Front. Psychol. Frontiers in Psychology Front. Psychol. 1664-1078 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1277624 Psychology Original Research The role of speech style, frequency, and density in recognition memory for spoken words Pycha Anne1 Culleton Tessa1 Song Jae Yung12* 1Department of Linguistics, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, United States 2Department of English Language and Literature, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Edited by: Christoph Scheepers, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom

Reviewed by: Sara D. Beck, University of Tübingen, Germany

Julio Cesar Cavalcanti, Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, Brazil

*Correspondence: Jae Yung Song, songjy@cau.ac.kr
24 01 2024 2024 15 1277624 14 08 2023 04 01 2024 Copyright © 2024 Pycha, Culleton and Song. 2024 Pycha, Culleton and Song

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

What determines whether listeners remember a spoken word? The Effortfulness Hypothesis claims that memory is modulated by a word’s intelligibility during real-time processing, while the Distinctiveness Hypothesis claims that it is modulated by a word’s distinguishing characteristics. We tested these differing predictions using American English words that varied along three dimensions known to affect both intelligibility and distinctiveness: speech style (clear versus casual), frequency (high versus low), and neighborhood density (high versus low). In a recognition memory experiment, participants (n = 66) listened to a set of study words, and then gave yes/no judgments to indicate whether or not they had heard the word earlier. Results showed that those words which exhibited distinctive characteristics – whether due to clear speech style, low frequency, or low density – were remembered better. The finding supports the Distinctiveness Hypothesis, suggesting that our capacity for remembering words relies on their distinctiveness, rather than on our capacity for recognizing them in real time.

clear speech word frequency neighborhood density recognition memory models of memory section-at-acceptance Psychology of Language

香京julia种子在线播放

    1. <form id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></form>
      <address id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></nobr></address>

      Introduction

      Our interactions with spoken language are affected by a wide variety of different sources. One factor is speaking style, in which talkers adjust their speech rate, pitch variation, and other acoustic parameters, in order to adapt to a particular situation (e.g., Smiljanić and Bradlow, 2009). Other factors include frequency of use, whereby certain phrases or words occur more often than others (e.g., Broadbent, 1967), and neighborhood density, which characterizes individual words according to how many similar-sounding words also exist in the lexicon (e.g., Luce, 1986).

      Despite their diverse origins, there is strong evidence that all three of these factors affect listeners’ processing of speech stimuli in real time (for an overview, see Dossey et al., 2022). For example, numerous studies have shown that words are more intelligible when they are produced in a clear speech style, compared to a casual speech style (e.g., Picheny et al., 1985). Clear speech is a unique style that the speaker adopts in order to be better understood by a listener. Switching from conversational speech to clear speech gives rise to a number of acoustic changes, some of which are universal (Smiljanić and Bradlow, 2005) and some of which are specific to the speaker’s language (Cho et al., 2011). Universal modifications include slower speaking rates and more carefully articulated vowels, as indicated by an expanded vowel space (Picheny et al., 1986; Bradlow, 2002; Smiljanić and Bradlow, 2005). These types of vowel expansions are not typically present for speech produced in noise (Lu and Cooke, 2008; Davis and Kim, 2010; but see also Smiljanić and Gilbert, 2017), suggesting that clear speech is an intentional adaptation on the part of the speaker (Smiljanić, 2021).

      Meanwhile, numerous studies have shown that listeners respond to words more quickly and accurately when they are frequent, compared to infrequent (e.g., Broadbent, 1967; Luce and Pisoni, 1998). Studies have also examined the role of phonological neighbors, which are words that differ from the target by the substitution of a phoneme (e.g., pit, bat, bid are neighbors of the word bit). These studies have shown that listeners respond to words more quickly and accurately when they are in low-density neighborhoods (i.e., with fewer neighbors), compared to high density neighborhoods (Luce and Pisoni, 1998; Vitevitch and Luce, 2016; Van Engen, 2017), presumably due to reduced competition from similar-sounding words.

      Much more limited, however, is our understanding of how these factors affect listeners’ memory for words over the passage of time. While word frequency has been the topic of many studies on remembering, only a handful of studies have examined the role of neighborhood density and speech style. Among those few studies, Van Engen et al. (2012) reported higher rates of recognition memory for sentences produced with clear speech, compared to casual speech; this effect was present for semantically-normal as well as semantically-anomalous sentences. Keerstock and Smiljanić (2018) also reported higher rates of recognition memory for sentences produced with clear speech; this effect occurred for both L1 and L2 listening populations. In a follow-up study, Keerstock and Smiljanić (2019) conducted a cued-recall experiment, which is more difficult than a yes/no recognition memory task. Results showed that more words were recalled in the clear speech condition; as in Keerstock and Smiljanić (2018), this effect occurred for both L1 and L2 listening populations.

      These findings about memory can be interpreted in at least two different frameworks. The first framework is the Effortfulness Hypothesis (Rabbitt, 1968, 1991; see also Van Engen and Peelle, 2014), which claims that when an item is easier to process in real time, more cognitive resources remain available for encoding. The logic is that since clear speech is more intelligible than casual speech, it requires less effort to process, and so listeners are able to devote more effort to memory storage. (The Perceptual Fluency hypothesis makes similar predictions, albeit without a direct appeal to encoding resources; Whittlesea et al., 1990; Goldinger et al., 1999).

      However, the memory findings for clear speech could also be interpreted within a second framework called the Distinctiveness Hypothesis (Israel and Schacter, 1997; Schacter et al., 1997, 1998, 1999; Dodson and Schacter, 2001, 2002; see also Johnson and Raye, 1981). Within this framework, memory operates according to its own heuristic. The basic idea is that items with distinctive details are more likely to be remembered, compared to those without distinctive details, regardless of how such items are processed in real time. That is, certain items are distinctive enough that people respond using the heuristic, If I had seen that, I would remember it (Dodson and Schacter, 2001).

      Applying this logic to the question at hand, utterances produced in clear speech are distinctive compared to those produced in casual speech. This is because clear speech is reserved for use only in certain types of circumstances, such as communicating with interlocutors who are hard-of-hearing. Meanwhile, for most everyday communication tasks, people use casual speech. Therefore, the Distinctiveness Hypothesis also predicts that people should remember clear speech utterances better than casual speech ones, but it does so for a different reason, namely that clear speech stands out as a singular type of event (e.g., If I had heard an utterance pronounced in that deliberate way, I would have remembered it).

      For stimulus items that consist of full sentences produced in different styles (as in Keerstock and Smiljanić, 2018, 2019; Van Engen et al., 2012), it is difficult to distinguish between the Effortfulness versus the Distinctiveness Hypotheses, because they both make the same prediction, namely that there should be a memory advantage for clear speech. If we turn our attention to stimulus items that consist of individual words, however, there is one variable which may help to distinguish between the two frameworks, namely frequency. As noted above, people recognize frequent words more quickly and accurately than infrequent words in real time (e.g., Broadbent, 1967; Luce and Pisoni, 1998), which would suggest that they can devote more cognitive resources to encoding. Thus, the Effortfulness Hypothesis would predict that people should have better memory for frequent words. Yet this prediction is not confirmed: in recognition memory tasks, people actually remember frequent words more poorly than infrequent ones, as demonstrated by a number of studies over the years (Glanzer and Bowles, 1976; Glanzer and Adams, 1985, 1990; Joordens and Hockley, 2000).

      The conflicting findings are puzzling and raise at least two possibilities. First, a “Modified” Effortfulness Hypothesis might argue that word-level variables, such as frequency and density, simply do not contribute to intelligibility (and by extension, to effortfulness) in the same way that speech style does. In most studies to date, word-level variables affect intelligibility only under special circumstances – for instance, when participants are under pressure to respond as quickly as possible, as in a typical lexical decision task. Indeed, Luce and Pisoni (1998) argued that if listeners were asked to classify stimuli in quiet with no time pressure, we would expect ceiling effects for all types of words. If frequent and infrequent words actually make similar processing demands under regular circumstances, then we do not expect them to differ in terms of effort. Under the Modified Effortfulness Hypothesis, then, there is no particular prediction for frequency effects (although presumably, the low-frequency advantage would need to be accounted for by appealing to some external factor), and therefore the previously-reported results for frequency do not pose a problem.

      Alternatively, it is possible that effortfulness is not the primary factor at play in recognition memory, and that distinctiveness offers a better explanation. Just as clear utterances are distinctive compared to casual utterances, words that are infrequent are distinctive compared to words that are frequent, because they occur less commonly. Interpreted in this way, the Distinctiveness Hypothesis not only makes correct predictions for speech style, it also correctly predicts that people should remember infrequent words better than frequent ones (e.g., If I had heard the rare word “puck,” I would have remembered it) (Glanzer and Bowles, 1976; Glanzer and Adams, 1985, 1990; Joordens and Hockley, 2000).

      One way to adjudicate between these two possibilities – an Effortfulness account on the one hand, versus a Distinctiveness account on the other – would be to examine whether the variables that make words easier to process also make them easier to remember. In doing so, it would be useful to examine speech style and frequency alongside an additional variable that also affects real-time processing of individual words. Neighborhood density is one such variable. The Effortfulness Hypothesis predicts that low-density words should be remembered better than high-density words, because there is an established processing advantage for low-density words (e.g., Vitevitch and Luce, 2016; Van Engen, 2017).

