicine. She has worked at the Tongji Hospital of Tongji University since 2009 where she is currently an attending psychiatrist in the Department of Psychiatry. Her main research interest is geriatric psychiatry.

    Erratum

    In the December 2014 article ‘Characteristics of the gastrointestinal microbiome in children with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review‘ by Xinyi Cao, Ping Lin, Ping Jiang, and Chunbo Li (Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry. 2013;25(6): 342-353. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2013.06.003), there were five errors in figure 1: (a)the number of articles identif i ed from English-language databases should have been 5962 instead of 5961; (b) thetime range searched in the ISI web of knowledge should have been 1994-2013, not 1986-2013; (c) the time range searched in Ovid/Medline should have been 1970-2013, not 1946-2013; (d) the time range searched in PsycINFO should have been 1966-2013, not 1806-2013; (e) the time range searched in Cochrane Library should have been 1967-2013, not all years. These changes were made in the online version of the journal on January 27, 2014.

    猜你喜歡
    測驗個體神經(jīng)
    神經(jīng)松動術(shù)在周圍神經(jīng)損傷中的研究進(jìn)展
    中西醫(yī)結(jié)合治療橈神經(jīng)損傷研究進(jìn)展
    關(guān)注個體防護(hù)裝備
    《新年大測驗》大揭榜
    趣味(語文)(2018年7期)2018-06-26 08:13:48
    兩個處理t測驗與F測驗的數(shù)學(xué)關(guān)系
    考試周刊(2016年88期)2016-11-24 13:30:50
    “神經(jīng)”病友
    Coco薇(2015年5期)2016-03-29 22:51:13
    各種神經(jīng)損傷的病變范圍
    健康管理(2015年2期)2015-11-20 18:30:01
    個體反思機制的缺失與救贖
    How Cats See the World
    你知道嗎?
    亚洲人成网站高清观看| 在线天堂最新版资源| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 日本一二三区视频观看| 国产成人福利小说| av天堂在线播放| 在线天堂最新版资源| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 99久国产av精品| 春色校园在线视频观看| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 国产不卡一卡二| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 日本一本二区三区精品| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 黄色一级大片看看| 看黄色毛片网站| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 此物有八面人人有两片| 免费观看在线日韩| 欧美+日韩+精品| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 一级av片app| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 十八禁网站免费在线| 一区福利在线观看| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 两个人的视频大全免费| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 国产综合懂色| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 国产真实乱freesex| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 亚洲最大成人av| 国产高清激情床上av| 国产不卡一卡二| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 日本色播在线视频| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| a级毛色黄片| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说 | 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 成人av在线播放网站| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 97在线视频观看| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 国产精品一区二区性色av| h日本视频在线播放| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 在线播放无遮挡| 中文字幕久久专区| 国产色婷婷99| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 成年av动漫网址| 色视频www国产| 99热6这里只有精品| 一进一出抽搐动态| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 中国美女看黄片| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 看免费成人av毛片| 欧美人与善性xxx| 少妇的逼水好多| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 欧美3d第一页| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 成年av动漫网址| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 午夜激情欧美在线| 欧美3d第一页| 性欧美人与动物交配| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 午夜视频国产福利| 亚洲在线观看片| 欧美潮喷喷水| 午夜视频国产福利| 小说图片视频综合网站| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 熟女电影av网| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 特级一级黄色大片| 中文资源天堂在线| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 国产av一区在线观看免费| 日本三级黄在线观看| 免费观看精品视频网站| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| .国产精品久久| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 成人国产麻豆网| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 搡老岳熟女国产| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 亚洲av成人av| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 天堂√8在线中文| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 亚洲内射少妇av| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 久久久精品94久久精品| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| av中文乱码字幕在线| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 免费av毛片视频| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 床上黄色一级片| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 欧美激情在线99| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| avwww免费| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| av卡一久久| 午夜精品在线福利| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 色哟哟·www| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| av.在线天堂| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 三级毛片av免费| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 成人欧美大片| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 全区人妻精品视频| 免费看a级黄色片| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 少妇的逼好多水| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 一级黄片播放器| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 看片在线看免费视频| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 久久久久久久久中文| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 97热精品久久久久久| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 三级毛片av免费| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 日本三级黄在线观看| 国产精品野战在线观看| 国产黄片美女视频| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 国产精华一区二区三区| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 丝袜喷水一区| 亚洲无线观看免费| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 老司机影院成人| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 久久久精品大字幕| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 九九在线视频观看精品| 国产乱人视频| 久久这里只有精品中国| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 色播亚洲综合网| 国产真实乱freesex| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 天堂动漫精品| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 亚洲无线在线观看| 一本久久中文字幕| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 91狼人影院| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 成人国产麻豆网| 精品久久久久久久久av| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 国产成人一区二区在线| 日本黄大片高清| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 久99久视频精品免费| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| or卡值多少钱| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 