著名认知心理学家 Elizabeth Loftus曾做过这样的一个实验。 Elizabeth Loftus、Coan和 Pickrell(1996)成功地使一些被试坚信他们曾在5岁的时候失踪过一段时间(事实上并非如此)。研究者邀请被试所信任的人来植入这种“记忆”。在一个14岁男孩的例子中,他哥哥告诉他,他在5岁的时候曾经在附近的一个大超市里走失,后来被一位老人给救了,最终得以与家人团聚。受到这个暗示几天以后,这个男孩就报告说想起来了那次事件的一些情况,并且说自己当时感到非常恐惧。随着时间的推移,男孩想起来的事情越来越多,甚至包括对那位老人的详细描述,大大超过了植入“记忆”时所提到的内容。最终,当别人告诉他这件事根本就没有发生过的时候,男孩感到非常吃惊;他继续有声有色地讲述这件事,就像真的一样。最近, Bernstein和 Loftus(2009)还评价了一系列此类实验研究。例如,给被试捏造一个关于食用鸡蛋沙拉后生了病的虚假记忆。此后被试变得不爱吃鸡蛋沙拉,并且讨厌鸡蛋沙拉的味道长达4个月。然而在这个实验中,研究者只是在测验他们的食物偏好而已。
很小的孩子在准确汇报事件细节方面相当不可靠( Bruck,Ceci, Francouer,& Renick,1995),尤其是情绪方面的事件(Howe,2007; Toth et al。,2011)。在一项研究( Bruck et al,1995)中,35名3岁女孩在常规体检中进行了生殖系统检查,另一对照组在常规体检时则不接受生殖系统检査。体检完成后,研究者要求每一个女孩在母亲的陪同下描述出医生都接触了她哪些部位。然后,研究者再给每个女孩个人体结构完全准确的娃娃,让她在娃娃身体上指出医生接触了她哪些部位。结果发现,孩子们在回答究竟发生了什么事情时,答案非常不准确。不管用不用洋娃娃,都大约有60%的接受过生殖系统检查的女孩拒绝承认曾经被接触过外生殖器区域。而另一方面,对照组的女孩当中约有60%叙述说医生有插入生殖道及其他冒犯行为,但实际上这些事情并未发生。
怎么解决这种争议呢?因为虚假记忆可以通过权威人士反复强烈的暗示而产生,所以治疗师必须充分意识到发生这种事情的可能,特别是对小孩子进行治疗的时候。这需要对记忆机制和其他心理功能有广博的知识。没有经验或没有经过足够相关培训的治疗师进行这方面的工作是很危险的。关于一些在日托中心的老太太对孩子进行骇人听闻的虐待的故事,很有可能是激进或鲁莽的治疗师或法律机构制造的(Lilienfeld et al.,1999; Loftus& Davis,2006; Mcnally,2003)。在此类案件中,有些老人
因此而被判刑终生监禁。
另一方面,许多分离性障碍或创伤后应激障碍患者在遭受残酷虐待和创伤后痛苦不堪,以致这些痛苦从意识中分离出去。将来的研究也许会发现,分离性遗忘的严重程度与易感个体所受到的创伤的严重程度直接相关( Toth et al.,2011),而且还可能会证明这种严重的分离性反应与我们所有人偶尔会经历的“正常”分离性体验有质的区别(Kuft, 1999; Waller et al.,1996)。对于这个问题,辩论双方的支持者都同意,临床科学应该尽快明确植入虚假记忆的具体机制,并尽快地定义真实的分离性创伤经历表现出来的特征。在这些问题被解决之前,心理健康专业人土必须非常小心谨慎,以免对真正的虐待受害者或被诬告的无辜者造成不必要的痛苦。
Several experiments illustrate the interaction of psychosocial factors and brain function on neurotransmitter activity, with implications for the development of disorders. Some even indicate that psychosocial factors directly affect levels of neurotransmitters. In one classic experiment, Insel, Scanlan, Champoux, and Suomi (1988) raised two groups of rhesus monkeys identically except for their ...