      However, following the logic that we presented earlier, density may be similar to frequency in that it modulates intelligibility (and by extension, effortfulness) only under special circumstances (such as time pressure) and not in regular listening situations. If that is the case, then the Effortfulness Hypothesis would make no particular prediction for density effects, just as it would make none for frequency effects. By contrast, the Distinctiveness Hypothesis makes a clear prediction for density, regardless of the factors at play in real-time processing. Specifically, words that are low-density are distinctive compared to those that are high-density, because they contain sound combinations that occur less commonly in the lexicon. Therefore, the Distinctiveness Hypothesis predicts that people should remember low-density words better than high-density ones (e.g., If I had heard the unusual-sounding word “pith,” I would have remembered it).

      Previous work offers mixed evidence with regard to these hypotheses. Several studies have shown that high-density words are remembered better than low-density ones (Guitard et al., 2023 and references cited therein), a finding which is not compatible with any of the hypotheses discussed above. However, these findings came from serial recall tasks, in which participants are asked to reproduce words in the same order in which they were initially presented. We are concerned with a different type of task, namely recognition memory, in which participants are presented with words individually and asked to indicate whether they are old or new. For recognition memory, at least one study has shown that low-density words are remembered better than high-density ones (Heathcote et al., 2006), a result that is consistent with the Distinctiveness Hypothesis.

      The current study addresses these issues in a new recognition memory experiment using a stimulus set of isolated American English words that varied in speech style (clear versus casual), word frequency (high versus low), and neighborhood density (high versus low). Based on previous work, three different predictions are possible. The Effortfulness Hypothesis (Rabbitt, 1968, 1991; Van Engen and Peelle, 2014) would predict better recognition memory for words that are easier to process, namely words produced in clear speech style, high-frequency words, and low-density words. Second, if speech style affects intelligibility but word-level variables do not under certain circumstances, the Modified Effortfulness Hypothesis makes a narrower prediction, namely that we should expect better recognition memory only for clear speech. Third, the Distinctiveness Hypothesis predicts better recognition memory for words produced in a clear speech style, for low-frequency words, and for low-density words, regardless of the factors at play in real-time processing.

      Materials and methods Stimulus development

      Target words were ninety-six CVC English words, evenly divided into four groups: high frequency/high density, high frequency/low density, low frequency/high density, and low frequency/low density. Frequency and density statistics were taken from the English Lexicon Project database (Balota et al., 2007). The mean log-transformed frequency (with base e) for high-frequency words was 10.42, and for low-frequency words was 6.63. The mean density for high-density words was 28, and for low-density words was 12. The words contained one of the six vowels /i, ɪ, æ, ɑ, ʌ, u/ and ended in voiceless codas (see Appendix 1 for a complete list of the stimuli).

      Each word was recorded in both clear and casual styles, twice in each style. Words were recorded in a sentence context (“I will say X again”), and later excised. This was done because it was more natural to manipulate speech style when words were produced in a sentence context. The speaker was a female native speaker of the midwestern dialect of American English who had linguistic training, and who was already familiar with the concepts of clear versus casual speech styles.

      Verification of stimuli

      Before we proceed to the presentation of a recognition memory experiment, we will first present the results of two verification analyses. In the first analysis, we verified the effects of speech style, frequency, and density on the production of our word stimuli. Although frequency and density are lexical variables, they do not exist in a perceptual vacuum. They also affect speakers’ productions, creating phonetic differences in surface forms. To take one example, previous work has shown that the vowel spaces for high-frequency words tend to be more restricted, while vowel spaces for low-frequency words tend to be more expanded (Jurafsky et al., 2001; Munson and Solomon, 2004). Meanwhile, vowel spaces for high-density words tend to be more expanded, whereas those for low-density words tend to be more restricted (e.g., Munson and Solomon, 2004; Scarborough and Zellou, 2013 and references cited therein; Wright et al., 2004; but see also Gahl et al., 2012). Therefore, any experiment which uses naturally-spoken stimuli will not be able to strictly separate the effects of frequency and density from the effects of their phonetic manifestations, and the current experiment is no exception to this general issue.

      In the second analysis, we verified the effects of speech style, frequency, and density on the intelligibility of our word stimuli. As discussed in the Introduction, clear speech, high frequency, and low density have been shown to make words easier to recognize. Thus, we wanted to know whether the same was also true for our own stimuli.

      Acoustic analysis of stimuli

      To verify the effects of frequency, density, and speech style on phonetic forms, the recorded stimuli were acoustically analyzed by one of the authors in Praat (Boersma and Weenink, 2018), using the acoustic measures of vowel duration and vowel space area. Vowel onset and offset were defined as the beginning and end of the interval where F2 was clearly visible. Vowel formants (F1 and F2) were extracted from the midpoint of each vowel using a Praat script using the default parameters, and the accuracy of formant tracking was verified by visual inspection of formants. If the formant tracking in Praat did not reflect the actual formant bands seen in the spectrogram, various adjustments were made to improve the formant tracking, such as adjusting the number of formants counted by Praat. As there can be more than one way to form a polygon connecting the six vowel points (i.e., the F1 and F2 coordinates of six vowels), we used a convex hull to unambiguously define the vowel space area. The area of the convex hull was calculated using a built-in function of MATLAB (Mathworks, Inc.).

      The acoustic analysis showed that our clear speech vowels were on average longer, and had expanded vowel space areas, compared to casual speech vowels (see Table 1 and Figure 1). This is consistent with the “universal” characteristics of clear speech that were mentioned in Section 1 (e.g., Smiljanić and Bradlow, 2005). Meanwhile, the differences in duration and vowel space area between high and low frequency words on one hand, and high and low density words on the other, were relatively small compared to what has been reported in previous studies (e.g., Munson and Solomon, 2004; see Table 1 and Figures 2, 3). We return to this point in the Discussion.

      Mean vowel duration (in msec) and vowel space area (in Hz2).

      Vowel duration (standard deviation) Vowel space area
      Speech style Casual 92 (25) 227,887
      Clear 128 (32) 485,069
      Frequency High 110 (35) 325,277
      Low 110 (32) 357,374
      Density High 107 (28) 351,448
      Low 113 (39) 327,766

      Vowel space in casual speech (red lines) compared to clear speech (blue lines).

      Vowel space in high frequency words (teal lines) compared to low frequency words (orange lines).

      Vowel space in high density words (green lines) compared to low density words (magenta lines).

      Intelligibility of the stimuli

      To verify the intelligibility of our recorded stimuli, we administered a brief task to a group of native speakers of American English (n = 26), none of whom participated in the main experiment. In an online Qualtrics survey of approximately 20 minutes, participants listened to each word, and were asked to type what they heard. The results showed that mean accuracy was greater for clear speech compared to casual speech (β = 1.03, std. error = 0.07, z = 15.13, p < 0.05), for frequent words compared to infrequent words (β = 0.56, std. error = 0.14, z = 3.92, p < 0.05), and for low-density words compared to high-density words (β = −0.53, std. error = 0.14, z = −3.68, p < 0.05). Thus, our stimuli conformed to the patterns of intelligibility that have been previously reported in the literature; namely, clear speech, high frequency, and low density facilitate real-time processing of spoken words. Note that in our verification study, these factors drive intelligibility differences even though the experimental set-up did not impose time pressure. This is likely due to the fact that the individual words were excised from full sentences, making the task of individual word transcription somewhat more difficult.

      Procedure

      The recognition memory experiment was implemented in a typical paradigm. In the study phase, participants heard a list of forty-eight stimuli, which was evenly balanced among clear versus casual styles, high versus low frequency words, and high versus low density words. The selection of the forty-eight study words from the pool of ninety-six words, and their presentation in either a clear or casual style, was balanced across participants using lists. The presentation of clear versus casual stimuli was blocked, and half of the participants heard clear speech first, while the other half heard casual speech first. Within each block, the order of stimuli was randomized for each participant. Participants were asked to try to remember the words.

      In the test phase of the experiment, participants listened to a probe list of ninety-six stimuli. Half of the stimuli were old, meaning that the word had been presented during the study phase, while half of the stimuli were new. The participants’ task was to indicate “Yes” if they thought the word had occurred on the study list, otherwise “No.” Once a response was entered, the next trial began. Old stimuli were presented in the same style as at study, but with a non-identical token. For example, if the participant heard catcasual-token1 during study, they would hear catcasual-token2 during test. Stimuli were not blocked for speech style, and the presentation order was randomized for each participant. The experiment was conducted entirely online using Qualtrics software, and it took approximately 20 minutes to complete.

      Participants

      All participants (n = 66) were monolingual speakers of American English with no known speech or language impediments. No other exclusionary criteria were used. Participants were recruited through campus advertisements at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Forty-four participants were female, seventeen were male, and five were non-binary; their mean age was 23.93 (8.02) years.

