Moe Stressing The Efficacy of The Loci Method

APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 19: 95–106 (2005)

Published online 16 September 2004 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/acp.1051
Stressing the Efficacy of the Loci Method: Oral

Presentation and the Subject-generation of the
Loci Pathway with Expository Passages
ANGELICA MOÈ and ROSSANA DE BENI*

University of Padua, Italy
SUMMARY
Results from previous research show that the Loci method is more effective in studying passages
presented in an oral rather than a written modality (oral presentation effect), whilst a verbal strategy,
such as Rehearsal, is more effective in the case of a written presentation modality. The present
research tests some boundary conditions of the oral presentation effect. It is hypothesized to be
stronger in the most classical conditions i.e. with subject-generated Loci pathways because of the
greater involvement of imagery and with an expository passage. A written presentation effect is
hypothesized for the verbal Rehearsal control group. Ninety subjects, divided into subject-generated
Loci pathway, experimenter-supplied Loci pathway and verbal Rehearsal groups were presented three
different passages (narrative, descriptive, expository) either orally or written on a computer screen.
Results shows that the oral presentation effect is stronger for (a) the subject-generated Loci pathway
group and, (b) the expository passage. A written presentation effect is confirmed for the verbal
Rehearsal group whatever type of passage is used. Furthermore, modality of presentation effects are
greater for the expository passage. Results are discussed in a selective interference framework and a
few practical implications are suggested. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The Loci method is one of the oldest mnemonic strategies. It dates back to before the use
of writing and was applied to great effect by the ancient Greek and Roman orators, such as
Cicero, when preparing long public orations (for a history of mnemonics see Yates, 1966).
Application of the Loci method involves (1) selecting and memorizing a series of distinct
loci along a familiar pathway; (2) creating an image for each item to be remembered, or if
applied to passages, for each cue-word correspondent to a concept and (3) placing images
of the items in the selected loci. In the recall phase, the images to be transformed into
corresponding verbal items are found when mentally retracing the Loci pathway. When
using the Loci method, subjects must imagine twice. First, they have to adequately
visualize the Loci pathway. Then they have to imagine the items or cue-words and place
them in the selected loci. The images are different according to the material to be studied,
while the Loci pathway is always the same. The most effective Loci pathways should have
a number of characteristics. They should be circular to impede the occurrence of serial
*Correspondence to: Professor Rossana De Beni, Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Via
Venezia, 8, 35131 Padua, Italy. E-mail: rossana.debeni@unipd.it
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