2021-01-18 10:54
Several experiments illustrate the interaction of psychosocial factors and brain function on neurotransmitter activity, with implications for the development of disorders. Some even indicate that psychosocial factors directly affect levels of neurotransmitters. In one classic experiment, Insel, Scanlan, Champoux, and Suomi (1988) raised two groups of rhesus monkeys identically except for their ability to control things in their cages. One group had free access to toys and food treats, but the second group got these toys and treats only when the first group did. In other words, members of the second group had the same number of toys and treats but could not choose when they got them. In any case, the monkeys in the first group grew up with a sense of control over things in their lives and those in the second group didn't.
Later in their lives, all these monkeys were administered a benzodiazepine inverse agonist, a neurochemical that has the opposite effect of the neurotransmitter GABA; the effect is an extreme burst of anxiety. (The few times this neurochemical has been administered to people—usually scientists administering it to one another—the recipients have reported the experience, which lasts only a short time, to be one of the most horrible sensations they had ever endured.) When this substance was injected into the monkeys, the results were interesting. The monkeys that had been raised with little control over their environment ran to a corner of their cage where they crouched and displayed signs of severe anxiety and panic. But the monkeys that had a sense of control behaved quite differently. They did not seem anxious. Rather, they seemed angry and aggressive, even attacking other monkeys near them. Thus, the same level of a neurochemical substance, acting as a neurotransmitter, had different effects, depending on the psychological and environmental histories of the monkeys.
The Insel and colleagues (Insel, Scanlan, Champoux, & Suomi, 1988) experiment is an early example of a significant interaction between neurotransmitters and psychosocial factors. Other experiments suggest that psychosocial influences directly affect the functioning and perhaps even the structure of the central nervous system. Scientists have observed that psychosocial factors routinely change the activity levels of many of our neurotransmitter systems (Barik et al., 2013; Cacioppo et al., 2007; Marinelli & McCutcheon, 2014; Sandi & Haller, 2015).
In another remarkable example of the complex interaction among psychosocial factors, brain structure, and brain function as reflected in neurotransmitter activity, Yeh, Fricke, and Edwards (1996) studied two male crayfish battling to establish dominance in their social group. When one of the crayfish won the battle and established dominance, the scientists found that serotonin made a specific set of neurons more likely to fire. In the animal that lost the battle, serotonin made the same neurons less likely to fire. Thus, unlike the Insel et al. (1988) experiment, where monkeys were injected with a neurotransmitter, Yeh and colleagues (1996) discovered that naturally occurring neurotransmitters have different effects depending on the previous psychosocial experience of the organism. Furthermore, this experience directly affects the structure of neurons at the synapse by altering the sensitivity of serotonin receptors. The researchers also discovered that the effects of serotonin are reversible if the losers again become dominant. Similarly, Suomi (2000) demonstrated in primates that early stressful experiences produced deficits in serotonin (as well as other neuroendocrine changes) in genetically susceptible individuals, deficits that did not occur in the absence of early stress.
In another example, Berton and colleagues (2006) discovered, much to their surprise, that putting into a cage big mice that then proceeded to “bully” a smaller mouse produced changes in the mesolimbic dopamine system of the smaller mouse. These changes were associated with the smaller mouse wanting no part of other mice under any circumstances. The small mouse chose to become a recluse. Interestingly, the mesolimbic system is ordinarily associated with reward and even addiction. But in this case, certain chemicals that produce new learning and other positive changes in other parts of the brain, specifically brain development neurotrophic factor (BDNF; a protein that is involved in learning by stimulating growth of new neurons), were turned on in the mesolimbic dopamine system by a psychological experience—bullying—such that the mesolimbic dopamine system had different effects on the mouse than it usually does because of the mouse's unique experience. That is, the “bullying” experience produced BDNF, which changed the usual functioning of the mesolimbic dopamine system from facilitating reinforcement and even addiction to facilitating avoidance and isolation. More recent research implicates glucocorticoid receptors located on dopaminergic neurons specifically in facilitating and maintaining this social aversion (Barik et al., 2013).
【Main References】
Insel, T. R., Scanlan, J., Champoux, M., & Suomi, S. J. (1988). Rearing paradigm in a nonhuman primate affects response to B-CCE challenge. Psychopharmacology, 96, 81–86.