      Results

      Data from all participants was included in the analysis, and analyzed in aggregate form. Results were analyzed within a signal detection framework (Macmillan and Creelman, 2004), which involves using hit rates and false alarm rates to calculate the value of d-prime. D-prime indicates a participant’s overall sensitivity to old versus new words, and this sensitivity is composed of two parts. The first part is (correctly) remembering old items, and this is formalized as hit rate, or the proportion of old items that are recognized as old. The second part is (incorrectly) remembering new items, and this is formalized as false alarm rate, or the proportion of new items that are recognized as old. The value d-prime is calculated by subtracting the normalized probability of false alarms from the normalized probability of hits, and higher d-prime values indicate greater sensitivity to old versus new words.

      Note that whenever a hit rate equals 1 or a miss rate equals 0, it becomes impossible to calculate the d-prime value correctly. When this occurred, we replaced rates of 1 with (n – 0.5)/n, and rates of 0 with 0.5/n, where n was the number of new or old trials (Macmillan and Kaplan, 1985). In preparing the data for analysis, d-prime values were calculated per participant, for each of the eight stimulus types (two speech styles × two frequency types × two density types). Descriptive results are shown in Table 2.

      Mean d-prime values (standard deviations) for recognition memory experiment.

      High frequency Low frequency
      Casual speech High density 0.49 (0.77) 0.31 (0.75)
      Low density 0.75 (0.91) 0.77 (0.94)
      Clear speech High density 0.85 (0.77) 0.88 (0.68)
      Low density 1.06 (0.81) 1.37 (0.82)

      Statistical results were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model implemented with the lme function in the R package nlme. The outcome variable was d-prime. Predictor variables were speech style (casual vs. clear), word frequency (high vs. low), and neighborhood density (high vs. low), which were sum coded. The equation included a random intercept for participants. No random intercept for item was included, because the d-prime statistic is calculated over stimulus types, not individual items. Statistical results are shown in Table 3.

      Statistical analysis of d-prime values for recognition memory experiment.

      Val. Std. Err DF t p
      Style 0.23 0.03 455 7.50 0.00 *
      Frequency −0.02 0.03 455 −0.79 0.43
      Density −0.18 0.03 455 −5.78 0.00 *
      Style*Frequency −0.06 0.03 455 −2.01 0.04 *
      Style*Density 0.00 0.03 455 0.11 0.91
      Frequency*Density 0.06 0.03 455 1.98 0.04 *
      Style*Frequency*Density 0.00 0.03 455 0.31 0.76

      Statistical analysis showed an effect of speech style, whereby d-prime was significantly larger for clear speech than casual speech, and also an effect of neighborhood density, whereby d-prime was significantly larger for low-density words compared to high-density words. In addition, there were significant interactions between style and frequency, and between density and frequency, depicted in Figure 4. While low-frequency words generally had larger d-prime values than high-frequency words, this effect was greater in the clear speech condition, compared to casual (Figure 4, left panel) and also greater in the low-density condition, compared to high (Figure 4, right panel).

      Interactions of frequency with speech style (left panel) and density (right panel). Whiskers depict standard error.

      We conducted post-hoc power analyses using the pwr.f2.test() function from the pwr package in R, using values u (the numerator degrees of freedom) = 7 and v (the denominator degrees of freedom) = 3,160. For small, medium, and large effect sizes as defined by Cohen (2016), results yielded power values over 0.80, which indicates that the experiment was sufficiently powered.

      Discussion

      We examined the effects of speech style, frequency, and neighborhood density on recognition memory for spoken words. Our findings revealed that words produced in clear speech were remembered better than those produced in casual speech. Low-frequency words were remembered better than high-frequency words in certain conditions. Finally, low-density words were remembered better than high-density words. Broadly speaking, these results are most consistent with the Distinctiveness Hypothesis, which predicts better recognition memory for items that have distinctive traits, such as clear speech, low-frequency words, and low-density items. In the following paragraphs, we discuss each of our findings in turn, and consider their implications for different theories of recognition memory.

      Speech style

      The clear-speech advantage replicates previous studies (Van Engen et al., 2012; Keerstock and Smiljanić, 2018, 2019), and shows that the memory benefit for clear-speech stimuli can occur not just for full sentences, but also for individual words. On its own, this result does not adjudicate between different theories of memory, because it is compatible either with the Effortfulness Hypothesis, which predicts that clear speech is remembered better because it requires less effort at encoding, and the Distinctiveness Hypothesis, which predicts that clear speech is remembered better because it is distinctive compared to other types of speech. Nevertheless, this result is still notable insofar as certain elements of clear speech, such as an overall decrease in speaking rate, manifest themselves primarily in multi-word utterances. Our findings suggest that even when such elements are diminished (although not entirely absent, since our individual word stimuli were excised from full sentences), other acoustic characteristics, such as increases in vowel duration or changes to formant values, are sufficient to provide a memory benefit.

      One previous study (Keerstock and Smiljanić, 2018) had suggested that the benefits of clear speech were activated through relatively deep, rather than shallow, linguistic processes. In the study phase of this experiment, sentences were produced auditorily, in either clear or conversational speech. In the test phase, however, sentences were presented orthographically. Results showed that participants remembered sentences presented in clear speech better than those presented in conversational speech, and the fact that the benefit persisted across modalities was interpreted as indicative of deep linguistic processing. In the current study, both study and test items were always presented auditorily; crucially, however, the individual tokens were not identical across the two presentations. This means that, when recognizing a previously-heard words as old, participants could not rely on episodic recognition of surface features, but rather had to draw upon a word-level encoding of the stimulus. Thus, the current study is broadly consistent with Keerstock and Smiljanić (2018) in showing that memory traces for clear speech appear to be activated at a level which is abstracted from the input stimulus.

      Frequency

      Although there was no main effect of word frequency on recognition memory, frequency did exhibit significant interactions with other factors. Specifically, low-frequency words increased recognition memory for words that were already comparatively easy to remember, namely those which were produced in clear speech or had low neighborhood densities. Thus, to the extent that we see frequency effects in the current study, they are consistent with previous studies of recognition memory, which report an advantage for low-frequency words (Glanzer and Bowles, 1976; Glanzer and Adams, 1985, 1990; Joordens and Hockley, 2000).

      Crucially, the frequency findings are compatible with the Distinctiveness Hypothesis, which predicts better recognition memory for low-frequency words, compared to high-frequency words. By contrast, they are not compatible with the Effortfulness Hypothesis, which would predict the opposite pattern.

      In the Introduction, we had considered a scenario, the Modified Effortfulness Hypothesis, in which word-level factors do not contribute to effort. The logic was that, under regular listening circumstances with no time pressure, we do not expect intelligibility differences for low versus high frequency words, and therefore we do not expect effortfulness differences, either. Within such a scenario, the Modified Effortfulness Hypothesis would essentially make no prediction for frequency effects. However, our results do not provide support for this logic. Recall that the intelligibility analysis, reported in Section 2.2.2, showed that our stimuli did indeed exhibit significant differences in accuracy: for example, the overall accuracy rate for high-frequency words was significantly greater than low-frequency words. This suggests that, at least for the stimuli used here, the processing advantage for high-frequency words did extend beyond situations of time pressure, and that the Modified Effortfulness Hypothesis is not tenable.

      Density

      Our results showed a significant effect of density, whereby low-density words exhibited better recognition memory than high-density words. This finding is consistent with previous work that manipulated neighborhood density in a recognition task (Heathcote et al., 2006). Taken in isolation, the results for density would be compatible with either the Effortfulness Hypothesis or the Distinctiveness Hypothesis, both of which predict a recognition memory advantage for low-density words. Taken together with the findings on frequency, however, it becomes difficult to support either version of the Effortfulness Hypothesis. Recall that the Effortfulness predicts an advantage for high-frequency words in recognition memory; as discussed in Section 3, this prediction was not met. A Modified Effortfulness Hypothesis considered the possibility that density has no effect on intelligibility (and by extension, effortfulness), but the results from our intelligibility task do not support for this idea, because accuracy was significantly higher for low-density words than for high-density words. Thus, as was the case for high-frequency words, the processing advantage for the low-density words in our study did extend beyond situations of time pressure, and therefore the Modified Effortfulness Hypothesis is not tenable.

      Remaining questions and future directions Measurement of distinctiveness

      The current study represents a first step toward exploring the role of distinctiveness in recognition memory for spoken words. In doing so, we have employed very basic working definitions of what it means to be “distinct,” reasoning that clear speech is distinct because most conversations occur in casual speech, that low-frequency words are distinct because they occur less commonly than high-frequency words, and that low-density words are distinct because their phonological neighborhoods are less crowded than those of high-density words. For the future, a next step would be to measure distinctiveness in a more direct manner – for example, by asking listeners to rate the distinctiveness of individual words on a Likert scale – and to correlate these ratings with recognition memory results. Such results would indicate whether listeners’ actual experience of distinctiveness leads to better remembering, and provide an important corroboration for the Distinctiveness Hypothesis.