96 A. Moè and R. De Beni
position effects (De Beni & Cornoldi, 1985), each locus should be
well-illuminated, at a similar distance from one another and be of comparable size.
More images can be placed in the same locus since there is no evidence of proactive
interference occurring (De Beni & Cornoldi, 1988).
The efficacy of the Loci method with word-lists has been widely demonstrated
(Bellezza, 1996; De Beni, 1984; Higbee, 1988) however little research has been carried
out using passages and results are less clear (Cornoldi & De Beni, 1991; De Beni, 1988;
De Beni & Moè, 2000; De Beni, Moè, & Cornoldi, 1997; Krebs, Snowman, & Stanley,
1978; Snowman, Krebs, & Lockhart, 1980). Cornoldi and De Beni (1991) found
presentation modality to be a critical variable. People using the Loci method are at an
advantage when the material to be remembered is presented orally rather than in a written
format. This has been defined as the ‘oral presentation effect’ i.e. in the case of an oral
presentation there is no selective visual interference between listening and imagining
(Brooks, 1967, 1968). However interference is seen to occur in the case of concurrent
presentation of reading material and the imagining process required by the Loci pathway
method (De Beni et al., 1997).
The oral presentation effect therefore seems to be linked to a more effective use of
images during listening, that is then reflected in memory performance. Baddeley and
Lieberman (1980) and Logie (1986) found that a concurrent visual task disrupts the
performance of subjects using the Loci method (based on visual and spatial cues) more
than that of subjects using the Peg system (based only on visual cues). Furthermore,
unexpected visual material disrupts the memory performance of subjects using an
imagery-based strategy and unexpected speech disrupts subjects using verbal Rehearsal.
More recently, McConnell and Quinn (2000) found that interference in a visual task occurs
if a concurrent dynamic noise field is presented, but not in the case of a static field
presentation and that a critical variable is the manipulation of the number of changes
within the noise field. A study by Andrade, Kemps, Werniers, May, and Szmalec (2002)
showed that a dynamic visual noise field disrupts performance of subjects using the
pegword mnemonics, but not the recall of static visual materials. Interfering effects of
visual activity on imagery are further confirmed by research carried out in the neuro- and
psycho-physiological fields (e.g. Farah, 2000).
The oral presentation effect has been demonstrated with subjects instructed to use
Imagery, i.e. select and imagine the cue-words of the passages to be remembered. Whilst a
‘written presentation effect’ has been found with subjects using verbal Rehearsal, i.e.
instructed to select and repeat cue-words (De Beni & Moè, 2002, 2003).
The aim of the present research is to study some boundary conditions of the ‘oral
presentation effect’. In previous research the oral presentation effect has been found using
an experimenter-supplied Loci pathway and just one type of passage. We wished to
consider also a subject-generated pathway and compare effects with different kinds of
passages.
The classical application of the Loci method is in fact with an oral presentation, subject-
generated pathway and an expository passage (Yates, 1966). In experimental research an
experimenter-supplied Loci pathway is often used to eliminate variables connected with
the type of pathway chosen. This pathway is identical for all subjects, and usually
comprises real places or, in some cases, fictitious places presented on a map (Crovitz,
1969). These experimenter-supplied pathways have turned out to be effective, demon-
strating the power of the Loci method. However research has generally shown the greater
utility of subject-generated compared with experimenter-supplied images (e.g. Jamieson
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 19: 95–106 (2005)
Loci method in the study of passages 97
& Schimpf, 1980), because the former are more specific (see De Beni & Pazzaglia, 1995
for a distinction between specific, contextual and general images) and refer more to
autobiographical elements which aid memory (Cornoldi, De Beni, & Pra Baldi, 1989;
Groninger & Groninger, 1988; Rogers, 1977). Only one study (Bellezza & Reddy, 1978)
compared the efficacy of subject-generated and experimenter-supplied Loci pathways and
it found that the subject-generated Loci pathway is more effective in an incidental memory
task using a word-list. However, results were not conclusive because in this study subject-
generation was confused with familiarity.
In the present study we thought that given an equal level of familiarity, the
subject-generated Loci pathway would be more effective than the experimenter-supplied
pathway in leading to well-elaborated images. Thus, since the oral presentation effect
is linked to the underlying imaginative process, we hypothesized that this effect would
be stronger when using subject-generated rather than experimenter-supplied Loci
pathways.
Moreover, we wished to explore the extent to which the oral presentation effect depends
on the kind of passage being memorized. To classify passages, we referred to Brewer
(1980) who states that a psychological classification of passages must consider the
underlying structure: descriptive (e.g. botany, geography), narrative (e.g. history, biogra-
phy) or expository (scientific articles, abstract definitions). According to Brewer (1980)
