Author Accepted Manuscript

The effectiveness of the loci method as a mnemonic device:

meta-analysis

Journal: Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Manuscript ID QJE-STD-20-176.R5

Manuscript Type: Standard Article

Date Submitted by the

12-Jan-2021
Author:
Pe
Complete List of Authors: Twomey, Conal; Health Service Executive,
Kroneisen, Meike; Universität Koblenz-Landau,

Keywords: meta-analysis, mnemonic, memory, loci

e rR
ev
iew
Ve
rsi
on

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
Page 1 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3
4 The effectiveness of the loci method as a mnemonic device: meta-
5
6
analysis
7
8
9
10 Conal Twomey1 & Meike Kroneisen2
11
12
13
14
15 1Health
16
Service Executive, Ireland
17
18 2University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany
Pe

19
20
21
22
er

23
24
25
Re

26
27
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr Conal Twomey, Clinical
28
vie

29
30 Psychologist, Health Service Executive, Adult Mental Health Services, Ballyfermot &
31
32 Palmerstown Primary Care & Mental Health Centre, Ballyfermot Road, Dublin 10, Ireland
w

33
34 Contact: conal.twomey@hse.ie
35
Ve

36
37
38
39
rsi

40
41
42
on

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
 Page 2 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 Abstract
4
5
6
7
8 The ‘loci method’ is a popular mnemonic device that involves visualising and recalling items
9
10 at specific points along a familiar route. The loci method has been used for thousands of
11
12
13
years, and by many successful memory athletes; yet there have been relatively few
14
15 educational and clinical applications, possibly owing to empirical uncertainty. The current
16
17 meta-analysis of 13 randomised controlled trials mostly based in university settings,
18
Pe

19
demonstrated the effectiveness of the loci method as a mnemonic device, with a medium
20
21
22 effect size (g = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.45–0.85; I2 = 45.5%). The effect size remained at similar
er

23
24 levels in further analyses adjusting for publication bias, the impact of removing each study,
25
Re

26 setting, control conditions, outliers, and number of loci method sessions. High risk of
27
28
experimental bias was indicated, however, as the vast majority of studies did not report
vie

29
30
31 procedures to minimise biases relating to random sequence generation and allocation
32
w

33 concealment. Overall, this meta-analysis of predominantly university-based RCTs has

34
35
provided good initial support for the loci method as mnemonic device and this may
Ve

36
37
38 encourage future investigations and applications, particularly in educational settings, where it
39
rsi

40 is has potential to improve recall of information relevant to academic success.

41
42
on

43
44
45 Keywords: meta-analysis, mnemonic, memory, loci
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

2
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
Page 3 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 Introduction
4
5
6 The ‘loci method’ (loci being Latin for ‘places’) is a popular mnemonic device that involves
7
8 visualising to-be-remembered items at specific points along a familiar route, and then
9
10 mentally retracing the visualised items - as they appear on the route - during recall (Maguire,
11
12
13
Valentine, Wilding, & Kapur, 2003). More specifically, five visualisation steps are involved
14
15 in the loci method: (1) imagining a familiar route/journey (e.g. a commute or a walk around
16
17 one’s house); (2) selecting several memorable landmarks on the route (e.g. particular
18
Pe

19
buildings, trees, or rooms); (3) creating imagery for each to-be-remembered item (e.g. a
20
21
22 person); (4) linking each item to one of the landmarks; (5) for recall, imagining the journey,
er

23
24 observing the items at each landmark along the route. It is thought that the loci method relies
25
Re

26 on navigation-based cognition, and findings from neuroimaging studies demonstrate an

27
28
association of loci method engagement with increased connectivity of visuospatial brain
vie

29
30
31 regions (Caplan, Legge, Cheng, & Madan, 2019; Dresler et al., 2017; Maguire et al., 2003);
32
w

33 however, the method also appears to incorporate general mnemonic devices such as effortful
34
35
attention, memory for emotion, organisation, linking, chunking, and elaboration (Bellezza &
Ve

36
37
38 Reddy, 1978; Caplan et al., 2019; Carney, Levin, & Levin, 1994; McCabe, 2015; Restorff,
39
rsi

40 1933; Ross & Lawrence, 1968).

41
42
on

43
44
45 The origins of the loci method – also referred to as the memory journey, the mental walk, and
46
47 the memory palace – can be traced to hunter-gatherer societies (Kelly, 2015); however, the
48
49 method is commonly attributed to the Greek poet Simonides of Ceos (556–468 BC) who (a)
50
51
52 identified the bodies of fellow banquet guests killed by a building collapse using his memory
53
54 of their seating allocations and (b) later formalised the loci method based on this experience
55
56 (Yates, 1966). The loci method has been continually used in virtually unchanged format for
57
58
59
thousands of years, demonstrating its longevity and utility (Maguire et al., 2003). In recent
60

3
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
 Page 4 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 years, the method has been extensively used by the world’s most successful memory athletes
4
5
6 who have regularly demonstrated the ability to memorise hundreds of abstract information
7
8 units within minutes (Dresler et al., 2017; Maguire et al., 2003). In a particularly striking
9
10 example, the loci method was employed by Lu Chao who recalled the mathematical constant
11
12
13
π to 67,890 decimal places - without error (Hu, Ericsson, Yang, & Lu, 2009; Raz et al.,
14
15 2009).
16
17
18
Pe

19
Aside from the above feats of memory, the loci method has frequently been used in
20
21
22 combination with other mnemonic devices in multi-faceted memory training programmes for
er

23
24 older adults and people with cognitive impairment (Gross et al., 2014; Gross et al., 2012;
25
Re

26 Hudes, Rich, Troyer, Yusupov, & Vandermorris, 2019; Verhaeghen, Marcoen, & Goossens,
27
28
1992; Wolgemuth, Cobb, & Alwell, 2008; Yang et al., 2018). However, there have been
vie