      Individual differences

      The act of remembering varies a great deal from one individual to the next (Bors and MacLeod, 1996). For recognition memory, one of the most relevant factors is age: older adults typically exhibit lower d-prime values than younger adults, as well as an increased tendency to label items as “new” (Fraundorf et al., 2019). Even among people of similar ages, however, individuals may still require differing amounts of evidence before committing to an “old” decision (Kantner and Lindsay, 2012) – and presumably, some of this evidence comes from an item’s distinctiveness. In the current study, participants were younger adults (mean age 23.93 [8.02] years) who may have nevertheless exhibited individual differences that we have not examined here. Future work could investigate this issue, for example, by testing for links between individuals’ overall memory capacity, on the one hand, and recognition rates for distinctive words, on the other.

      Phonetic realizations

      In Section 2.2, we noted that speech style, frequency, and density can affect the phonetic realizations of spoken words (Jurafsky et al., 2001; Munson and Solomon, 2004; Wright et al., 2004; Gahl et al., 2012; Scarborough and Zellou, 2013), making it potentially difficult to isolate the effects of these variables. This would pose a conundrum for any speech researcher, yet our current results do offer some clarity in this regard. To begin with, in our own stimuli, the vowel-space differences between different word types were relatively small (see Figures 2, 3), suggesting a diminished role for phonetic differences. Even to the extent that such differences did exist, however, they cannot fully account for our pattern of results. For example, as we pointed out earlier, vowel spaces for high-density words tend to be more expanded than those for low-density words. If hyper-articulated vowels are more distinctive for listeners in recognition memory, this would predict that listeners should remember high-density words better. But this is clearly not the case. Instead, our results show that listeners remember low-density words better, suggesting that their structural distinctiveness exerts an influence independently of lower-level phonetic effects. Of course, the only way to completely separate lexical versus phonetic effects would be to conduct experiments using printed or synthesized-speech stimuli. Although both techniques introduce their own additional confounds, such approaches could be explored in future work.

      Elaborating the distinctiveness hypothesis

      There are several potential avenues for further developing the Distinctiveness Hypothesis as it relates to memory for spoken words. As we have discussed, our overall results showed better recognition memory for words produced in clear speech, for low-frequency words in certain conditions, and for low-density words. Importantly, there is more than one mechanism by which these distinctiveness advantages could conceivably originate. One potential mechanism is better recognition of words that were actually heard (“shuck” is an unusual-sounding word, so I definitely remember hearing it earlier), which would produce higher hit rates. Within a signal detection framework in which the listener’s task is to detect a signal amidst noise, this would mean that distinctive words contribute to a stronger signal. Another potential mechanism is reduced recognition of words that were not heard (“gaffe” is an unusual-sounding word, so I am certain that I did not hear it earlier), which would produce lower false alarms. Within a signal detection framework, this would mean that distinctive words contribute reduced noise.

      For the moment, we speculate that both factors may be at play. Recall that there was an effect of speech style in our analysis of the variable d-prime. If we break this variable into its component parts, we see that hit rates were higher for clear (0.67 [0.20]) versus casual (0.58 [0.25]) stimuli and also that false alarm rates were lower for clear (0.33 [0.20]) versus casual (0.38 [0.21]) stimuli. To take another example, there was also an effect of density in our analysis of d-prime. Breaking this down, we see a similar pattern, whereby hit rates were higher for low-density (0.66 [0.23]) versus high-density (0.59 [0.23]) words and false alarm rates were also lower for low-density (0.33 [0.20]) versus high-density words (0.38 [0.20]). (Recall that for frequency, there was an effect for d-prime only when it interacted with other factors, so we did not break down those results further). Future research should help to illuminate the exact conditions under which people benefit from a stronger signal versus reduced noise, and thereby more finely characterize the role that distinctiveness plays in memory for spoken words.

      While it is relatively straightforward to apply a “distinctiveness” criterion to individual words, it is less clear how to apply it to entire sentences. Indeed, previous findings showing that listeners remember semantically normal sentences better than semantically anomalous sentences (Van Engen et al., 2012), and that L1 listeners remember sentences better than L2 listeners (Keerstock and Smiljanić, 2018), would be difficult to account for in this framework. However, it is possible that different factors influence memory for individual words on the one hand, versus multi-word sentences on the other. Related to the L1 versus L2 sentence findings, for example, Francis and Gutiérrez (2012) showed that Spanish-English bilinguals exhibit better recognition memory for words in their non-dominant language, compared to their dominant language, a result that is consistent with the Distinctiveness Hypothesis. To sort through these issues in future studies, a potential starting point could be the work of Garnham (1981), who argued that we represent sentences using mental models of events, rather than linguistic expressions per se. It stands to reason that the same may not be true for individual words.

      Memory is a complex human behavior. Indeed, as Schacter (1996, p. 6) notes, “memories are records of how we have experienced events, not replicas of the events themselves.” As a consequence of this complexity, patterns of remembering can differ based upon the task at hand. In previous work and in the current study, for example, the advantage for low-frequency words was found for recognition memory tasks. These tasks gauge an implicit feeling of familiarity, because participants give a simple old/new response to words that are presented individually. However, the low-frequency advantage has not been found for recall tasks (e.g., Balota and Neely, 1980; for review, see Popov and Reder, 2020). These tasks require explicit recollection, because participants must remember the previously-presented words without hearing or seeing them again at test. A similar task asymmetry occurs for density: our recognition results show an advantage for low-density words, but recall tasks do not exhibit this advantage (e.g., Guitard et al., 2023).

      Meanwhile, this task asymmetry is not apparent for speech style, where previous work has shown that the clear-speech advantage occurs in both types of tasks, namely in recognition memory as well as in cued recall (Keerstock and Smiljanić, 2019). This suggests that the nature of the memory benefit provided by clear speech may be distinct from that of low frequency and low density, in spite of the fact that all three characteristics are distinctive. In future studies, we hope to broaden our inquiry into the nature of human memory, and to compare how speech styles, frequency, and density affect different types of remembering tasks. We also aim to explore how our findings might generalize to real-world situations. For example, the purposeful use of distinctive words (rather than less distinctive ones) could potentially be useful when teaching or giving instructions.

      While we have presented evidence in favor of the Distinctiveness Hypothesis, the possibility remains that, at least for certain cases, both effort and distinctiveness may be at play simultaneously. In the current study, for example, clear speech and low-density words showed significant effects on recognition memory, whereas frequency effects were found only in certain conditions. Interestingly, while the Effortfulness and Distinctiveness Hypotheses make different predictions for frequency, they make similar predictions for clear speech and low-density words. This suggests the possibility that words which are both less effortful and more distinctive exhibit additive effects on recognition memory, which can be explored in future work.

      Conclusion

      Memory is a complex cognitive undertaking, even when we consider the relatively simple task of remembering a single spoken word. In the current study, we examined speech style, a factor that is typically operative at the utterance level, as well as frequency and neighborhood density, which are operative at the level of individual words. Our results showed that those words which exhibited distinctive characteristics – whether due to clear speech style, low frequency, or low density – were remembered better. This finding is readily accounted for by the Distinctiveness Hypothesis, and suggests that our human capacity for remembering words which were spoken in the past need not crucially rely on our capacity for recognizing them in real time. Rather, memory may operate according to its own independent heuristic. If I had heard that rare, unusual-sounding word pronounced in that deliberate way, I would have remembered it!

      Data availability statement

      The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

      Ethics statement

      The studies involving humans were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

      Author contributions

      AP: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

      Funding

      The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was supported by the Chung-Ang University Research Grants in 2022 and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Research Assistance Fund.