descriptions embody a stationary, perceptual (visual) scene in linguistic form and the
underlying cognitive representation is thus visual-spatial. The underlying cognitive
representation of narrative passages is a series of events that occur in time and have a
causal chain or thematic coherence. That of an expository text follows some logical
processes such as induction, classification and comparison.
Previous research on the effectiveness of the Loci pathway as a recall strategy used only
one passage. In the present research we considered three passages having mainly either a
descriptive, a narrative or an expository structure and hypothesized that the oral
presentation effect would be stronger with the expository passage.
Three groups were compared on the recall of the three passages presented either orally
or in a written format. Two groups were instructed in the use of the Loci method either
with a subject-generated or an experimenter-supplied Loci pathway. The third group was
instructed in the use of verbal Rehearsal. The comparison to a verbal Rehearsal condition,
as opposed to a no-instruction control group was chosen so as to avoid the possibility of a
spontaneous use of mnemonic strategies based on imagery when no instructions are given
to subjects in a control group (Camp, Kramer, & Markley, 1983). Verbal Rehearsal
consists of repeating the selected cue-words of the passage (cumulative verbal Rehearsal).
Similarly to what was found in previous research (De Beni & Moè, 2002, 2003) we
expected this group to show a written presentation effect, due to the lack of selective
interference between reading and repeating.
We therefore hypothesized:
1. An oral presentation effect for the Loci groups and a written presentation effect for the
verbal Rehearsal group;
2. A greater oral presentation effect in the group instructed to formulate a subject-
generated Loci pathway (due to the greater imagery involvement) than in the group
given an experimenter-supplied Loci pathway;
3. For both Loci pathway groups a greater oral presentation effect on expository passages
than on descriptive or narrative passages.
METHOD
Participants
Ninety high-school students, mean age 18.21 years, SD ¼ 1.04, participated in the
experiment. They were divided into three groups: subject-generated Loci pathway (14
males and 16 females), experimenter-supplied Loci pathway (seven males and 23 females)
and verbal Rehearsal (14 males and 16 females). Each group was divided into two
subgroups, 15 subjects each, according to presentation modality.
Materials
Two 20-item (10 concrete and 10 abstract mixed) word-lists and two brief passages were
used in the training phase. The test phase comprised three texts classified following
Brewer (1980) in a descriptive passage entitled ‘Comets’, a narrative passage entitled
‘China’, and an expository passage entitled ‘Hibernation’, respectively 545, 698 and 738
words long. Two independent judges had previously divided the texts for scoring into 41,
55 and 52 idea-units respectively. Examples of the three passages can be found in the
Appendix.
To have an independent evaluation of the nature of the passages, a group of 41 high-
school students (mean age 17.56 years, SD ¼ 1.27, four males and 37 females) were
presented the three passages written on a sheet and asked to rate each as for the degree of
imageability, concreteness, sequentiality and to what extent they were a narrative (telling
of events occurred in a delay of time), a descriptive (describing phenomena or events), and
an expository (presenting points of view or reflections, comparisons and classifications)
passage. They were then presented the same passages divided into idea-units and asked to
rate each for imageability. Finally they were required to order the idea-units in the best
sequential order.
A series of Student t-tests were run to compare the ratings assigned to the three
passages. Results showed no statistical difference as for imageability, concreteness and
sequentiality, p < 0.01. The narrative passage was judged more narrative than the
expository, t(40) ¼ 7.10 and the descriptive, t(40) ¼ 8.43, both p < 0.001. The descriptive
passage was rated more descriptive than the narrative, t(40) ¼ 5.91, p < 0.001. The
expository passage was rated more expository than the other two, t(40) ¼ 3.93 (compared
with the descriptive, p < 0.001) and 2.86 (compared with the narrative, p ¼ 0.007) and
more descriptive than the narrative, t(40) ¼ 3.56, p ¼ 0.001 (see Table 1).
The evaluations of imageability given for each idea-unit were summed and the passages
compared using a Student t-test. As for this rating no difference emerged (mean values and
standard deviations in Table 1). Finally, to rate sequentiality subjects were required to
place in the correct sequential order the idea-units of each of the three passages. Thirty
subjects (36 for the narrative passage) out of 41 considered the idea-units to be presented
in the correct order. For the remaining subjects who considered the idea-units to be in a
different order, the number of idea-units they would have replaced was computed. The
range was between 1 and 18. A comparison of mean values for the three passages (see
Table 1) using a Student t-test, showed no statistical difference, p < 0.01.
It was thus confirmed that the passages were equal as for imageability, concreteness and
sequentiality and that each was truly representative of its category (narrative, descriptive
and expository).
Table 1. Ratings of the nature and characteristics of the three passages