29
30
31 relatively few direct applications of the loci method within clinical and educational settings
32
w

33 (Dalgleish et al., 2013; McCabe, 2015). While age, cognitive functioning, health status and
34
35
other demographics may interfere with clinical applications of the loci method (Rebok et al.,
Ve

36
37
38 2013), these factors are unlikely to be as important in educational settings. It is therefore
39
rsi

40 puzzling that the loci method is not more widely used by students, especially since the
41
42
on

expected enhancement of information recall would likely aid exam performance (McCabe,
43
44
45 2015).
46
47
48
49 A potential reason for the few practical applications of the loci method relates to the lack of
50
51
52 high-quality studies directly investigating its effectiveness. Many observational and quasi-
53
54 experimental studies have been conducted across several decades – with generally favourable
55
56 results (Cornoldi & De Beni, 1991; Dresler et al., 2017; Groninger, 1971; Gross et al., 2012;
57
58
59
Lea, 1975; Maguire et al., 2003; McCabe, 2015; Ross & Lawrence, 1968), and a 1992 meta-
60

4
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
Page 5 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 analysis of 12 studies of varying design and quality supported the effectiveness of the loci
4
5
6 method for older adults, with a large effect size yielded for a within-groups pre-to-post
7
8 analysis (d = 0.80) (Verhaeghen et al., 1992). However, relatively few of the most rigouros
9
10 study design for evaluating intervention effectiveness - randomised controlled trials (RCTs) -
11
12
13
have been undertaken and findings from RCTs have yet to be synthesised through meta-
14
15 analysis. Accordingly, the current meta-analysis of RCTs investigates the effectiveness of
16
17 the loci method as a mnemonic device – with a view to encouraging the consideration of
18
Pe

19
future practical and research applications.
20
21
22
er

23
24
25
Re

26
27
28
vie

29
30
31
32
w

33
34
35
Ve

36
37
38
39
rsi

40
41
42
on

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

5
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
 Page 6 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 Methods
4
5
6
7
8 Eligibility criteria for study selection
9
10 Only peer-reviewed and published RCTs investigating the effectiveness of the loci method as
11
12
13
a mnemonic device were included. RCTs minimise error and bias, offering the most rigorous
14
15 method of determining whether a cause-effect relation exists between treatment and outcome
16
17 (Sibbald & Roland, 1998). Excluded were studies with different designs, RCTs investigating
18
Pe

19
other mnemonic devices, RCTs which examined the effectiveness of the loci method in
20
21
22 combination with other mnemonic devices, and RCTs with the loci method incorporated as
er

23
24 part of all control conditions. No limits were set according to study outcome, status, or
25
Re

26 language (studies not written in English were considered).

27
28
vie

29
30
31 Literature search and data extraction
32
w

33 Search terms relating to the loci method (i.e. loci method OR loci system OR journey* OR
34
35
palace) were combined with words relating to memory (i.e. memory* OR remember* OR
Ve

36
37
38 retrieval OR recall OR mnemo* OR mind) and RCTs (i.e. random* OR control* OR
39
rsi

40 experimental OR RCT). It is worth noting that the trialled search term ‘method of loci’ did
41
42
on

not return additional search results (owing to its similarity to the term ‘loci method’) and it
43
44
45 was therefore not included. PsycINFO, ERIC, MEDLINE, and Academic Search Premier
46
47 comprised the databases, last searched on 22/09/20. Additional records were identified
48
49 through hand-searching of reference lists of included studies. The first author screened all
50
51
52 abstracts and the second author independently screened 50% of abstracts. When we disagreed
53
54 regarding the screening outcome of an abstract, it was included in screening at
55
56 ‘full-text’ level, which was subsequently conducted by the first author. Data were managed
57
58
59
using EndNote X7 (Thomson Reuters Corp.,) and word processing software. Extracted data
60

6
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
Page 7 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 covered setting, participant characteristics, loci training, control conditions, outcome
4
5
6 measures, data collection timepoints, dropout, and risk of bias.
7
8
9
10 Statistical analysis
11
12
13
The meta-analysis was conducted using a ‘random effects’ model which assumes that the
14
15 variance in observed effects reflects both sampling variability and real differences resulting
16
17 from heterogeneity in study populations, follow-up length, and other factors (Riley, Higgins,
18
Pe

19
& Deeks, 2011). All statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
20
21
22 (version 2.0, Biostat Inc.). Pooled mean effect sizes (Hedges’ g) with 95% confidence
er

23
24 intervals (CI) were calculated; effect sizes of 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 refer to small, moderate and
25
Re

26 large effect sizes respectively (Cohen, 1988). All effect sizes were automatically calculated
27
28
using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis; means (and standard deviations) and sample sizes for
vie

29
30
31 the intervention and control groups comprised the requisite data for the automated effect size
32
w

33 calculations, and these data were independently extracted by the authors, before being cross-
34
35
checked. Higgin's I2 percentages interpreted the heterogeneity of effect sizes; scores of 25%,
Ve

36
37
38 50% and 75% indicate low, moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively (Higgins &
39
rsi

40 Thompson, 2002). Higgin’s I2 has less precision in relatively small meta-analysis such as the
41
42
on

current one; therefore, two additional heterogeneity statistics were calculated: Cochran’s Q
43
44
45 (Cochran, 1950) and τ2 (Higgins, 2008). The former provides a more conservative estimate
46
47 of heterogeneity based on statistical significance; the latter represents the among-study
48
49 variance of the true effect sizes. Data from the final post-intervention data collection point
50
51
52 were analysed, reflecting the practical need for mnemonic devices to be effective for a period
53
54 of time (Higbee, Clawson, Delano, & Campbell, 1990). This data was extracted and cross-
55
56 checked by the study’s two authors, with any discrepancies resolved through discussion. To
57
58
59
avoid double-counting (Senn, 2009), the effects of different intervention arms representing
60