      Conflict of interest

      The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

      Publisher’s note

      All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

      References Balota D. A. Neely J. H. (1980). Test-expectancy and word-frequency effects in recall and recognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 6, 576587. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.6.5.576 Balota D. A. Yap M. J. Hutchison K. A. Cortese M. J. Kessler B. Loftis B. . (2007). The English lexicon project. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 445459. doi: 10.3758/BF03193014 Boersma P. Weenink D. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (6.0.24) [Computer software]. Available at: www.praat.org Bors D. A. MacLeod C. M. (1996). “Chapter 12—individual differences in memory” in Memory. eds. Bjork E. L. Bjork R. A. (San Diego CA: Academic Press), 411441. Bradlow A. R. (2002). “Confluent talker-and listener-oriented forces in clear speech production” in Laboratory phonology. eds. Gussenhoven C. Warner N., vol. 7 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 241273. Broadbent D. E. (1967). Word-frequency effect and response bias. Psychol. Rev. 74, 115. doi: 10.1037/h0024206, PMID: 5341440 Cho T. Lee Y. Kim S. (2011). Communicatively driven versus prosodically driven hyper-articulation in Korean. J. Phon. 39, 344361. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.02.005 Cohen J. (2016). “A power primer” in Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research. ed. Kazdin A. E. . 4th ed (Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association), 279284. Davis C. Kim J. (2010). Is speech produced in noise more distinct and/or consistent? Speech Sci. Technol., 4649. Dodson C. S. Schacter D. L. (2001). “If I had said it I would have remembered it”: reducing false memories with a distinctiveness heuristic. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 8, 155161. doi: 10.3758/BF03196152, PMID: 11340861 Dodson C. S. Schacter D. L. (2002). When false recognition meets metacognition: the distinctiveness heuristic. J. Mem. Lang. 46, 782803. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2822 Dossey E. Jones Z. Clopper C. G. (2022). Relative contributions of social, contextual, and lexical factors in speech processing. Lang. Speech 66, 322353. doi: 10.1177/00238309221107870, PMID: 35787020 Francis W. S. Gutiérrez M. (2012). Bilingual recognition memory: stronger performance but weaker levels-of-processing effects in the less fluent language. Mem. Cogn. 40, 496503. doi: 10.3758/s13421-011-0163-3, PMID: 22086650 Fraundorf S. H. Hourihan K. L. Peters R. A. Benjamin A. S. (2019). Aging and recognition memory: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 145, 339371. doi: 10.1037/bul0000185, PMID: 30640498 Gahl S. Yao Y. Johnson K. (2012). Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. J. Mem. Lang. 66, 789806. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.006 Garnham A. (1981). Mental models as representations of text. Mem. Cogn. 9, 560565. doi: 10.3758/BF03202350, PMID: 7329236 Glanzer M. Adams J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory. Mem. Cogn. 13, 820. doi: 10.3758/BF03198438 Glanzer M. Adams J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: data and theory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 16, 516. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.16.1.5, PMID: 2136752 Glanzer M. Bowles N. (1976). An analysis the word-frequency effect in recognition memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 2, 2131. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.2.1.21 Goldinger S. D. Kleider H. M. Shelley E. (1999). The marriage of perception and memory: creating two-way illusions with words and voices. Mem. Cogn. 27, 328338. doi: 10.3758/BF03211416, PMID: 10226442 Guitard D. Miller L. M. Neath I. Roodenrys S. (2023). The orthographic/phonological neighbourhood size effect and set size. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. doi: 10.1177/17470218231165863, [Online ahead of print] Heathcote A. Ditton E. Mitchell K. (2006). Word frequency and word likeness mirror effects in episodic recognition memory. Mem. Cogn. 34, 826838. doi: 10.3758/BF03193430 Israel L. Schacter D. L. (1997). Pictorial encoding reduces false recognition of semantic associates. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 4, 577581. doi: 10.3758/BF03214352 Johnson M. K. Raye C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychol. Rev. 88, 6785. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.88.1.67 Joordens S. Hockley W. E. (2000). Recollection and familiarity through the looking glass: when old does not mirror new. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 26, 15341555. PMID: 11185781 Jurafsky D. Bell A. Gregory M. Raymond W. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: evidence from reduction in lexical production. Typol. Stud. Lang. 45, 229254. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45.13jur Kantner J. Lindsay D. S. (2012). Response bias in recognition memory as a cognitive trait. Mem. Cogn. 40, 11631177. doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0226-0, PMID: 22872581 Keerstock S. Smiljanić R. (2018). Effects of intelligibility on within- and cross-modal sentence recognition memory for native and non-native listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 144, 28712881. doi: 10.1121/1.5078589 Keerstock S. Smiljanić R. (2019). Clear speech improves listeners’ recall. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 146, 46044610. doi: 10.1121/1.5141372 Lu Y. Cooke M. (2008). Speech production modifications produced by competing talkers, babble, and stationary noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124, 32613275. doi: 10.1121/1.2990705, PMID: 19045809 Luce P. A. (1986). Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Luce P. A. Pisoni D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear. 19, 136. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001 Macmillan N. A. Creelman C. D. (2004). Detection theory: a user’s guide. 2nd. New York: Psychology Press. Macmillan N. A. Kaplan H. L. (1985). Detection theory analysis of group data: estimating sensitivity from average hit and false-alarm rates. Psychol. Bull. 98, 185199. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.98.1.185, PMID: 4034817 Munson B. Solomon N. P. (2004). The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 47, 10481058. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/078) Picheny M. A. Durlach N. I. Braida L. D. (1985). Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing I. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 28, 96103. doi: 10.1044/jshr.2801.96 Picheny M. A. Durlach N. I. Braida L. D. (1986). Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing II. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 29, 434446. doi: 10.1044/jshr.2904.434, PMID: 3795886 Popov V. Reder L. M. (2020). Frequency effects on memory: a resource-limited theory. Psychol. Rev. 127, 146. doi: 10.1037/rev0000161 Rabbitt P. (1968). Channel-capacity, intelligibility and immediate memory. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 20, 241248. doi: 10.1080/14640746808400158, PMID: 5683763 Rabbitt P. (1991). Mild hearing loss can cause apparent memory failures which increase with age and reduce with IQ. Acta Otolaryngol. 111, 167176. doi: 10.3109/00016489109127274 Scarborough R. Zellou G. (2013). Clarity in communication: “clear” speech authenticity and lexical neighborhood density effects in speech production and perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134, 37933807. doi: 10.1121/1.4824120, PMID: 24180789 Schacter D. L. (1996). Searching for memory: The brain, the mind, and the past. New York: Basic Books. Schacter D. L. Israel L. Racine C. (1999). Suppressing false recognition in younger and older adults: the distinctiveness heuristic. J. Mem. Lang. 40, 124. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2611 Schacter D. L. Verfaellie M. Anes M. D. (1997). Illusory memories in amnesic patients: conceptual and perceptual false recognition. Neuropsychology 11, 331342. doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.11.3.331, PMID: 9223138 Schacter D. L. Verfaellie M. Anes M. D. Racine C. (1998). When true recognition suppresses false recognition: evidence from amnesic patients. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 10, 668679. doi: 10.1162/089892998563086, PMID: 9831736 Smiljanić R. (2021). “Clear speech perception” in The handbook of speech perception. eds. Pardo J. Nygaard L. C. Remez R. Pisoni D. B. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd), 177205. Smiljanić R. Bradlow A. R. (2005). Production and perception of clear speech in Croatian and English. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 16771688. doi: 10.1121/1.2000788, PMID: 16240826 Smiljanić R. Bradlow A. R. (2009). Speaking and hearing clearly: talker and listener factors in speaking style changes. Lang Linguist Compass 3, 236264. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00112.x, PMID: 20046964 Smiljanić R. Gilbert R. C. (2017). Acoustics of clear and noise-adapted speech in children, young, and older adults. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 60, 30813096. doi: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0130 Van Engen K. J. (2017). Clear speech and lexical competition in younger and older adult listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 142, 10671077. doi: 10.1121/1.4998708, PMID: 28863602 Van Engen K. J. Chandrasekaran B. Smiljanic R. (2012). Effects of speech clarity on recognition memory for spoken sentences. PLoS One 7:e43753. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043753 Van Engen K. J. Peelle J. E. (2014). Listening effort and accented speech. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:577. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00577, PMID: 25140140 Vitevitch M. S. Luce P. A. (2016). Phonological neighborhood effects in spoken word perception and production. Ann. Rev. Linguist. 2, 7594. doi: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-124832 Whittlesea B. W. Jacoby L. L. Girard K. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. J. Mem. Lang. 29, 716732. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90045-2 Wright R. Local J. Ogden R. Temple R. (2004). “Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation” in Phonetic interpretation, papers in laboratory phonology. eds. Local J. Ogden R. Temple R. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 7587. APPENDIX 1

      Stimulus words.
      High frequencyHigh density High frequencyLow density Low frequencyHigh density Low frequencyLow density
      back chief beak botch
      beat cup coop cuff
      bit dish cot dash
      boot duke dip ditch
      buck Dutch gut fuss
      bus fish hick gaffe
      cat half hoot geese
      cut josh hut goof
      duck juice kip goose
      fit kiss knit goth
      got path pap gush
      hit shop peat hiss
      hot such pip hush
      kit teach pock miff
      pack teeth puck niche
      peak that pup pith
      pick thick putt posh
      pop this sap puff
      seek thus seep sheaf
      shut touch sip sheath
      sit tough tack shuck
      soup watch toot thatch
      suck youth tot tiff
      suit zip tuck tooth