Passage
Rating Narrative Descriptive Expository
M SD M SD M SD
Imageability 4.41 1.28 3.63 1.43 4.32 1.54

Concreteness 5.46 1.34 5.15 1.56 4.61 1.73
Sequentiality 5.20 1.21 4.83 1.32 4.56 1.25
Narrativeness 5.71 1.68 2.68 1.40 3.32 1.63
Descriptiveness 4.37 1.74 6.05 1.12 5.49 1.32
Expositiveness 3.61 1.79 3.27 1.76 4.44 1.91
Sum of imageability 4.35 1.09 4.02 0.91 4.41 1.13
for each item
Units not in the correct order 4.80 2.17 4.73 3.55 6.36 5.64
Procedure
Training phase
Subjects participated in three once a week 2-h training sessions. On the first day they were
instructed in how to create images (Loci method) or how to repeat words (verbal
Rehearsal). The two Loci groups were presented the Loci method. The subject-generated
Loci group had to think about a personal circular 20-Loci pathway. The experimenter-
supplied Loci pathway group had to walk along a circular 20-Loci pathway chosen by the
experimenter. Each locus was salient and familiar to subjects as the Loci pathway was in
the town where all subjects lived. The two pathways were therefore equal for familiarity.
Both Loci groups were then instructed in how to imagine abstract items by transforming
them into concrete items following semantic or phonetic associations. The verbal
Rehearsal group was taught how to use cumulative verbal Rehearsal. All subjects practised
with two word-lists.
On the second day, all subjects were shown how to identify the cue-words in a passage.
The verbal Rehearsal group was then taught to repeat the selected cue-words using the
cumulative verbal Rehearsal strategy. The two Loci groups were invited to memorize the
Loci pathway well, using silent mental verbal Rehearsal. The experimenter-supplied Loci
group saw slides of each locus. All subjects were then invited to practise using the Loci
method or cumulative verbal Rehearsal with a passage by placing the images of the
selected cue-words in the Loci pathway, following the procedure suggested by Bellezza
(1982, 1983), or by repeating the selected cue-words cumulatively.
On the third day, the three groups practised using the Loci method, or cumulative verbal
Rehearsal, with another passage. They were invited to read the passage, to understand it,
think about the most suitable cue-words and then to image them in the Loci (Loci groups)
or repeat them cumulatively (verbal Rehearsal group). The two Loci groups were asked to
repeat the series of Loci immediately and then invited to review the pathway during the
following week.
Test phase
A week after the end of training, subjects came to the laboratory individually for the test
phase. The two Loci groups were asked to repeat the Loci pathway as quickly as possible
to check their perfect knowledge of it. All subjects succeeded in repeating the Loci
pathway correctly and mean times of repetition were not statistically different between the
two groups. Knowledge of the pathway was therefore the same for the two Loci groups.
Subjects were then presented with the three passages in one of six different orders with the
following instructions: ‘Three passages will be presented orally using a tape-recording (or
written on a computer screen). You have to memorize them using the Loci method (or
verbal Rehearsal). At the end of the presentation of each passage you must write down on a
sheet of paper the main concepts preferably in the order of presentation’.
The oral and written presentation modalities were devised to be equal for length of time
and by presenting the text on a computer screen using a MEL program (Schneider, 1988).
The impossibility of using self-pacing strategies typically found when subjects read from
paper (such as looking freely at the text, returning to previously read parts of the passage,
stopping longer at critical points, and reading various parts at different speeds) was
ensured. The words of the text appeared (one to three words a time, 15–20 characters) in
the middle of the screen for 800 ms (the same rate as the oral presentation) and subjects
could not go back or stop. Thus the two presentation modalities differed only for the
channel of presentation being used (visual vs. auditory) and not in terms of the possibility
of using self-pacing strategies. Previous research (De Beni et al., 1997) showed that this
kind of presentation reflects a natural reading situation.
After presentation of each passage, subjects were asked to perform a standard 1-min
interpolation task (count backwards starting from a three-digit number) and then to recall
the passage by writing down the main concepts, if possible in the same order in which they
were presented.
Scoring
One of the advantages of the Loci method is to allow material to be remembered in the
same order as presentation (Roediger III, 1980). Therefore, recall was scored using De
Beni et al.’s (1997) procedure which measures the correctness of recall as well as
maintenance of the correct order of recalled information. For each idea-unit recalled
correctly and in the right presentation order, 3 points were given; 2 points for each idea-
unit recalled correctly, but not in the right order or recalled in the right order, but only
partially correctly, and 1 point for each idea-unit only partially recalled and not in the right
order. If the recall was substantially incorrect (or missing) the score was 0. Scoring was
carried out by two independent judges and a third judge resolved the few discrepancies
between the other two. All partial points were then summed to obtain a total recall score.
Finally, to be able to compare the passages of unequal length correctly, the scores were
transformed into percentage of recall, that is they were divided by the maximum
theoretical score (165, 123, 156 respectively for the three passages).
RESULTS
Three separate ANOVAs 3 (groups) 2 (presentation modality), all between subjects,