7
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
 Page 8 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 the loci method included in a single study were averaged and entered once in the analysis;
4
5
6 similar averaging was conducted for certain outcomes (Table 1). Three publication bias
7
8 analyses were conducted: (1) the ‘Trim and Fill’ procedure which corrects for funnel plot
9
10 asymmetry (Duval & Tweedie, 2000); (2) the rank correlation test which examines the
11
12
13
associations of effect sizes with their corresponding sampling variances (Begg & Mazumdar,
14
15 1994); (3) Egger’s regression test which regresses standardised effect sizes on their precisions
16
17 and assumes that the regression intercept is zero in the absence of publication bias (Egger,
18
Pe

19
Davey Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997). Three sensitivity analyses were conducted: (1) a
20
21
22 one-study-removed analysis (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 2.0, Biostat Inc.)
er

23
24 computed pooled effect sizes when each study was removed from the meta-analysis,
25
Re

26 therefore illustrating the impact of each study on the primary pooled effect size; (2) a meta-
27
28
analysis wherein the only two studies with non-student samples were excluded; (3) a meta-
vie

29
30
31 analysis that removed outliers identified through visual inspection of the forest plot. Finally,
32
w

33 two-moderator analyses were conducted: (1) a comparison of pooled effect sizes from studies
34
35
with ‘active’ and ‘no instruction’ control conditions (a more nuanced control condition
Ve

36
37
38 comparison would have been at the expense of limited available statistical power); (2) a
39
rsi

40 meta-regression with the number of loci method training sessions as a predictor of the effect.
41
42
on

43
44
45 Risk of bias assessment
46
47 In line with previous meta-analyses conducted by the first author and colleagues (BLINDED
48
49 REFERENCES), three criteria from the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of
50
51
52 bias (Higgins & Green, 2011) were deployed: random sequence generation, allocation
53
54 concealment and completeness of outcome data. For random sequence generation, a low risk
55
56 of bias is present when a random component in the process of generating the order of
57
58
59
participant allocations to experimental or control conditions is reported (e.g. using a
60

8
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
Page 9 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 computerised random number generator); a high risk of bias is present when a non-random
4
5
6 component in the sequence generation process is reported (e.g. allocation by case record
7
8 number or date of birth). For allocation concealment, a low risk of bias is present when the
9
10 assignment of participants or experimental and control conditions cannot be foreseen by
11
12
13
researchers (e.g. using sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes); a high risk of bias
14
15 is present when researchers can foresee and possibly influence the allocation of participants,
16
17 indicating a selection bias. For completeness of outcome data, the risk of bias is related to the
18
Pe

19
% of missing data (<20% is considered a low risk in RCTs with a short-term follow up) and
20
21
22 whether or not this is related to the outcome, and balanced across experimental conditions.
er

23
24 When procedures in relation to minimising the above potential biases are not reported in the
25
Re

26 published manuscript of a given study, the risk level can be adjudged “unclear”; however, a
27
28
high risk of bias is also commonly adjudged in these cases, to promote greater caution in
vie

29
30
31 relation to the interpretation of findings (Twomey, O'Reilly, Bultmann, & Meyer, 2020). The
32
w

33 latter stance was taken in the current study: if procedures to minimise a bias were not
34
35
reported in a study’s manuscript, a high risk of bias was marked. Separate risk of bias
Ve

36
37
38 assessments were conducted by this study’s authors; discrepancies were discussed and
39
rsi

40 resolved.
41
42
on

43
44
45
46
47 Results
48
49 Study selection and characteristics
50
51
52 1,326 records were screened and 16 studies were selected for review, with both authors
53
54 agreeing that 82.3% of independently screened abstracts should be subsequently examined at
55
56 ‘full-text’ level (note that all of the disputed selections – the 17.7% remaining abstracts -
57
58
59
were also subsequently examined at ‘full-text’ level). However, only 13 studies could be
60

9
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
 Page 10 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 included in the meta-analysis because requisite data were unavailable for 3 reviewed studies,
4
5
6 and their authors who were subsequently contacted could not provide it (Figure 1). It is also
7
8 worth noting here that the requisite data for one study was provided by that study’s lead
9
10 author (Kroneisen & Makerud, 2017). Table 1 outlines the characteristics of the selected
11
12
13
studies (Bass & Oswald, 2014; Bellezza & Reddy, 1978; Crovitz, 1971; Dalgleish et al.,
14
15 2013; De Beni, Mò, & Cornoldi, 1997; Engvig et al., 2010; Hill, Allen, & McWhorter, 1991;
16
17 Kroneisen & Makerud, 2017; Legge, Madan, Ng, & Caplan, 2012; Massen & Vaterrodt-
18
Pe

19
Plunnecke, 2006; Qureshi, Rizvi, Syed, Shahid, & Manzoor, 2014; Weinstein et al., 1981).
20
21
22 Publication dates ranged from 1971 – 2016, the majority of studies were set in United States
er

23
24 or European universities, and there were a variety of recruitment procedures. Sample sizes
25
Re

26 ranged from 34-142 (combined N=1244), the majority of studies had mostly female
27
28
participants, and mean ages ranged from 19-70. Simple instructions were used for loci
vie

29
30
31 method training in most studies, though training sessions (of varying number) were also
32
w

33 provided in some studies. Word recall comprised the relevant outcome in all-but-two studies;
34
35
outcomes were mostly assessed on the same day as the RCT experiment. Dropout was zero in
Ve

36
37
38 all-but-two studies: (1) a community-based study with a two week follow-up period: 16% of
39
rsi