      ‘Oh, my dear Thomas, you haven’t heard the terrible news then?’ she said. ‘I thought you would be sure to have seen it placarded somewhere. Alice went straight to her room, and I haven’t seen her since, though I repeatedly knocked at the door, which she has locked on the inside, and I’m sure it’s most unnatural of her not to let her own mother comfort her. It all happened in a moment: I have always said those great motor-cars shouldn’t be allowed to career about the streets, especially when they are all paved with cobbles as they are at Easton Haven, which are{331} so slippery when it’s wet. He slipped, and it went over him in a moment.’ My thanks were few and awkward, for there still hung to the missive a basting thread, and it was as warm as a nestling bird. I bent low--everybody was emotional in those days--kissed the fragrant thing, thrust it into my bosom, and blushed worse than Camille. "What, the Corner House victim? Is that really a fact?" "My dear child, I don't look upon it in that light at all. The child gave our picturesque friend a certain distinction--'My husband is dead, and this is my only child,' and all that sort of thing. It pays in society." leave them on the steps of a foundling asylum in order to insure [See larger version] Interoffice guff says you're planning definite moves on your own, J. O., and against some opposition. Is the Colonel so poor or so grasping—or what? Albert could not speak, for he felt as if his brains and teeth were rattling about inside his head. The rest of[Pg 188] the family hunched together by the door, the boys gaping idiotically, the girls in tears. "Now you're married." The host was called in, and unlocked a drawer in which they were deposited. The galleyman, with visible reluctance, arrayed himself in the garments, and he was observed to shudder more than once during the investiture of the dead man's apparel. HoME香京julia种子在线播放 ENTER NUMBET 0016www.jjltsb.org.cn
      o1bb.org.cn
      scchain.com.cn
      www.vrvision.net.cn
      qiliufang.com.cn
      www.psexwn.com.cn
      nbapeilu.com.cn
      sbsbsbppx.com.cn
      www.u8cbi.com.cn
      qipeipu.com.cn
      处女被大鸡巴操 强奸乱伦小说图片 俄罗斯美女爱爱图 调教强奸学生 亚洲女的穴 夜来香图片大全 美女性强奸电影 手机版色中阁 男性人体艺术素描图 16p成人 欧美性爱360 电影区 亚洲电影 欧美电影 经典三级 偷拍自拍 动漫电影 乱伦电影 变态另类 全部电 类似狠狠鲁的网站 黑吊操白逼图片 韩国黄片种子下载 操逼逼逼逼逼 人妻 小说 p 偷拍10幼女自慰 极品淫水很多 黄色做i爱 日本女人人体电影快播看 大福国小 我爱肏屄美女 mmcrwcom 欧美多人性交图片 肥臀乱伦老头舔阴帝 d09a4343000019c5 西欧人体艺术b xxoo激情短片 未成年人的 插泰国人夭图片 第770弾み1 24p 日本美女性 交动态 eee色播 yantasythunder 操无毛少女屄 亚洲图片你懂的女人 鸡巴插姨娘 特级黄 色大片播 左耳影音先锋 冢本友希全集 日本人体艺术绿色 我爱被舔逼 内射 幼 美阴图 喷水妹子高潮迭起 和后妈 操逼 美女吞鸡巴 鸭个自慰 中国女裸名单 操逼肥臀出水换妻 色站裸体义术 中国行上的漏毛美女叫什么 亚洲妹性交图 欧美美女人裸体人艺照 成人色妹妹直播 WWW_JXCT_COM r日本女人性淫乱 大胆人艺体艺图片 女同接吻av 碰碰哥免费自拍打炮 艳舞写真duppid1 88电影街拍视频 日本自拍做爱qvod 实拍美女性爱组图 少女高清av 浙江真实乱伦迅雷 台湾luanlunxiaoshuo 洛克王国宠物排行榜 皇瑟电影yy频道大全 红孩儿连连看 阴毛摄影 大胆美女写真人体艺术摄影 和风骚三个媳妇在家做爱 性爱办公室高清 18p2p木耳 大波撸影音 大鸡巴插嫩穴小说 一剧不超两个黑人 阿姨诱惑我快播 幼香阁千叶县小学生 少女妇女被狗强奸 曰人体妹妹 十二岁性感幼女 超级乱伦qvod 97爱蜜桃ccc336 日本淫妇阴液 av海量资源999 凤凰影视成仁 辰溪四中艳照门照片 先锋模特裸体展示影片 成人片免费看 自拍百度云 肥白老妇女 女爱人体图片 妈妈一女穴 星野美夏 日本少女dachidu 妹子私处人体图片 yinmindahuitang 舔无毛逼影片快播 田莹疑的裸体照片 三级电影影音先锋02222 妻子被外国老头操 观月雏乃泥鳅 韩国成人偷拍自拍图片 强奸5一9岁幼女小说 汤姆影院av图片 妹妹人艺体图 美女大驱 和女友做爱图片自拍p 绫川まどか在线先锋 那么嫩的逼很少见了 小女孩做爱 处女好逼连连看图图 性感美女在家做爱 近距离抽插骚逼逼 黑屌肏金毛屄 日韩av美少女 看喝尿尿小姐日逼色色色网图片 欧美肛交新视频 美女吃逼逼 av30线上免费 伊人在线三级经典 新视觉影院t6090影院 最新淫色电影网址 天龙影院远古手机版 搞老太影院 插进美女的大屁股里 私人影院加盟费用 www258dd 求一部电影里面有一个二猛哥 深肛交 日本萌妹子人体艺术写真图片 插入屄眼 美女的木奶 中文字幕黄色网址影视先锋 九号女神裸 和骚人妻偷情 和潘晓婷做爱 国模大尺度蜜桃 欧美大逼50p 西西人体成人 李宗瑞继母做爱原图物处理 nianhuawang 男鸡巴的视屏 � 97免费色伦电影 好色网成人 大姨子先锋 淫荡巨乳美女教师妈妈 性nuexiaoshuo WWW36YYYCOM 长春继续给力进屋就操小女儿套干破内射对白淫荡 农夫激情社区 日韩无码bt 欧美美女手掰嫩穴图片 日本援交偷拍自拍 入侵者日本在线播放 亚洲白虎偷拍自拍 常州高见泽日屄 寂寞少妇自卫视频 人体露逼图片 多毛外国老太 变态乱轮手机在线 淫荡妈妈和儿子操逼 伦理片大奶少女 看片神器最新登入地址sqvheqi345com账号群 麻美学姐无头 圣诞老人射小妞和强奸小妞动话片 亚洲AV女老师 先锋影音欧美成人资源 33344iucoom zV天堂电影网 宾馆美女打炮视频 色五月丁香五月magnet 嫂子淫乱小说 张歆艺的老公 吃奶男人视频在线播放 欧美色图男女乱伦 avtt2014ccvom 性插色欲香影院 青青草撸死你青青草 99热久久第一时间 激情套图卡通动漫 幼女裸聊做爱口交 日本女人被强奸乱伦 草榴社区快播 2kkk正在播放兽骑 啊不要人家小穴都湿了 www猎奇影视 