were run, one for each passage on mean recall expressed in percentage.
Results on the descriptive passage showed a significant interaction between groups and
presentation modality, F(2, 84) ¼ 7.97, p ¼ 0.001. A Tukey critical value was calculated to
compare oral vs. written presentation in each group. It was 6.37. As can be seen in Table 2,
Table 2. Mean percentage of recall of the three passages for the three groups in oral and written
presentation
Group Oral presentation Written presentation
M SD M SD
Descriptive passage
Subject-generated Loci 28.62 10.70 17.07 9.70
Experimenter-supplied Loci 23.52 7.53 21.63 8.75
Verbal Rehearsal 20.65 8.60 27.05 6.29
Narrative passage
Expository passage
differences due to presentation modality occurred for the subject-generated Loci pathway
group and for the verbal Rehearsal group, the first recalled more in case of oral
presentation, the second in case of a written presentation modality. No difference due to
presentation modality was found for the experimenter-supplied Loci group. A second
Tukey critical value was calculated to compare the three groups within each presentation
modality. It was 7.65. Differences were significant in comparing subject-generated Loci
pathway and verbal Rehearsal group, the former recalled more in case of oral presentation,
the latter in case of a written presentation modality.
Results on the narrative passage showed a main effect due to groups, F(2, 84) ¼ 3.13,
p ¼ 0.049 and an interaction between groups and presentation modality, F(2, 84) ¼ 6.81,
p ¼ 0.002. Recall was greater for the Loci groups (experimenter-supplied M ¼ 24.12,
SD ¼ 7.84, subject-generated M ¼ 22.14, SD ¼ 10.57) than for the verbal Rehearsal group,
M ¼ 18.75, SD ¼ 8.06. As for the interaction (see Table 2), a 6.14 Tukey critical value was
calculated to compare oral vs. written presentation in each group. It emerged that modality
of presentation was critical for the subject-generated Loci pathway and the verbal
Rehearsal groups, while no difference due to modality of presentation was observed for
the experimenter-supplied Loci pathway group. The subject-generated Loci pathway
group was favoured in case of oral presentation, while the verbal Rehearsal group recalled
more in case of a written presentation modality. A second Tukey critical value was
calculated to compare the three groups within each presentation modality. It was 7.38. No
difference between groups was observed for written presentation, while both subject-
generated and experimenter-supplied Loci groups recalled more than the verbal Rehearsal
group in the case of an oral presentation. Thus an oral presentation modality can make the
difference in the memorization of a narrative passage.
Results on the expository passage showed a main effect due to presentation modality,
F(2, 84) ¼ 5.08, p ¼ 0.027 and an interaction between groups and presentation modality,
F(2, 84) ¼ 30.19, p < 0.001. Recall was greater in case of oral (M ¼ 26.92, SD ¼ 9.65)
rather than written presentation modality (M ¼ 23.67, SD ¼ 7.83). As for the interaction a
first 5.00 Tukey critical value was calculated to compare oral vs. written presentation
Table 3. Mean percentage of recall for the three groups in oral and written presentation
Presentation modality
Group Oral Written
M SD M SD