Barik, J., Marti, F., Morel, C., Fernandez, S. P., Lanteri, C., Godeheu, G., & Tronche, F. (2013). Chronic stress triggers social aversion via glucocorticoid receptor in dopaminoceptive neurons. Science, 339(6117), 332–335. doi: 10.1126/science.1226767
Cacioppo, J. T., Amaral, D. G., Blanchard, J. J., Cameron, J. L., Carter, C. S., Crews, D., & Quinn, K. J. (2007). Social neuroscience: Progress and implications for mental health. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(2), 99–123.
Yeh, S.-R., Fricke, R. A., & Edwards, D. H. (1996, January 19). The effect of social experience on serotonergic modulation of escape circuit of crayfish. Science, 271, 355–369.
Suomi, S. J. (2000). A biobehavioral perspective on developmental psychopathology. In A. J. Sameroff, J. Lewis, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology (pp. 237–256). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Berton, O., McClung, C. A., DiLeone, R. J., Krishnan, V., Renthal, W., Russo, S. J., & Nestler, E. J. (2006). Essential role of BDNF in the mesolimbic dopamine pathway in social defeat stress. Science, 311, 864–868.
著名认知心理学家 Elizabeth Loftus曾做过这样的一个实验。 Elizabeth Loftus、Coan和 Pickrell(1996)成功地使一些被试坚信他们曾在5岁的时候失踪过一段时间(事实上并非如此)。研究者邀请被试所信任的人来植入这种“记忆”。在一个14岁男孩的例子中,他哥哥告诉他,他在5岁的时候曾经在附近的一个大超市里走失,后来被一位老人给救了,最终得以与家人团聚。受到这个暗示几天以后,这个男孩就报告说想起来了那次事件的一些情况,并且说自己当时感到非常恐惧。随着时间的推移,男孩想起来的事情越来越多,甚至包括对那位老人的详细描述,大大超过了植入“记忆”时所提到的内容。最终,当别人告诉他这件事根本就没有发生过的时候,男孩感到非常吃惊;他继续有声有色地讲述这件事,就像真的一样。最近, Bernstein和 Loftus(2009)还评价了一系列此类实验研究。例如,给被试捏造一个关于食用鸡蛋沙拉后生了病的虚假记忆。此后被试变得不爱吃鸡蛋沙拉,并且讨厌鸡蛋沙拉的味道长达4个月。然而在这个实验中,研究者只是在测验他们的食物偏好而已。
很小的孩子在准确汇报事件细节方面相当不可靠( Bruck,Ceci, Francouer,& Renick,1995),尤其是情绪方面的事件(Howe,2007; Toth et al。,2011)。在一项研究( Bruck et al,1995)中,35名3岁女孩在常规体检中进行了生殖系统检查,另一对照组在常规体检时则不接受生殖系统检査。体检完成后,研究者要求每一个女孩在母亲的陪同下描述出医生都接触了她哪些部位。然后,研究者再给每个女孩个人体结构完全准确的娃娃,让她在娃娃身体上指出医生接触了她哪些部位。结果发现,孩子们在回答究竟发生了什么事情时,答案非常不准确。不管用不用洋娃娃,都大约有60%的接受过生殖系统检查的女孩拒绝承认曾经被接触过外生殖器区域。而另一方面,对照组的女孩当中约有60%叙述说医生有插入生殖道及其他冒犯行为,但实际上这些事情并未发生。
怎么解决这种争议呢?因为虚假记忆可以通过权威人士反复强烈的暗示而产生,所以治疗师必须充分意识到发生这种事情的可能,特别是对小孩子进行治疗的时候。这需要对记忆机制和其他心理功能有广博的知识。没有经验或没有经过足够相关培训的治疗师进行这方面的工作是很危险的。关于一些在日托中心的老太太对孩子进行骇人听闻的虐待的故事,很有可能是激进或鲁莽的治疗师或法律机构制造的(Lilienfeld et al.,1999; Loftus& Davis,2006; Mcnally,2003)。在此类案件中,有些老人