40 loci method participants dropped out (Dalgleish et al., 2013); (2) another community-based
41
42
on

study with a 9 week follow-up period: 9% of controls dropped out (Engvig et al., 2010) .
43
44
45 Finally, as indicated in Table 1, risk of bias studies was high: although dropout was
46
47 invariably minimal, the vast majority of studies did not document procedures to minimise
48
49 biases relating to random sequence generation and allocation concealment. It is worth noting
50
51
52 that, based on independent evaluations, the authors agreed on 46 out of the 48 risk of bias
53
54 ratings across the 16 studies (95.8% agreement rate), and upon further discussion they agreed
55
56 upon the final two ratings.
57
58
59
60

10
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
Page 11 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 Inter-rater agreement levels for data used for effect size calculations
4
5
6 Independent extraction of the data required for Comprehensive Meta-Analysis effect size
7
8 calculations had the following inter-rater agreement levels: intervention means = 100%;
9
10 intervention standard deviations = 100%; intervention sample sizes = 92.3%; control means =
11
12
13
100.0%; control standard deviations = 100%; control sample sizes = 100%. The one
14
15 discrepancy in intervention sample sizes was resolved through subsequent author discussion.
16
17
18
Pe

19
The effectiveness of the loci method as a mnemonic device
20
21
22 As per the forest plot (Figure 2), comparisons from 13 studies demonstrated the effectiveness
er

23
24 of the loci method as a mnemonic device, with a medium effect size (g = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.45–
25
Re

26 0.85) and moderate heterogeneity that was statistically significant (I2 = 45.5%; τ2 = 0.06, SE =
27
28
0.056; Cochrane’s Q = 22.03; p < 0.05). Publication bias was indicated by asymmetry in the
vie

29
30
31 funnel plot (Figure 3), a moderate correlation in the rank correlation test (τ = 0.34; p < 0.05)
32
w

33 and a significant Egger’s regression intercept (B0 = 3.73, p < 0.05). The publication bias was
34
35
handled using the ‘Trim and Fill’ procedure (Duval & Tweedie, 2000) which resulted in a
Ve

36
37
38 slight reduction in the effect size (g = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.31–0.78). The results from the one-
39
rsi

40 study-removed analysis are displayed in Figure 4; adjusted pooled effect sizes remained in
41
42
on

the medium range (ranging from 0.58 to 0.69), indicating that the overall pooled effect size is
43
44
45 only minimally impacted upon by the removal of any individual study. The sole inclusion of
46
47 university-based studies in the meta-analysis also produced a medium effect size (g = 0.64,
48
49 95% CI: 0.39–0.90). When two outliers identified in the forest plot (the first study from
50
51
52 Kroneisen & Makerud, 2017 and the final study from de Beni et al., 1997) were removed the
53
54 effect size decreased slightly but remained in the medium range (g = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38–
55
56 0.68) and heterogeneity was eliminated (I2 = 0%; τ2 = 0.00, SE = 0.030; Cochrane’s Q = 8.92;
57
58
59
p > 0.05). Although moderator analyses were restricted by the relatively small number of
60

11
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
 Page 12 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 included studies, it is worth noting that the 9 studies with ‘active’ control conditions
4
5
6 produced a slightly (and non-significantly) larger effect size (g = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.42–0.97;
7
8 I2 = 49.5%) than the 4 studies with ‘no instruction’ control conditions (g = 0. 58; 95% CI =
9
10 0.26–0.91; I2 = 47.9%). The meta-regression indicated that the number of loci method
11
12
13
training sessions was not a significant predictor of the effect size (Q = 1.34; p > 0.05).
14
15
16
17 Discussion
18
Pe

19
This meta-analysis of 13 RCTs demonstrated the effectiveness of the loci method as a
20
21
22 mnemonic device, with a medium effect size (g = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.45–0.85) that remained at
er

23
24 similar levels in further analyses adjusting for publication bias, the impact of removing each
25
Re

26 study, setting, outliers, control conditions, and number of loci method sessions. Interpretive
27
28
caution is warranted, as the findings are based on relatively small number of predominantly
vie

29
30
31 university-based studies. It is worth noting that in the sensitivity analysis that adjusted for
32
w

33 (two) outliers with very large effect sizes, the effect size remained in the medium range and
34
35
(previously moderate) heterogeneity was eliminated; the reasons for the very large effect
Ve

36
37
38 sizes in the outliers are unclear as several of their characteristics - sample sizes,
39
rsi

40 demographics, cognitive ability levels, loci training conditions, follow up periods, control
41
42
on

conditions, and risk of bias levels - are similar to the other studies; moreover, the larger effect
43
44
45 sizes could merely be a consequence of sampling error.
46
47
48
49 In other reasons for interpretative caution, most reviewed RCTs had a ‘same-day’ follow up,
50
51
52 which limits the generalisability of the findings, and is incongruent with the practical need for
53
54 mnemonic devices to be effective for a period of time (Higbee et al., 1990). Furthermore, a a
55
56 cumulative picture of high risk of bias was indicated across the included studies and this
57
58
59
should be taken into account. More specifically, while there was good completeness of data
60

12
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
Page 13 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 across all of the included studies, the vast majority of studies did not report procedures to
4
5
6 minimise biases relating to random sequence generation and allocation concealment. For all
7
8 studies, therefore, there is a considerable risk that the order in which participants were
9
10 allocated to loci and control conditions may have been influenced by non-random
11
12
13
methodological procedures, limiting the validity of the findings. It is worth noting, however,
14
15 that the risk of bias was predominantly adjudged to be high due to the absence of reported
16
17 safeguarding measures, rather than the reporting of inappropriate experimental procedures.
18
Pe

19
20
21
22 The yielded support for the loci method is in line with findings from a 1992 meta-analysis of
er

23
24 studies of varying design supporting the effectiveness of the loci method for older adults,
25
Re

26 with a large effect size yielded for a within-groups pre-to-post analysis (d = 0.80)
27
28
(Verhaeghen et al., 1992). The slightly lower effect size in the current study may be
vie