A片www245vvcomwwwchnrwhmhzcn 搜索宜春院av wwwsee78co 逼奶鸡巴插 好吊日AV在线视频19gancom 熟女伦乱图片小说 日本免费av无码片在线开苞 鲁大妈撸到爆 裸聊官网 德国熟女xxx 新不夜城论坛首页手机 女虐男网址 男女做爱视频华为网盘 激情午夜天亚洲色图 内裤哥mangent 吉沢明歩制服丝袜WWWHHH710COM 屌逼在线试看 人体艺体阿娇艳照 推荐一个可以免费看片的网站如果被QQ拦截请复制链接在其它浏览器打开xxxyyy5comintr2a2cb551573a2b2e 欧美360精品粉红鲍鱼 教师调教第一页 聚美屋精品图 中韩淫乱群交 俄罗斯撸撸片 把鸡巴插进小姨子的阴道 干干AV成人网 aolasoohpnbcn www84ytom 高清大量潮喷www27dyycom 宝贝开心成人 freefronvideos人母 嫩穴成人网gggg29com 逼着舅妈给我口交肛交彩漫画 欧美色色aV88wwwgangguanscom 老太太操逼自拍视频 777亚洲手机在线播放 有没有夫妻3p小说 色列漫画淫女 午间色站导航 欧美成人处女色大图 童颜巨乳亚洲综合 桃色性欲草 色眯眯射逼 无码中文字幕塞外青楼这是一个 狂日美女老师人妻 爱碰网官网 亚洲图片雅蠛蝶 快播35怎么搜片 2000XXXX电影 新谷露性家庭影院 深深候dvd播放 幼齿用英语怎么说 不雅伦理无需播放器 国外淫荡图片 国外网站幼幼嫩网址 成年人就去色色视频快播 我鲁日日鲁老老老我爱 caoshaonvbi 人体艺术avav 性感性色导航 韩国黄色哥来嫖网站 成人网站美逼 淫荡熟妇自拍 欧美色惰图片 北京空姐透明照 狼堡免费av视频 www776eom 亚洲无码av欧美天堂网男人天堂 欧美激情爆操 a片kk266co 色尼姑成人极速在线视频 国语家庭系列 蒋雯雯 越南伦理 色CC伦理影院手机版 99jbbcom 大鸡巴舅妈 国产偷拍自拍淫荡对话视频 少妇春梦射精 开心激动网 自拍偷牌成人 色桃隐 撸狗网性交视频 淫荡的三位老师 伦理电影wwwqiuxia6commqiuxia6com 怡春院分站 丝袜超短裙露脸迅雷下载 色制服电影院 97超碰好吊色男人 yy6080理论在线宅男日韩福利大全 大嫂丝袜 500人群交手机在线 5sav 偷拍熟女吧 口述我和妹妹的欲望 50p电脑版 wwwavtttcon 3p3com 伦理无码片在线看 欧美成人电影图片岛国性爱伦理电影 先锋影音AV成人欧美 我爱好色 淫电影网 WWW19MMCOM 玛丽罗斯3d同人动画h在线看 动漫女孩裸体 超级丝袜美腿乱伦 1919gogo欣赏 大色逼淫色 www就是撸 激情文学网好骚 A级黄片免费 xedd5com 国内的b是黑的 快播美国成年人片黄 av高跟丝袜视频 上原保奈美巨乳女教师在线观看 校园春色都市激情fefegancom 偷窥自拍XXOO 搜索看马操美女 人本女优视频 日日吧淫淫 人妻巨乳影院 美国女子性爱学校 大肥屁股重口味 啪啪啪啊啊啊不要 操碰 japanfreevideoshome国产 亚州淫荡老熟女人体 伦奸毛片免费在线看 天天影视se 樱桃做爱视频 亚卅av在线视频 x奸小说下载 亚洲色图图片在线 217av天堂网 东方在线撸撸-百度 幼幼丝袜集 灰姑娘的姐姐 青青草在线视频观看对华 86papa路con 亚洲1AV 综合图片2区亚洲 美国美女大逼电影 010插插av成人网站 www色comwww821kxwcom 播乐子成人网免费视频在线观看 大炮撸在线影院 ,www4KkKcom 野花鲁最近30部 wwwCC213wapwww2233ww2download 三客优最新地址 母亲让儿子爽的无码视频 全国黄色片子 欧美色图美国十次 超碰在线直播 性感妖娆操 亚洲肉感熟女色图 a片A毛片管看视频 8vaa褋芯屑 333kk 川岛和津实视频 在线母子乱伦对白 妹妹肥逼五月 亚洲美女自拍 老婆在我面前小说 韩国空姐堪比情趣内衣 干小姐综合 淫妻色五月 添骚穴 WM62COM 23456影视播放器 成人午夜剧场 尼姑福利网 AV区亚洲AV欧美AV512qucomwwwc5508com 经典欧美骚妇 震动棒露出 日韩丝袜美臀巨乳在线 av无限吧看 就去干少妇 色艺无间正面是哪集 校园春色我和老师做爱 漫画夜色 天海丽白色吊带 黄色淫荡性虐小说 午夜高清播放器 文20岁女性荫道口图片 热国产热无码热有码 2015小明发布看看算你色 百度云播影视 美女肏屄屄乱轮小说 家族舔阴AV影片 邪恶在线av有码 父女之交 关于处女破处的三级片 极品护士91在线 欧美虐待女人视频的网站 享受老太太的丝袜 aaazhibuo 8dfvodcom成人 真实自拍足交 群交男女猛插逼 妓女爱爱动态 lin35com是什么网站 abp159 亚洲色图偷拍自拍乱伦熟女抠逼自慰 朝国三级篇 淫三国幻想 免费的av小电影网站 日本阿v视频免费按摩师 av750c0m 黄色片操一下 巨乳少女车震在线观看 操逼 免费 囗述情感一乱伦岳母和女婿 WWW_FAMITSU_COM 偷拍中国少妇在公车被操视频 花也真衣论理电影 大鸡鸡插p洞 新片欧美十八岁美少 进击的巨人神thunderftp 西方美女15p 深圳哪里易找到老女人玩视频 在线成人有声小说 365rrr 女尿图片 我和淫荡的小姨做爱 � 做爱技术体照 淫妇性爱 大学生私拍b 第四射狠狠射小说 色中色成人av社区 和小姨子乱伦肛交 wwwppp62com 俄罗斯巨乳人体艺术 骚逼阿娇 汤芳人体图片大胆 大胆人体艺术bb私处 性感大胸骚货 哪个网站幼女的片多 日本美女本子把 色 五月天 婷婷 快播 美女 美穴艺术 色百合电影导航 大鸡巴用力 孙悟空操美少女战士 狠狠撸美女手掰穴图片 古代女子与兽类交 沙耶香套图 激情成人网区 暴风影音av播放 动漫女孩怎么插第3个 mmmpp44 黑木麻衣无码ed2k 淫荡学姐少妇 乱伦操少女屄 高中性爱故事 骚妹妹爱爱图网 韩国模特剪长发 大鸡巴把我逼日了 中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片 大胆女人下体艺术图片 789sss 影音先锋在线国内情侣野外性事自拍普通话对白 群撸图库 闪现君打阿乐 ady 小说 插入表妹嫩穴小说 推荐成人资源 网络播放器 成人台 149大胆人体艺术 大屌图片 骚美女成人av 春暖花开春色性吧 女亭婷五月 我上了同桌的姐姐 恋夜秀场主播自慰视频 yzppp 屄茎 操屄女图 美女鲍鱼大特写 淫乱的日本人妻山口玲子 偷拍射精图 性感美女人体艺木图片 种马小说完本 免费电影院 骑士福利导航导航网站 骚老婆足交 国产性爱一级电影 欧美免费成人花花性都 欧美大肥妞性爱视频 家庭乱伦网站快播 偷拍自拍国产毛片 金发美女也用大吊来开包 缔D杏那 yentiyishu人体艺术ytys WWWUUKKMCOM 女人露奶 � 苍井空露逼 老荡妇高跟丝袜足交 偷偷和女友的朋友做爱迅雷 做爱七十二尺 朱丹人体合成 麻腾由纪妃 帅哥撸播种子图 鸡巴插逼动态图片 羙国十次啦中文 WWW137AVCOM 神斗片欧美版华语 有气质女人人休艺术 由美老师放屁电影 欧美女人肉肏图片 白虎种子快播 国产自拍90后女孩 美女在床上疯狂嫩b 饭岛爱最后之作 幼幼强奸摸奶 色97成人动漫 两性性爱打鸡巴插逼 新视觉影院4080青苹果影院 嗯好爽插死我了 阴口艺术照 李宗瑞电影qvod38 爆操舅母 亚洲色图七七影院 被大鸡巴操菊花 怡红院肿么了 成人极品影院删除 欧美性爱大图色图强奸乱 欧美女子与狗随便性交 苍井空的bt种子无码 熟女乱伦长篇小说 大色虫 兽交幼女影音先锋播放 44aad be0ca93900121f9b 先锋天耗ばさ无码 欧毛毛女三级黄色片图 干女人黑木耳照 日本美女少妇嫩逼人体艺术 sesechangchang 色屄屄网 久久撸app下载 色图色噜 美女鸡巴大奶 好吊日在线视频在线观看 透明丝袜脚偷拍自拍 中山怡红院菜单 wcwwwcom下载 骑嫂子 亚洲大色妣 成人故事365ahnet 丝袜家庭教mp4 幼交肛交 妹妹撸撸大妈 日本毛爽 caoprom超碰在email 关于中国古代偷窥的黄片 第一会所老熟女下载 wwwhuangsecome 狼人干综合新地址HD播放 变态儿子强奸乱伦图 强奸电影名字 2wwwer37com 日本毛片基地一亚洲AVmzddcxcn 暗黑圣经仙桃影院 37tpcocn 持月真由xfplay 好吊日在线视频三级网 我爱背入李丽珍 电影师傅床戏在线观看 96插妹妹sexsex88com 豪放家庭在线播放 桃花宝典极夜著豆瓜网 安卓系统播放神器 美美网丝袜诱惑 人人干全免费视频xulawyercn av无插件一本道 全国色五月 操逼电影小说网 good在线wwwyuyuelvcom www18avmmd 撸波波影视无插件 伊人幼女成人电影 会看射的图片 小明插看看 全裸美女扒开粉嫩b 国人自拍性交网站 萝莉白丝足交本子 七草ちとせ巨乳视频 摇摇晃晃的成人电影 兰桂坊成社人区小说www68kqcom 舔阴论坛 久撸客一撸客色国内外成人激情在线 明星门 欧美大胆嫩肉穴爽大片 www牛逼插 性吧星云 少妇性奴的屁眼 