国产精品无大码| 精品久久久久久久久av| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 在线播放无遮挡| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 天堂动漫精品| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 男女那种视频在线观看| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 91av网一区二区| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 欧美性感艳星| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 看片在线看免费视频| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 欧美zozozo另类| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| av在线老鸭窝| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 国产精品三级大全| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 91狼人影院| ponron亚洲| 美女黄网站色视频| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 一级av片app| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 亚洲综合色惰| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 久久久久性生活片| 91狼人影院| 午夜影院日韩av| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 国产精品,欧美在线| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 91精品国产九色| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 美女大奶头视频| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 91av网一区二区| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 国产成人a区在线观看| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 午夜福利高清视频| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 特级一级黄色大片| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 日本免费a在线| 一夜夜www| 香蕉av资源在线| 久久久久国内视频| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| h日本视频在线播放| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 69av精品久久久久久| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 欧美潮喷喷水| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 精品久久久久久久久av| 99热只有精品国产| 亚洲五月天丁香| 久久人人爽人人片av| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 熟女电影av网| 国产不卡一卡二| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 日韩欧美在线乱码| av在线蜜桃| 99久久精品热视频| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 国产亚洲欧美98| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 在线免费观看的www视频| 日本免费a在线| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 黄片wwwwww| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 黄色日韩在线| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 免费观看在线日韩| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 97在线视频观看| 亚洲四区av| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 热99在线观看视频| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 色综合色国产| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 亚洲最大成人中文| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 亚洲无线在线观看| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| av专区在线播放| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 一夜夜www| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 国产免费男女视频| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 亚洲av熟女| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 久久久久久久久久成人| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 99久久精品热视频| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 亚洲在线观看片| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| eeuss影院久久| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 赤兔流量卡办理| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 免费高清视频大片| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 嫩草影院精品99| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 国产精品野战在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 国产亚洲欧美98| 91狼人影院| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 69av精品久久久久久| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放 | 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 在线看三级毛片| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 乱人视频在线观看| 中文资源天堂在线| avwww免费| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 在线播放国产精品三级| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 午夜a级毛片| 69人妻影院| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 1000部很黄的大片| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 国产成人一区二区在线| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 春色校园在线视频观看| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 色5月婷婷丁香| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 一夜夜www| 色av中文字幕| av天堂中文字幕网| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 赤兔流量卡办理| 日本五十路高清| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 黑人高潮一二区| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 看黄色毛片网站| 午夜影院日韩av| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 中文资源天堂在线| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 免费观看人在逋| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 精品午夜福利在线看| 简卡轻食公司| 特级一级黄色大片| 热99在线观看视频| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 91在线观看av| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 日本免费a在线| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 久久九九热精品免费| 观看免费一级毛片| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 色吧在线观看| 热99re8久久精品国产| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 热99在线观看视频| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 亚洲图色成人| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| av国产免费在线观看| 欧美色视频一区免费| 特级一级黄色大片| 国产不卡一卡二| 午夜精品在线福利| 在线播放无遮挡| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 国产精品野战在线观看| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 成人无遮挡网站| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 久久精品人妻少妇| av卡一久久| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 国产男人的电影天堂91| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 国产午夜精品论理片| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 久久久国产成人免费| 成年版毛片免费区| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 亚洲在线观看片| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 97超碰精品成人国产| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 亚洲图色成人| 美女大奶头视频| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 欧美成人a在线观看| 黄色日韩在线| 我要搜黄色片| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 精品久久久久久久久av| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 男人舔奶头视频| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说 | 欧美激情在线99| 看黄色毛片网站| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 国产黄片美女视频| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 国产不卡一卡二| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 精品人妻视频免费看| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 露出奶头的视频| 久久久精品大字幕| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 老司机影院成人| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 美女免费视频网站|