29
30
31 attributable to its sole inclusion of RCTs – which provide a more stringent examination of
32
w

33 cause-and-effect relaitonships (Sibbald & Roland, 1998) – and its focus on a between-groups
34
35
analysis that directly compared the loci method with control conditions. The yielded support
Ve

36
37
38 for the loci method is also in line with its documented use in feats of memory (Dresler et al.,
39
rsi

40 2017; Hu et al., 2009; Maguire et al., 2003; Raz et al., 2009), findings from meta-analyses
41
42
on

demonstrating the effectiveness of heterogeneous mnemonic devices for older adults (Gross
43
44
45 et al., 2012; Hudes et al., 2019; Verhaeghen et al., 1992) and people with cognitive disorders
46
47 (Yang et al., 2018), and findings from a systematic review supporting the effectiveness of
48
49 heterogeneous mnemonic devices for youth with learning disabilities (Wolgemuth et al.,
50
51
52 2008). What sets the current meta-analysis apart from these previous reviews is its sole
53
54 inclusion of RCTs, its direct focus on the loci method which offers greater precision, and –
55
56 owing to the sample compositions of included studies – the ability to generalise the findings
57
58
59
60

13
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
 Page 14 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 to university settings, to those in younger adulthood, and to those without significant
4
5
6 cognitive impairments.
7
8
9
10 The support for the loci method as mnemonic device could be used to justify practical
11
12
13
applications, particularly in educational settings where it is arguably under-used given its
14
15 potential to improve recall of information relevant to exam performance and academic
16
17 success (McCabe, 2015). Barriers such as the lack of awareness of mnemonic devices among
18
Pe

19
students (McCabe, Osha, Roche, & Susser, 2013) and the considerable effort involved in
20
21
22 mastering the loci method (Gross et al., 2014), would also need to be overcome for
er

23
24 widespread educational use. The findings offer less support for the clinical application of the
25
Re

26 loci method, as only one included study had a clinical sample: individuals with depression
27
28
(Dalgleish et al., 2013). However, the justification of the loci method’s use in this study - to
vie

29
30
31 construct an accessible mental repository for positive, self-affirming memories in order to
32
w

33 counteract downturns in negative affect – is intriguing and worthy of future investigation.

34
35
Similarly, only one included study had a sample consisting solely of older adults (Hill et al.,
Ve

36
37
38 1991), and this should be addressed in future research.
39
rsi

40
41
42
on

Given the longevity of the loci method in popular culture (Maguire et al., 2003), it is
43
44
45 surprising that relatively few studies were identified in this paper’s systematic literature
46
47 research, and furthermore, that the review did not identify more RCTs with a low risk of bias.
48
49 Although there exist several quasi-experimental and observational investigations of the loci
50
51
52 method (Cornoldi & De Beni, 1991; Dresler et al., 2017; Groninger, 1971; Gross et al., 2012;
53
54 Lea, 1975; Maguire et al., 2003; McCabe, 2015; Ross & Lawrence, 1968), there is a pressing
55
56 need for more methodologically rigorous RCTs. Such RCTs would particularly benefit from
57
58
59
longer follow-up periods: as mentioned above most reviewed RCTs had a ‘same-day’ follow
60

14
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
Page 15 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 up period. It was beyond the scope of the current meta-analysis to investigate the loci
4
5
6 method’s potential mechanisms of action (e.g. visuospatial mechanisms). A systematic
7
8 review of these mechanisms would be useful, and it appears that many relevant studies are
9
10 available for review (Bellezza & Reddy, 1978; Caplan et al., 2019; Carney et al., 1994;
11
12
13
Dresler et al., 2017; Maguire et al., 2003; McCabe, 2015; Restorff, 1933; Ross & Lawrence,
14
15 1968).
16
17
18
Pe

19
In conclusion, this meta-analysis of a relatively small number of predominantly university-
20
21
22 based RCTs has provided good initial support for the loci method as mnemonic device and
er

23
24 this may encourage future investigations and practical applications, particularly in
25
Re

26 educational settings. The loci method appears to have been useful to humans since hunter-
27
28
gather times (Kelly, 2015), yet there is still much to be explored and learned for its utility to
vie

29
30
31 be maximised in today’s society.
32
w

33
34
35
Ve

36
37
38
39
rsi

40
41
42
on

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

15
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
 Page 16 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 Acknowledgments
4
5
6 None.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
14
15 The second author was also an author of two of the studies (within one paper) included in this
16
17 meta-analysis.
18
Pe

19
20
21
22 Supplementary Material
er

23
24 The Supplementary Material is available at: qjep.sagepub.com
25
Re

26
27
28
vie

29
30
31
32
w

33
34
35
Ve

36
37
38
39
rsi

40
41
42
on

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

16
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
Page 17 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 References
4
5
6 Bass, W. S., & Oswald, K. M. (2014). Proactive control of proactive interference using the
7 method of loci. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 49-58. doi:
8 http://dx.doi.org/10.5709/acp-0156-3
9 Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test
10 for Publication Bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088-1101. doi: 10.2307/2533446
11
Bellezza, F. S., & Reddy, B. G. (1978). Mnemonic devices and natural memory. Bulletin of
12
13
the Psychonomic Society, 11(5), 277-280. doi: 10.3758/BF03336829
14 Caplan, J. B., Legge, E. L., Cheng, B., & Madan, C. R. (2019). Effectiveness of the method
15 of loci is only minimally related to factors that should influence imagined navigation.
16 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(10), 2541-2553. doi:
17 10.1177/1747021819858041
18 Carney, R. N., Levin, J. R., & Levin, M. E. (1994). Enhancing the psychology of memory by
Pe

19
enhancing memory of psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 21(3), 171-174. doi:
20
21 10.1207/s15328023top2103_12
22 Cochran, W. G. (1950). The Comparison of Percentages in Matched Samples. Biometrika,
er