因此而被判刑终生监禁。
另一方面,许多分离性障碍或创伤后应激障碍患者在遭受残酷虐待和创伤后痛苦不堪,以致这些痛苦从意识中分离出去。将来的研究也许会发现,分离性遗忘的严重程度与易感个体所受到的创伤的严重程度直接相关( Toth et al.,2011),而且还可能会证明这种严重的分离性反应与我们所有人偶尔会经历的“正常”分离性体验有质的区别(Kuft, 1999; Waller et al.,1996)。对于这个问题,辩论双方的支持者都同意,临床科学应该尽快明确植入虚假记忆的具体机制,并尽快地定义真实的分离性创伤经历表现出来的特征。在这些问题被解决之前,心理健康专业人土必须非常小心谨慎,以免对真正的虐待受害者或被诬告的无辜者造成不必要的痛苦。
著名认知心理学家 Elizabeth Loftus曾做过这样的一个实验。 Elizabeth Loftus、Coan和 Pickrell(1996)成功地使一些被试坚信他们曾在5岁的时候失踪过一段时间(事实上并非如此)。研究者邀请被试所信任的人来植入这种“记忆”。在一个14岁男孩的例子中,他哥哥告诉他,他在5岁的时候曾经在附近的一个大超市里走失,后来被一位老人给救了,最终得以与家人团聚。受到这个暗示几天以后,这个男孩就报告说想起来了那次事件的一些情况,并且说自己当时感到非常恐惧。随着时间的推移,男孩想起来的事情越来越多,甚至包括对那位老人的详细描述,大大超过了植入“记忆”时所提到的内容。最终,当别人告诉他这件事根本就没有发生过的时候,男孩感到非常吃惊;他继续有声有色地讲述这件事,就像真的一样。最近, Bernstein和 Loftus(2009)还评价了一系列此类实验研究。例如,给被试捏造一个关于食用鸡蛋沙拉后生了病的虚假记忆。此后被试变得不爱吃鸡蛋沙拉,并且讨厌鸡蛋沙拉的味道长达4个月。然而在这个实验中,研究者只是在测验他们的食物偏好而已。
很小的孩子在准确汇报事件细节方面相当不可靠( Bruck,Ceci, Francouer,& Renick,1995),尤其是情绪方面的事件(Howe,2007; Toth et al。,2011)。在一项研究( Bruck et al,1995)中,35名3岁女孩在常规体检中进行了生殖系统检查,另一对照组在常规体检时则不接受生殖系统检査。体检完成后,研究者要求每一个女孩在母亲的陪同下描述出医生都接触了她哪些部位。然后,研究者再给每个女孩个人体结构完全准确的娃娃,让她在娃娃身体上指出医生接触了她哪些部位。结果发现,孩子们在回答究竟发生了什么事情时,答案非常不准确。不管用不用洋娃娃,都大约有60%的接受过生殖系统检查的女孩拒绝承认曾经被接触过外生殖器区域。而另一方面,对照组的女孩当中约有60%叙述说医生有插入生殖道及其他冒犯行为,但实际上这些事情并未发生。
怎么解决这种争议呢?因为虚假记忆可以通过权威人士反复强烈的暗示而产生,所以治疗师必须充分意识到发生这种事情的可能,特别是对小孩子进行治疗的时候。这需要对记忆机制和其他心理功能有广博的知识。没有经验或没有经过足够相关培训的治疗师进行这方面的工作是很危险的。关于一些在日托中心的老太太对孩子进行骇人听闻的虐待的故事,很有可能是激进或鲁莽的治疗师或法律机构制造的(Lilienfeld et al.,1999; Loftus& Davis,2006; Mcnally,2003)。在此类案件中,有些老人
因此而被判刑终生监禁。
另一方面,许多分离性障碍或创伤后应激障碍患者在遭受残酷虐待和创伤后痛苦不堪,以致这些痛苦从意识中分离出去。将来的研究也许会发现,分离性遗忘的严重程度与易感个体所受到的创伤的严重程度直接相关( Toth et al.,2011),而且还可能会证明这种严重的分离性反应与我们所有人偶尔会经历的“正常”分离性体验有质的区别(Kuft, 1999; Waller et al.,1996)。对于这个问题,辩论双方的支持者都同意,临床科学应该尽快明确植入虚假记忆的具体机制,并尽快地定义真实的分离性创伤经历表现出来的特征。在这些问题被解决之前,心理健康专业人土必须非常小心谨慎,以免对真正的虐待受害者或被诬告的无辜者造成不必要的痛苦。
Several experiments illustrate the interaction of psychosocial factors and brain function on neurotransmitter activity, with implications for the development of disorders. Some even indicate that psychosocial factors directly affect levels of neurotransmitters. In one classic experiment, Insel, Scanlan, Champoux, and Suomi (1988) raised two groups of rhesus monkeys identically except for their ...