modality within each group. Differences emerged for each of the groups: the Loci groups
were favoured by the oral presentation, the verbal Rehearsal group by the written one (see
Table 2). A second Tukey critical value was computed to compare the three groups for
each of the presentation modalities. It was 6.00. In the case of an oral presentation recall
was greater for the two Loci groups. For the written presentation, recall was greater in the
verbal Rehearsal group.
Finally, an overall MANOVA 3 (groups) 2 (presentation modality) 3 (passages), the
first two factors between-subjects and the third within-subjects, was conducted on the
recall scores expressed as a percentage. It revealed a main effect due to passage,
F(1, 84) ¼ 13.49, p < 0.001, an interaction between groups and presentation modality,
F(2, 84) ¼ 19.77, p < 0.001 and a third level interaction, F(2, 84) ¼ 4.54, p ¼ 0.013 (see
Table 2).
Post-hoc analysis showed that the expository passage (M ¼ 25.30, SD ¼ 8.89) was
recalled more than the other two (narrative M ¼ 21.67, SD ¼ 9.09, descriptive M ¼ 23.09,
SD ¼ 9.32) which did not differ from each other (Tukey critical value is 2.21). For the
interaction, group by presentation modality, a critical Tukey value of 4.50 was calculated
to compare oral vs. written presentation modality in each group. Differences due to
presentation modality were significant for the subject-generated Loci pathway and the
verbal Rehearsal groups. The former recalled more of the oral presentation, the latter
performed better with the written presentation (see Table 3). A 5.40 Tukey value was
calculated to compare the three groups within each presentation modality. Significant
differences were found between the two Loci groups and the verbal Rehearsal group on
oral presentation and between the subject-generated Loci group and the verbal Rehearsal
group as regards the written presentation.
Finally to compare the oral vs. written presentation modality within groups for each
passage type, the same Tukey value of 4.50 revealed that for the narrative and descriptive
passages there is an oral presentation effect for the subject-generated Loci pathway group
and a written presentation effect for the verbal Rehearsal group. Whilst for the expository
passage the effect also extends to the experimenter-supplied Loci pathway group.
DISCUSSION
The present research was carried out with the aim of verifying which conditions stress the
oral presentation effect of the Loci method, i.e. the greater efficacy of the oral presentation
modality. Given that the oral presentation effect depends on the greater and deeper use
of imagery, it was hypothesized that it would be stronger in the subject-generated
Loci pathway group. Moreover differences in relation to the kind of passages were also
explored.
Results showed that an oral presentation effect is only found when using a subject-
generated Loci pathway, while for the verbal Rehearsal group there is a written
presentation effect. The particularly low recall for the written presentation may be
explained as a selective interference effect of reading on imagery, an effect which is
greater when images are self-generated.
Presentation modality effects are stronger for the expository passage where an oral
presentation effect was found even for the experimenter-supplied Loci group. For the other
groups (i.e. subject-generated Loci pathway and Rehearsal groups) the difference in recall
success when given expository passages presented orally as opposed to in written format is
greater than for other kinds of passages. A similar effect is also found for the verbal
Rehearsal group. An expository passage benefits more from the facilitation of the more
suitable presentation modality. Thus an expository passage seems to be the most effective
material to be memorized when using an array such as the Loci pathway coupled with an
oral presentation or when verbally rehearsing cue-words with a written presentation.
CONCLUSIONS
A good memory is a very important goal in everyday cognition. Different strategies can be
used to aid recall, among them formal mnemonics such as the Loci method.
Generally, formal mnemonics are not used very frequently (Soler & Ruiz, 1996). This
seems to depend not on lack of knowledge (Park, Smith, & Cavanaugh, 1990), but on the
difficulty in putting the techniques to use, lack of practice, the effort required in the first
phases when the procedure is not automatic and the restricted number of practical
situations in which the technique can really be used and is effective in improving memory
(Cornoldi, 1988).
For the Loci method to work well, three steps are important: a well-memorized Loci
pathway, the creation of good images of the items to be memorized and their adequate
insertion in each locus.
A subject-generated Loci pathway turned out to be very effective when coupled with an
oral presentation because it allowed for a greater imagery component. Images are most
effective if they follow certain characteristics; they should be vivid, personal, very
distinctive, well-illuminated and the right size in relation to the locus. Images placed in
the loci seem to be recalled better if extracted from expository passages where the
structure seems to fit well with those of the Loci pathway rather than from descriptions of
stationary scenes (descriptive passages) or narrations having a causal or temporal chain.
Results of the present research show that Loci mnemonics can be suggested as an
effective way to study passages when the Loci pathway is subject-generated, the material
is presented orally and the latter consists of certain kinds of passages, particularly
expository. In these cases the lack of selective visual interference and consequent depth
of images produced can maximize the effectiveness of the Loci method and hence induce a
greater recall performance. On the other hand, for subjects using verbal Rehearsal, written
presentation is the best way to commit information to memory.
The classic application of the Loci method suggested by Cicerone with expository
passages (orations), subject-generated Loci and oral presentation has been demonstrated
as the condition which best underlines the efficacy of this age-old mnemonics.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank Drs Francesco Bosio and Lisa Sartori for their help during training and