23 37(3/4), 256-266. doi: 10.2307/2332378

24 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). New York:
25 Academic Press.
Re

26 Cornoldi, C., & De Beni, R. (1991). Memory for discourse: Loci mnemonics and the oral
27
28
presentation effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(6), 511-518. doi:
10.1002/acp.2350050606
vie

29
30 Crovitz, H. F. (1971). The capacity of memory loci in artificial memory. Psychonomic
31 Science, 24(4), 187-188. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03335561
32 Dalgleish, T., Navrady, L., Bird, E., Hill, E., Dunn, B. D., & Golden, A.-M. (2013). Method-
w

33 of-Loci as a Mnemonic Device to Facilitate Access to Self-Affirming Personal

34
Memories for Individuals With Depression. Clinical Psychological Science, 1(2),
35
156-162. doi: 10.1177/2167702612468111
Ve

36
37 De Beni, R., Mò, A., & Cornoldi, C. (1997). Learning from texts or lectures: Loci mnemonics
38 can interfere with reading but not with listening. European Journal of Cognitive
39 Psychology, 9(4), 401-415. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713752565
rsi

40 Dresler, M., Shirer, W. R., Konrad, B. N., Müller, N. C. J., Wagner, I. C., Fernández, G., . . .
41 Greicius, M. D. (2017). Mnemonic Training Reshapes Brain Networks to Support
42
on

Superior Memory. Neuron, 93(5), 1227-1235.e1226. doi:

43
44 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.02.003
45 Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel-Plot–Based Method of
46 Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455-
47 463. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
48 Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis
49 detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315. doi:
50
51
10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
52 Engvig, A., Fjell, A. M., Westlye, L. T., Moberget, T., Sundseth, Ø., Larsen, V. A., &
53 Walhovd, K. B. (2010). Effects of memory training on cortical thickness in the
54 elderly. NeuroImage, 52(4), 1667-1676. doi:
55 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.041
56 Groninger, L. D. (1971). Mnemonic imagery and forgetting. Psychonomic Science, 23(2),
57
161-163. doi: 10.3758/BF03336056
58
59
Gross, A. L., Brandt, J., Bandeen-Roche, K., Carlson, M. C., Stuart, E. A., Marsiske, M., &
60 Rebok, G. W. (2014). Do older adults use the method of loci? Results from the

17
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
 Page 18 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 ACTIVE study. Experimental Aging Research, 40(2), 140-163. doi:
4
5
10.1080/0361073x.2014.882204
6 Gross, A. L., Parisi, J. M., Spira, A. P., Kueider, A. M., Ko, J. Y., Saczynski, J. S., . . .
7 Rebok, G. W. (2012). Memory training interventions for older adults: a meta-analysis.
8 Aging and Mental Health, 16(6), 722-734. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2012.667783
9 Higbee, K. L., Clawson, C., Delano, L., & Campbell, S. (1990). Using The Link Mnemonic
10 to Remember Errands. The Psychological Record, 40(3), 429-436. doi:
11
10.1007/BF03399551
12
13
Higgins, J. (2008). Commentary: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and
14 appropriately quantified. International Journal of Epidemiology, 37(5), 1158-1160.
15 doi: 10.1093/ije/dyn204
16 Higgins, J., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
17 Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011].
18 Higgins, J., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.
Pe

19
Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539-1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186
20
21 Hill, R. D., Allen, C., & McWhorter, P. (1991). Stories as a mnemonic aid for older learners.
22 Psychology and Aging, 6(3), 484-486. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.6.3.484
er

23 Hu, Y., Ericsson, K. A., Yang, D., & Lu, C. (2009). Superior self-paced memorization of
24 digits in spite of a normal digit span: the structure of a memorist's skill. J Exp Psychol
25 Learn Mem Cogn, 35(6), 1426-1442. doi: 10.1037/a0017395
Re

26 Hudes, R., Rich, J. B., Troyer, A. K., Yusupov, I., & Vandermorris, S. (2019). The impact of
27
28
memory-strategy training interventions on participant-reported outcomes in healthy
older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 34(4),
vie

29
30 587-597. doi: 10.1037/pag0000340
31 Kelly, L. (2015). Knowledge and Power in Prehistoric Societies. UK: Cambridge University
32 Press
w

33 Kroneisen, M., & Makerud, S. E. (2017). The effects of item material on encoding strategies:
34
Survival processing compared to the method of loci. The Quarterly journal of
35
experimental psychology, 70(9), 1824-1836. doi:
Ve

36
37 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1209533
38 Lea, G. (1975). Chronometric analysis of the method of loci. Journal of Experimental
39 Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(2), 95-104. doi: 10.1037/0096-
rsi

40 1523.1.2.95
41 Legge, E. L. G., Madan, C. R., Ng, E. T., & Caplan, J. B. (2012). Building a memory palace
42
on

in minutes: Equivalent memory performance using virtual versus conventional

43
44 environments with the Method of Loci. Acta Psychol (Amst), 141(3), 380-390. doi:
45 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.09.002
46 Maguire, E. A., Valentine, E. R., Wilding, J. M., & Kapur, N. (2003). Routes to
47 remembering: the brains behind superior memory. Nat Neurosci, 6(1), 90-95. doi:
48 10.1038/nn988
49 Massen, C., & Vaterrodt-Plunnecke, B. (2006). The role of proactive interference in
50
51
mnemonic techniques. Memory, 14(2), 189-196. doi: 10.1080/09658210544000042
52 McCabe, J. A. (2015). Location, Location, Location! Demonstrating the Mnemonic Benefit
53 of the Method of Loci. Teaching of Psychology, 42(2), 169-173. doi:
54 10.1177/0098628315573143
55 McCabe, J. A., Osha, K. L., Roche, J. A., & Susser, J. A. (2013). Psychology students’
56 knowledge and use of mnemonics. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3), 183-192. doi:
57
10.1177/0098628313487460
58
59
Qureshi, A., Rizvi, F., Syed, A., Shahid, A., & Manzoor, H. (2014). The method of loci as a
60 mnemonic device to facilitate learning in endocrinology leads to improvement in