2021-01-18 10:54
Several experiments illustrate the interaction of psychosocial factors and brain function on neurotransmitter activity, with implications for the development of disorders. Some even indicate that psychosocial factors directly affect levels of neurotransmitters. In one classic experiment, Insel, Scanlan, Champoux, and Suomi (1988) raised two groups of rhesus monkeys identically except for their ability to control things in their cages. One group had free access to toys and food treats, but the second group got these toys and treats only when the first group did. In other words, members of the second group had the same number of toys and treats but could not choose when they got them. In any case, the monkeys in the first group grew up with a sense of control over things in their lives and those in the second group didn't.
Later in their lives, all these monkeys were administered a benzodiazepine inverse agonist, a neurochemical that has the opposite effect of the neurotransmitter GABA; the effect is an extreme burst of anxiety. (The few times this neurochemical has been administered to people—usually scientists administering it to one another—the recipients have reported the experience, which lasts only a short time, to be one of the most horrible sensations they had ever endured.) When this substance was injected into the monkeys, the results were interesting. The monkeys that had been raised with little control over their environment ran to a corner of their cage where they crouched and displayed signs of severe anxiety and panic. But the monkeys that had a sense of control behaved quite differently. They did not seem anxious. Rather, they seemed angry and aggressive, even attacking other monkeys near them. Thus, the same level of a neurochemical substance, acting as a neurotransmitter, had different effects, depending on the psychological and environmental histories of the monkeys.
The Insel and colleagues (Insel, Scanlan, Champoux, & Suomi, 1988) experiment is an early example of a significant interaction between neurotransmitters and psychosocial factors. Other experiments suggest that psychosocial influences directly affect the functioning and perhaps even the structure of the central nervous system. Scientists have observed that psychosocial factors routinely change the activity levels of many of our neurotransmitter systems (Barik et al., 2013; Cacioppo et al., 2007; Marinelli & McCutcheon, 2014; Sandi & Haller, 2015).
In another remarkable example of the complex interaction among psychosocial factors, brain structure, and brain function as reflected in neurotransmitter activity, Yeh, Fricke, and Edwards (1996) studied two male crayfish battling to establish dominance in their social group. When one of the crayfish won the battle and established dominance, the scientists found that serotonin made a specific set of neurons more likely to fire. In the animal that lost the battle, serotonin made the same neurons less likely to fire. Thus, unlike the Insel et al. (1988) experiment, where monkeys were injected with a neurotransmitter, Yeh and colleagues (1996) discovered that naturally occurring neurotransmitters have different effects depending on the previous psychosocial experience of the organism. Furthermore, this experience directly affects the structure of neurons at the synapse by altering the sensitivity of serotonin receptors. The researchers also discovered that the effects of serotonin are reversible if the losers again become dominant. Similarly, Suomi (2000) demonstrated in primates that early stressful experiences produced deficits in serotonin (as well as other neuroendocrine changes) in genetically susceptible individuals, deficits that did not occur in the absence of early stress.
In another example, Berton and colleagues (2006) discovered, much to their surprise, that putting into a cage big mice that then proceeded to “bully” a smaller mouse produced changes in the mesolimbic dopamine system of the smaller mouse. These changes were associated with the smaller mouse wanting no part of other mice under any circumstances. The small mouse chose to become a recluse. Interestingly, the mesolimbic system is ordinarily associated with reward and even addiction. But in this case, certain chemicals that produce new learning and other positive changes in other parts of the brain, specifically brain development neurotrophic factor (BDNF; a protein that is involved in learning by stimulating growth of new neurons), were turned on in the mesolimbic dopamine system by a psychological experience—bullying—such that the mesolimbic dopamine system had different effects on the mouse than it usually does because of the mouse's unique experience. That is, the “bullying” experience produced BDNF, which changed the usual functioning of the mesolimbic dopamine system from facilitating reinforcement and even addiction to facilitating avoidance and isolation. More recent research implicates glucocorticoid receptors located on dopaminergic neurons specifically in facilitating and maintaining this social aversion (Barik et al., 2013).