test phases and Dr Gianna Friso for collecting data useful to assess the nature of the
passages.
REFERENCES
Andrade, J., Kemps, E., Werniers, Y., May, J., & Szmalec, A. (2002). Insensitivity of visual short-
term memory to irrelevant visual information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Experimental Psychology, 55A(3), 753–774.
Baddeley, A. D., & Lieberman, K. (1980). Spatial working memory. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.),
Attention and performance (Vol. VIII, pp. 521–539). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bellezza, F. S. (1982). Improve your memory skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bellezza, F. S. (1983). Mnemonic-device instruction with adults. In M. Pressley, & J. R. Levin
(Eds.), Cognitive strategy research (pp. 51–73). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bellezza, F. S. (1996). Mnemonic methods to enhance storage and retrieval. In E. L. Bjork, & R. A.
Bjork (Eds.), Memory: Handbook of perception and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 345–380). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Bellezza, F. S., & Reddy, G. (1978). Mnemonic devices and natural memory. Bulletin of the
Psychonomic Society, 11(5), 277–280.
Brewer, W. F. (1980). Literary theory, rhetoric, and stylistics: implications for psychology. In R. J.
Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 221–
239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brooks, L. R. (1967). The suppression of visualization by reading. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 19(4), 289–299.
Brooks, L. R. (1968). Spatial and verbal components of the act of recall. Canadian Journal of
Psychology, 22(5), 349–368.
Camp, C. J., Kramer, J. J., & Markley, R. P. (1983). Naive mnemonics: what the ‘do-nothing’ control
group does. American Journal of Psychology, 96(4), 503–511.
Cornoldi, C. (1988). Why study mnemonics? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes
(Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (Vol. 2, pp. 397–402).
Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
Cornoldi, C., & De Beni, R. (1991). Memory for discourse: Loci mnemonics and the oral
presentation effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(6), 511–518.
Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Pra Baldi, A. (1989). Generation and retrieval of general, specific and
autobiographical images representing concrete nouns. Acta Psychologica, 72, 25–39.
Crovitz, H. (1969). Memory Loci in artificial memory. Psychonomic Science, 16(2), 82–83.
De Beni, R. (1984). La ricerca sperimentale sulle mnemotecniche. Una rassegna. Giornale Italiano
di Psicologia, 11, 421–456.
De Beni, R. (1988). The aid given by the ‘Loci’ memory technique in the memorization of passages.
In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current
research and issues (Vol. 2, pp. 421–425). Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
De Beni, R., & Cornoldi, C. (1985). Effects of the mnemotechnique of Loci in the memorization of
concrete words. Acta Psychologica, 60, 11–24.
De Beni, R., & Cornoldi, C. (1988). Does the repeated use of Loci create interference? Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 67, 415–418.
De Beni, R., & Moè, A. (2000). L’Efficacia delle Mnemotecniche nello Studio di Brani. Giornale
Italiano di Psicologia, 27(2), 281–301.
De Beni, R., & Moè, A. (2002). Presentation modality effects in studying passages. Are mental
images always effective? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 1–17.
De Beni, R., & Moè, A. (2003). Imagery and rehearsal as study strategies for written or orally
presented passages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 975–980.
De Beni, R., & Pazzaglia, F. (1995). Memory for different kinds of mental images: role of contextual
and autobiographic variables. Neuropsychologia, 33(11), 1359–1371.
De Beni, R., Moè, A., & Cornoldi, C. (1997). Learning from texts or lectures: Loci mnemonics can
interfere with reading but not with listening. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(4),
401–415.
Farah, M. J. (2000). The cognitive neuroscience of vision. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Groninger, L. D., & Groninger, L. K. (1988). Autobiographical episodes as mediators in the recall of
words. American Journal of Psychology, 101(4), 515–538.
Higbee, K. L. (1988). Your memory: How it works and how to improve it (2nd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Press.
Jamieson, D. G., & Schimpf, M. G. (1980). Self-generated images are more effective mnemonics.
Journal of Mental Imagery, 4, 25–33.
Krebs, E. W., Snowman, J., & Stanley, H. (1978). Teaching new dogs old tricks: Facilitating prose
learning through mnemonic training. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 5(2), 33–39.
Logie, R. H. (1986). Visuo-spatial processing in working memory. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 38A, 229–247.
McConnell, J., & Quinn, J. G. (2000). Interference in visual working memory. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 53A(1), 53–67.
Park, D. C., Smith, A. D., & Cavanaugh, J. C. (1990). Metamemories of memory researchers.
Memory and Cognition, 18, 321–327.
Roediger, H. L., III (1980). The effectiveness of four mnemonics in ordering recall. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(5), 558–567.
Rogers, T. B. (1977). Self-reference in memory: recognition of personality items. Journal of
Research in Personality, 11, 295–305.
Soler, M. J., & Ruiz, J. C. (1996). The spontaneous use of memory aids at different educational
levels. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 41–51.
Schneider, W. (1988). Micro experimental laboratory: an integrated system for IBM PC compatibles.
Behavioral Research Methods, Instrumentation and Computers, 20, 206–217.
Snowman, J., Krebs, E. W., & Lockhart, L. (1980). Improving recall from prose in high-risk students
through learning strategy training. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 7(1), 35–40.
Yates, F. A. (1966). The art of memory. London: Routledge & Kegan.
APPENDIX: EXAMPLES OF THE PASSAGES
CHINA (narrative passage)