18
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
Page 19 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 student performance as measured by assessments. Advances in physiology education,
4
5
38(2), 140-144. doi: 10.1152/advan.00092.2013
6 Raz, A., Packard, M. G., Alexander, G. M., Buhle, J. T., Zhu, H., Yu, S., & Peterson, B. S.
7 (2009). A slice of pi : an exploratory neuroimaging study of digit encoding and
8 retrieval in a superior memorist. Neurocase, 15(5), 361-372. doi:
9 10.1080/13554790902776896
10 Rebok, G. W., Langbaum, J. B. S., Jones, R. N., Gross, A. L., Parisi, J. M., Spira, A. P., . . .
11
Brandt, J. (2013). Memory training in the ACTIVE study: how much is needed and
12
13
who benefits? Journal of Aging and Health, 25(8 Suppl), 21S-42S. doi:
14 10.1177/0898264312461937
15 Restorff, H. V. (1933). Ueber die Wirkung von Bereichsbildungen im Spurenfeld. Analyse
16 von Vorgängen im Spurenfeld. I. Von W. Köhler und H. v. Restorff. [On the effect of
17 field formations in the trace field. Analysis of processes in the trace field. I. By W.
18 Kohler and H. v. Restorff.]. Psychologische Forschung, 18, 299-342. doi:
Pe

19
10.1007/BF02409636
20
21 Riley, R. D., Higgins, J. P. T., & Deeks, J. J. (2011). Interpretation of random effects meta-
22 analyses. Bmj, 342, d549. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d549
er

23 Ross, J., & Lawrence, K. A. (1968). Some observations on memory artifice. Psychonomic
24 Science, 13(2), 107-108. doi: 10.3758/BF03342433
25 Senn, S. J. (2009). Overstating the evidence – double counting in meta-analysis and related
Re

26 problems. BMC medical research methodology, 9(1), 1-7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-

27
28
10
Sibbald, B., & Roland, M. (1998). Understanding controlled trials: Why are randomised
vie

29
30 controlled trials important? Bmj, 316(7126), 201. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7126.201
31 Twomey, C., O'Reilly, G., Bultmann, O., & Meyer, B. (2020). Effectiveness of a tailored,
32 integrative Internet intervention (deprexis) for depression: Updated meta-analysis.
w

33 15(1), e0228100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228100

34
Verhaeghen, P., Marcoen, A., & Goossens, L. (1992). Improving memory performance in the
35
aged through mnemonic training: A meta-analytic study. Psychology and Aging, 7(2),
Ve

36
37 242-251. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.7.2.242
38 Weinstein, C. E., Cubberly, W. E., Wicker, F. W., Underwood, V. L., Roney, L. K., & Duty,
39 D. C. (1981). Training versus instruction in the acquisition of cognitive learning
rsi

40 strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6(2), 159-166. doi:

41 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(81)90045-X
42
on

Wolgemuth, J. R., Cobb, R. B., & Alwell, M. (2008). The Effects of Mnemonic Interventions
43
44 on Academic Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities: A Systematic Review. Learning
45 Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(1), 1-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
46 5826.2007.00258.x
47 Yang, H. L., Chan, P. T., Chang, P. C., Chiu, H. L., Sheen Hsiao, S. T., Chu, H., & Chou, K.
48 R. (2018). Memory-focused interventions for people with cognitive disorders: A
49 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. International
50
51
Journal of Nursing Studies, 78, 44-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.08.005
52 Yates, F. (1966). The Art of Memory. London, UK: Pimlico.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

19
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
 Page 20 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3 Figure Captions
4
5
6
7
8 Figure 1: Literature search flow
9
10
11
12 Figure 2: Meta-analysis forest plot: effectiveness of the loci method as a mnemonic device
13
14
15
16 Figure 3: Funnel plot and ‘fill and trim’ method. High asymmetry indicates publication bias;
17
18
in this plot there is some asymmetry. In the ‘trim and fill’ method, the shaded dots represent
Pe

19
20
21 the imputed studies, and the shaded diamond represents the adjusted effect size
22
er

23
24
25 Figure 4: Meta-analysis forest plot for one-study removed analysis
Re

26
27
28
vie

29
30
31
32
w

33
34
35
Ve

36
37
38
39
rsi

40
41
42
on

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

20
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
Page 21 of 25

Author Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3
4
5
6 Records identified through database Additional records (k=7)
7 searching (k=1319)
8
9
10
11
12 Records after duplicates removed
13 (k=1326)
14
15
16
17
18
Pe

19 Records screened (k=1321)

20
21
22
er

23 Full-text papers excluded (k=39):

24 Full-text papers assessed for Incorrect study design (k=16); not
25 eligibility (k=51) published in peer-reviewed journal
Re

26 (k=9); loci method examined in

27 conjunction with other mnemonic
28 devices (k=6); loci method included
vie

29 in all control groups (k=4); loci

30 method not examined (k=3);
31 presented same data in another
32 already included paper (k=1).
w

33
34
35 Studies included (k=16; from 12
Ve

36 manuscripts*):
37
38 *One manuscript contained two
additional RCTs; another two
39
rsi

manuscripts contained an
40
additional RCT each (Table 1).
41
42
on

43
44
45 Studies included for meta-analysis
46 (k=13)*:
47
48 *Three studies were excluded
49 because the requisite data were
50 not provided in the manuscript,
51 and the corresponding author
could not provide another record
52
of this data (Table 1).
53
54
55 Figure 1: Literature search flow
56
57
58
59
60