【Main References】
Insel, T. R., Scanlan, J., Champoux, M., & Suomi, S. J. (1988). Rearing paradigm in a nonhuman primate affects response to B-CCE challenge. Psychopharmacology, 96, 81–86.
Barik, J., Marti, F., Morel, C., Fernandez, S. P., Lanteri, C., Godeheu, G., & Tronche, F. (2013). Chronic stress triggers social aversion via glucocorticoid receptor in dopaminoceptive neurons. Science, 339(6117), 332–335. doi: 10.1126/science.1226767
Cacioppo, J. T., Amaral, D. G., Blanchard, J. J., Cameron, J. L., Carter, C. S., Crews, D., & Quinn, K. J. (2007). Social neuroscience: Progress and implications for mental health. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(2), 99–123.
Yeh, S.-R., Fricke, R. A., & Edwards, D. H. (1996, January 19). The effect of social experience on serotonergic modulation of escape circuit of crayfish. Science, 271, 355–369.
Suomi, S. J. (2000). A biobehavioral perspective on developmental psychopathology. In A. J. Sameroff, J. Lewis, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology (pp. 237–256). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Berton, O., McClung, C. A., DiLeone, R. J., Krishnan, V., Renthal, W., Russo, S. J., & Nestler, E. J. (2006). Essential role of BDNF in the mesolimbic dopamine pathway in social defeat stress. Science, 311, 864–868.
7 有用 🌈钱自由 2018-06-25
开了眼界了!知识点很多! 但是有一点值得中国学者的反思,很多经典教材都是从国外翻译过来的,为什么我们不能写出来全球性的教材呢? 还有,中国的心理咨询师真的太少了,很多有心理疾病的普通人完全没有渠道接触到治疗啊!
2 有用 寒寒寒蛩 2021-01-18
太全了,太厚了,包里只塞这一本都觉得好重...我放了一年多愣是没读完,惭愧... 非常好的入门教材,虽然很厚,但行文是很轻松明快的,易于理解。两位作者都是业内大佬,一线接诊经验丰富,水平比一般只专注教学的老师更高。该书还配套有一本案例集,挺有趣。
1 有用 Jan 2021-01-18
相比《沈渔邨精神病学》这本有更细分的词条,但有时细分的病症描述虽然篇幅大但并没有详细介绍成因,在看完电影《一树梨花压海棠》后查了查恋童癖及恋父情结,虽然有介绍恋童癖没有介绍恋父情结,但需要继续找更专业的书籍及报告了解。搭配《…案例集》一起看对患者刻画有很好的帮助。
0 有用 渡鸦 2020-11-19
0 有用 krautkops 2021-02-04
不能说翻译得不好,但长句很多、前后句转折词忠于原文,导致读起来比较费力。非相关专业学生、没有系统课程支撑的话,读前4章收获最大。后面的章节以症状描述为主,没有条件进行具体的临床诊断、应用的话,学习效果肯定无从验证。
0 有用 krautkops 2021-02-04
不能说翻译得不好,但长句很多、前后句转折词忠于原文,导致读起来比较费力。非相关专业学生、没有系统课程支撑的话,读前4章收获最大。后面的章节以症状描述为主,没有条件进行具体的临床诊断、应用的话,学习效果肯定无从验证。
1 有用 Jan 2021-01-18
相比《沈渔邨精神病学》这本有更细分的词条,但有时细分的病症描述虽然篇幅大但并没有详细介绍成因,在看完电影《一树梨花压海棠》后查了查恋童癖及恋父情结,虽然有介绍恋童癖没有介绍恋父情结,但需要继续找更专业的书籍及报告了解。搭配《…案例集》一起看对患者刻画有很好的帮助。
2 有用 寒寒寒蛩 2021-01-18
太全了,太厚了,包里只塞这一本都觉得好重...我放了一年多愣是没读完,惭愧... 非常好的入门教材,虽然很厚,但行文是很轻松明快的,易于理解。两位作者都是业内大佬,一线接诊经验丰富,水平比一般只专注教学的老师更高。该书还配套有一本案例集,挺有趣。
0 有用 麦辣鸡腿堡 2021-01-13
写的太好了,不过正是因为写的过于详尽不静下心根本看不进去。我隔一段时间才看一小点哈哈哈。
0 有用 秋江 夏江 2020-11-29