Around 2000 BC the Chinese also started to use metals. The Bronze Age of Chinese
civilisation therefore began in the same centuries as in Egypt and in the populations of
Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. The Chinese were also politically organised in a great
single state, which was initially divided into nine provinces and governed by an emperor.
Like the Egyptian kings, the emperors of China could be divided very quickly into various
dynasties which covered an era of little less than 5000 years, from about 3000 BC until the
start of our century. Under the Hsia dynasty, which ruled for almost five centuries, and
under the following Shang and Chou dynasties (from 1500 BC to 500 BC) the Chinese
Empire extended towards the south, while within the country the position of the monarch
with respect to his subjects was consolidated. The emperor was in fact considered to be a
divine being, a mediator between men and the supreme divinity, the Sun, the origin of all
Divine Providence needed by farmers, and the supreme organiser of the seasons.
THE COMETS (descriptive passage)

Comets are celestial bodies in the solar system which are very large but with very rarefied
densities. They can have a much greater volume than the biggest of planets.
They are composed of a nucleus with a head around it. The nucleus has a diameter of
between one and a hundred kilometres and a mass of less than a millionth that of the earth.
It is composed of meteoric material which is held together by substances such as water,
methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide, which are frozen because of the very low
temperatures. Most of the material that makes up the entire comet is concentrated here.
The head is a rarefied mass of gas with a density less than that which can be made by the
most sophisticated instrument for producing a vacuum.
THE HIBERNATION (expository passage)

Until about ten years ago, hibernation was only considered possible for marmots, squirrels
and some other species of rodent. Today it is possible to artificially hibernate mice, rabbits
and monkeys. In America and Europe, many scientists are convinced, although they are
still a long way from actually carrying it out, that the idea of hibernating an astronaut for
months, or even years, during a voyage in the cosmos is no longer an impossible concept.
The medical consequences of human hibernation are already being analysed and
discussed. If applied to man, hibernation could help cure insomnia, anorexia, obesity,
revolutionise anaesthesia techniques and surgery, facilitate the conservation of vital organs
and their transplant, block tumour growth, and eliminate the negative effects of radiation-
based cancer therapies. It could also slow down or arrest the aging process. It could keep
death at bay, by prolonging the sleep of people suffering incurable illnesses, until medicine
has invented a cure. All these remain however pure hypotheses.

Moe Stressing The Efficacy of The Loci Method

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Moe Stressing The Efficacy of The Loci Method

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 19: 95–106 (2005)

Stressing the Efficacy of the Loci Method: Oral

ANGELICA MOÈ and ROSSANA DE BENI*

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Table 1. Ratings of the nature and characteristics of the three passages

Rating Narrative Descriptive Expository

Imageability 4.41 1.28 3.63 1.43 4.32 1.54

Three separate ANOVAs 3 (groups) 2 (presentation modality), all between subjects,

Group Oral Written

Subject-generated Loci 29.90 7.56 18.46 6.08

APPENDIX: EXAMPLES OF THE PASSAGES

CHINA (narrative passage)

THE COMETS (descriptive passage)

THE HIBERNATION (expository passage)

Potrebbero piacerti anche