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
 Page 22 of 25

1
Author Accepted Manuscript
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Pe
18
19
20
e

21
rR
22
23
24
25
ev

26
27
28 Figure 2: Meta-analysis forest plot: effectiveness of the loci method as a mnemonic device
iew

29
429x280mm (96 x 96 DPI)
30
31
32
33
Ve

34
35
36
rsi

37
38
39
on

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
Page 23 of 25

1
Author Accepted Manuscript
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Pe
18
19
20
e

21
rR
22
23
24
25
ev

26
27
28 Figure 3: Funnel plot and ‘fill and trim’ method. High asymmetry indicates publication bias; in this plot there
iew

29 is some asymmetry. In the ‘trim and fill’ method, the shaded dots represent the imputed studies, and the
shaded diamond represents the adjusted effect size
30
31 429x280mm (96 x 96 DPI)
32
33
Ve

34
35
36
rsi

37
38
39
on

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
 Page 24 of 25

1
Author Accepted Manuscript
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Pe
18
19
20
e

21
rR
22
23
24
25
ev

26
27
28 Figure 4: Meta-analysis forest plot for one-study removed analysis
iew

29
429x280mm (96 x 96 DPI)
30
31
32
33
Ve

34
35
36
rsi

37
38
39
on

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
Page 25 of 25

1
2
3
Table 1. Study characteristics
4 Study Setting Participants Recruitment N %f M Age Loci method Control Outcome Final PI Dropout (%)1 Quality
5 (country) procedure (SD) training time Loci Ctrl R A C
6 Bass & Oswald University Students Online and 94 64 19.0 Instructions No Word Same 0 0 - - +
7 (2014) (USA) course credit (1.2) and video instructions recall day
8 Bellezza & Reddy University Students Course credit 72 NS NS Instructions Visualisation Word Same 0 0 - - +
2

9 (1978) (USA) recall day

Pe
Crovitz (1971)2 University Students Course 70 NS NS Instructions No Word Same 0 0 - - +
10
(USA) requirement instructions recall day
11

er
Dalgleish et al. Community Individuals with Newspaper and 42 64 45.6 Instructions Chunking and Memory Two 16 0 + - +
12
(2013)3 (UK) depression health centre ads (10.7) and practice rehearsal recall weeks
13De Beni et al. (1997) University Students NS 125 50 NS Three training Rehearsal Word One 0 0 - - +

Re
1412 (Italy) sessions recall week
15De Beni et al. (1997) University Students NS 34 82 20.0 Three training Rehearsal Word One 0 0 - - +
1624

vie
(Italy) (NS) sessions recall week
17De Beni et al. (1997) University Students NS 32 NS 20.0 Four training Rehearsal Word Two 0 0 - - +
1833,4 (Italy) (NS) sessions recall weeks

w
19Engvig et al. (2010) Community Middle-aged and Newspaper ad 45 51 60.8 Eight week No Source Nine 0 9 - - +
20 (Norway) older adults and interview (9.3) programme instructions memory weeks

Ve
21Hill et al. (1991)3 Community Adults over the Newspaper and 71 61 70.4 Instructions Location Word Three 0 0 - - +
22 (USA) age of 60 TV ads (6.2) memory tips recall days
23Kroneisen & University Students Course credit 48 93 20.3 Instructions Visualisation Word Same 0 0 - - +

rsi
24Makerud (2017) 15 (Germany) (1.9) recall day
25Kroneisen & University Students Course credit 52 81 21.0 Instructions Visualisation Word Same 0 0 - - +

on
26Makerud (2017) 26 (Germany) (3.3) recall day
27Legge et al. (2012) University Students Online and 142 62 19.1 Instructions No Word Same 0 0 - - +
7

28 (USA) course credit (1.6) and practice instructions recall day

29Massen & Vaterrodt- University Students and NS 132 38 NS Instructions Rehearsal Word Same 0 0 - - +
30 Plunnecke (2006) 1 8 (Germany) unspecified others recall day
31Massen & Vaterrodt-8 University Students and NS 108 64 NS Instructions Rehearsal Word Same 0 0 - - +
32 Plunnecke (2006) 2 (Germany) unspecified others and practice recall day
Qureshi et al. (2013) University Students Part of class 78 NS NS Four training Worksheets MCQ Same 0 0 - - +
33
(Pakistan) sessions Test day
34
Weinstein et al. University Students Course 100 NS NS Instructions or No Word Same 0 0 - - +
35
(1981)9 (USA) requirement practice instructions recall day
36
Notes: 1Dropout (%) from study at post-intervention; 2This study was subsequently excluded from the meta-analysis because the requisite data were not provided in the manuscript, and the corresponding
37
author did not provide another record of this data; 3Data from the final post-intervention data collection point were analysed; 4Word recall scores for both written text and orally presented stimuli were
38
averaged in analysis. 5Word recall scores for both low and high ‘imageability’ stimuli were averaged in analysis. 6Word recall scores for four ‘imageability’/‘survival’ scenarios were averaged in analysis.
739
Word recall scores (from the ‘lenient scoring’ category) for two loci conditions were averaged in analysis. 8Word recall scores (across three lists) for two loci conditions and two rehearsal conditions were
40
averaged in analysis. 9Word recall scores for four loci conditions were averaged in analysis. Abbreviations: %f= % female; Ctr = Control; M=Mean; MCQ = Multiple Choice Questionnaire; NS = Not
41
stated in paper; PI= post-intervention data collection point; SD= standard deviation. Quality: A= allocation concealment; C= completeness of data; R= random sequence generation. +/- = procedure to
42
minimize bias reported/ not reported. In the case of ‘completeness of data’, data were considered complete if no dropouts were present or if appropriate statistical procedures accounted for missing data.
43 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
44 DOI: 10.11771747021821993457
45
46