人体艺术大胆mscbaidu1imgcn 最新久久色色成人版 l女同在线 小泽玛利亚高潮图片搜索 女性裸b图 肛交bt种子 最热门有声小说 人间添春色 春色猜谜字 樱井莉亚钢管舞视频 小泽玛利亚直美6p 能用的h网 还能看的h网 bl动漫h网 开心五月激 东京热401 男色女色第四色酒色网 怎么下载黄色小说 黄色小说小栽 和谐图城 乐乐影院 色哥导航 特色导航 依依社区 爱窝窝在线 色狼谷成人 91porn 包要你射电影 色色3A丝袜 丝袜妹妹淫网 爱色导航(荐) 好男人激情影院 坏哥哥 第七色 色久久 人格分裂 急先锋 撸撸射中文网 第一会所综合社区 91影院老师机 东方成人激情 怼莪影院吹潮 老鸭窝伊人无码不卡无码一本道 av女柳晶电影 91天生爱风流作品 深爱激情小说私房婷婷网 擼奶av 567pao 里番3d一家人野外 上原在线电影 水岛津实透明丝袜 1314酒色 网旧网俺也去 0855影院 在线无码私人影院 搜索 国产自拍 神马dy888午夜伦理达达兔 农民工黄晓婷 日韩裸体黑丝御姐 屈臣氏的燕窝面膜怎么样つぼみ晶エリーの早漏チ○ポ强化合宿 老熟女人性视频 影音先锋 三上悠亚ol 妹妹影院福利片 hhhhhhhhsxo 午夜天堂热的国产 强奸剧场 全裸香蕉视频无码 亚欧伦理视频 秋霞为什么给封了 日本在线视频空天使 日韩成人aⅴ在线 日本日屌日屄导航视频 在线福利视频 日本推油无码av magnet 在线免费视频 樱井梨吮东 日本一本道在线无码DVD 日本性感诱惑美女做爱阴道流水视频 日本一级av 汤姆avtom在线视频 台湾佬中文娱乐线20 阿v播播下载 橙色影院 奴隶少女护士cg视频 汤姆在线影院无码 偷拍宾馆 业面紧急生级访问 色和尚有线 厕所偷拍一族 av女l 公交色狼优酷视频 裸体视频AV 人与兽肉肉网 董美香ol 花井美纱链接 magnet 西瓜影音 亚洲 自拍 日韩女优欧美激情偷拍自拍 亚洲成年人免费视频 荷兰免费成人电影 深喉呕吐XXⅩX 操石榴在线视频 天天色成人免费视频 314hu四虎 涩久免费视频在线观看 成人电影迅雷下载 能看见整个奶子的香蕉影院 水菜丽百度影音 gwaz079百度云 噜死你们资源站 主播走光视频合集迅雷下载 thumbzilla jappen 精品Av 古川伊织star598在线 假面女皇vip在线视频播放 国产自拍迷情校园 啪啪啪公寓漫画 日本阿AV 黄色手机电影 欧美在线Av影院 华裔电击女神91在线 亚洲欧美专区 1日本1000部免费视频 开放90后 波多野结衣 东方 影院av 页面升级紧急访问每天正常更新 4438Xchengeren 老炮色 a k福利电影 色欲影视色天天视频 高老庄aV 259LUXU-683 magnet 手机在线电影 国产区 欧美激情人人操网 国产 偷拍 直播 日韩 国内外激情在线视频网给 站长统计一本道人妻 光棍影院被封 紫竹铃取汁 ftp 狂插空姐嫩 xfplay 丈夫面前 穿靴子伪街 XXOO视频在线免费 大香蕉道久在线播放 电棒漏电嗨过头 充气娃能看下毛和洞吗 夫妻牲交 福利云点墦 yukun瑟妃 疯狂交换女友 国产自拍26页 腐女资源 百度云 日本DVD高清无码视频 偷拍,自拍AV伦理电影 A片小视频福利站。 大奶肥婆自拍偷拍图片 交配伊甸园 超碰在线视频自拍偷拍国产 小热巴91大神 rctd 045 类似于A片 超美大奶大学生美女直播被男友操 男友问 你的衣服怎么脱掉的 亚洲女与黑人群交视频一 在线黄涩 木内美保步兵番号 鸡巴插入欧美美女的b舒服 激情在线国产自拍日韩欧美 国语福利小视频在线观看 作爱小视颍 潮喷合集丝袜无码mp4 做爱的无码高清视频 牛牛精品 伊aⅤ在线观看 savk12 哥哥搞在线播放 在线电一本道影 一级谍片 250pp亚洲情艺中心,88 欧美一本道九色在线一 wwwseavbacom色av吧 cos美女在线 欧美17,18ⅹⅹⅹ视频 自拍嫩逼 小电影在线观看网站 筱田优 贼 水电工 5358x视频 日本69式视频有码 b雪福利导航 韩国女主播19tvclub在线 操逼清晰视频 丝袜美女国产视频网址导航 水菜丽颜射房间 台湾妹中文娱乐网 风吟岛视频 口交 伦理 日本熟妇色五十路免费视频 A级片互舔 川村真矢Av在线观看 亚洲日韩av 色和尚国产自拍 sea8 mp4 aV天堂2018手机在线 免费版国产偷拍a在线播放 狠狠 婷婷 丁香 小视频福利在线观看平台 思妍白衣小仙女被邻居强上 萝莉自拍有水 4484新视觉 永久发布页 977成人影视在线观看 小清新影院在线观 小鸟酱后丝后入百度云 旋风魅影四级 香蕉影院小黄片免费看 性爱直播磁力链接 小骚逼第一色影院 性交流的视频 小雪小视频bd 小视频TV禁看视频 迷奸AV在线看 nba直播 任你在干线 汤姆影院在线视频国产 624u在线播放 成人 一级a做爰片就在线看狐狸视频 小香蕉AV视频 www182、com 腿模简小育 学生做爱视频 秘密搜查官 快播 成人福利网午夜 一级黄色夫妻录像片 直接看的gav久久播放器 国产自拍400首页 sm老爹影院 谁知道隔壁老王网址在线 综合网 123西瓜影音 米奇丁香 人人澡人人漠大学生 色久悠 夜色视频你今天寂寞了吗? 菲菲影视城美国 被抄的影院 变态另类 欧美 成人 国产偷拍自拍在线小说 不用下载安装就能看的吃男人鸡巴视频 插屄视频 大贯杏里播放 wwwhhh50 233若菜奈央 伦理片天海翼秘密搜查官 大香蕉在线万色屋视频 那种漫画小说你懂的 祥仔电影合集一区 那里可以看澳门皇冠酒店a片 色自啪 亚洲aV电影天堂 谷露影院ar toupaizaixian sexbj。com 毕业生 zaixian mianfei 朝桐光视频 成人短视频在线直接观看 陈美霖 沈阳音乐学院 导航女 www26yjjcom 1大尺度视频 开平虐女视频 菅野雪松协和影视在线视频 华人play在线视频bbb 鸡吧操屄视频 多啪啪免费视频 悠草影院 金兰策划网 (969) 橘佑金短视频 国内一极刺激自拍片 日本制服番号大全magnet 成人动漫母系 电脑怎么清理内存 黄色福利1000 dy88午夜 偷拍中学生洗澡磁力链接 花椒相机福利美女视频 站长推荐磁力下载 mp4 三洞轮流插视频 玉兔miki热舞视频 夜生活小视频 爆乳人妖小视频 国内网红主播自拍福利迅雷下载 不用app的裸裸体美女操逼视频 变态SM影片在线观看 草溜影院元气吧 - 百度 - 百度 波推全套视频 国产双飞集合ftp 日本在线AV网 笔国毛片 神马影院女主播是我的邻居 影音资源 激情乱伦电影 799pao 亚洲第一色第一影院 av视频大香蕉 老梁故事汇希斯莱杰 水中人体磁力链接 下载 大香蕉黄片免费看 济南谭崔 避开屏蔽的岛a片 草破福利 要看大鸡巴操小骚逼的人的视频 黑丝少妇影音先锋 欧美巨乳熟女磁力链接 美国黄网站色大全 伦蕉在线久播 极品女厕沟 激情五月bd韩国电影 混血美女自摸和男友激情啪啪自拍诱人呻吟福利视频 人人摸人人妻做人人看 44kknn 娸娸原网 伊人欧美 恋夜影院视频列表安卓青青 57k影院 如果电话亭 avi 插爆骚女精品自拍 青青草在线免费视频1769TV 令人惹火的邻家美眉 影音先锋 真人妹子被捅动态图 男人女人做完爱视频15 表姐合租两人共处一室晚上她竟爬上了我的床 性爱教学视频 北条麻妃bd在线播放版 国产老师和师生 magnet wwwcctv1024 女神自慰 ftp 女同性恋做激情视频 欧美大胆露阴视频 欧美无码影视 好女色在线观看 后入肥臀18p 百度影视屏福利 厕所超碰视频 强奸mp magnet 欧美妹aⅴ免费线上看 2016年妞干网视频 5手机在线福利 超在线最视频 800av:cOm magnet 欧美性爱免播放器在线播放 91大款肥汤的性感美乳90后邻家美眉趴着窗台后入啪啪 秋霞日本毛片网站 cheng ren 在线视频 上原亚衣肛门无码解禁影音先锋 美脚家庭教师在线播放 尤酷伦理片 熟女性生活视频在线观看 欧美av在线播放喷潮 194avav 凤凰AV成人 - 百度 kbb9999 AV片AV在线AV无码 爱爱视频高清免费观看 黄色男女操b视频 观看 18AV清纯视频在线播放平台 成人性爱视频久久操 女性真人生殖系统双性人视频 下身插入b射精视频 明星潜规测视频 mp4 免賛a片直播绪 国内 自己 偷拍 在线 国内真实偷拍 手机在线 国产主播户外勾在线 三桥杏奈高清无码迅雷下载 2五福电影院凸凹频频 男主拿鱼打女主,高宝宝 色哥午夜影院 川村まや痴汉 草溜影院费全过程免费 淫小弟影院在线视频 laohantuiche 啪啪啪喷潮XXOO视频 青娱乐成人国产 蓝沢润 一本道 亚洲青涩中文欧美 神马影院线理论 米娅卡莉法的av 在线福利65535 欧美粉色在线 欧美性受群交视频1在线播放 极品喷奶熟妇在线播放 变态另类无码福利影院92 天津小姐被偷拍 磁力下载 台湾三级电髟全部 丝袜美腿偷拍自拍 偷拍女生性行为图 妻子的乱伦 白虎少妇 肏婶骚屄 外国大妈会阴照片 美少女操屄图片 妹妹自慰11p 操老熟女的b 361美女人体 360电影院樱桃 爱色妹妹亚洲色图 性交卖淫姿势高清图片一级 欧美一黑对二白 大色网无毛一线天 射小妹网站 寂寞穴 西西人体模特苍井空 操的大白逼吧 骚穴让我操 拉好友干女朋友3p