Editing Mnemonic (section)

==Effectiveness==
Academic study of the use of mnemonics has shown their effectiveness. In one such experiment, subjects of different ages who applied mnemonic techniques to learn novel vocabulary outperformed control groups that applied [[contextual learning]] and free-learning styles.<ref name=Rich>{{cite journal |last1=Levin |first1=Joel R. |last2=Levin |first2=Mary E. |last3=Glasman |first3=Lynette D. |last4=Nordwall |first4=Margaret B. |title=Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: Additional effectiveness evidence |journal=[[Contemporary Educational Psychology]] |date=April 1992 |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=156–174 |doi=10.1016/0361-476x(92)90056-5}}
</ref>

Mnemonics were seen to be more effective for groups of people who struggled with or had weak [[long-term memory]], like the elderly. Five years after a mnemonic training study, a research team followed-up 112 community-dwelling older adults, 60 years of age and over. Delayed recall of a word list was assessed prior to, and immediately following mnemonic training, and at the 5-year follow-up. Overall, there was no significant difference between word recall prior to training and that exhibited at follow-up. However, pre-training performance gains scores in performance immediately post-training and use of the mnemonic predicted performance at follow-up. Individuals who self-reported using the mnemonic exhibited the highest performance overall, with scores significantly higher than at pre-training. The findings suggest that mnemonic training has long-term benefits for some older adults, particularly those who continue to employ the mnemonic.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=O'Hara |first1=Ruth |last2=Brooks |first2=John O. |last3=Friedman |first3=Leah |last4=Schröder |first4=Carmen M. |last5=Morgan |first5=Kevin S. |last6=Kraemer |first6=Helena C. |title=Long-term effects of mnemonic training in community-dwelling older adults |journal=Journal of Psychiatric Research |date=October 2007 |volume=41 |issue=7 |pages=585–590 |doi=10.1016/j.jpsychires.2006.04.010|pmid=16780878 |id={{ProQuest|621661024}} }}</ref>

This contrasts with a study from surveys of medical students that approximately only 20% frequently used mnemonic acronyms.<ref>{{cite thesis|last=Brotle|first=Charles D.|url=https://www.proquest.com/openview/c8b49a854f79871b3c092645422eea11/|title=The role of mnemonic acronyms in clinical emergency medicine: A grounded theory study|degree=EdD|date=2011|id={{ProQuest| }}|archive-date=2023-08-27|access-date=2023-07-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230827122004/https://www.proquest.com/openview/c8b49a854f79871b3c092645422eea11/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In humans, the process of aging particularly affects the [[medial temporal lobe]] and [[hippocampus]], in which the [[episodic memory]] is synthesized. The episodic memory stores information about items, objects, or features with spatiotemporal contexts. Since mnemonics aid better in remembering spatial or physical information rather than more abstract forms, its effect may vary according to a subject's age and how well the subject's medial temporal lobe and hippocampus function.

This could be further explained by one recent study which indicates a general deficit in the memory for spatial locations in aged adults (mean age 69.7 with standard deviation of 7.4 years) compared to young adults (mean age 21.7 with standard deviation of 4.2 years). At first, the difference in target recognition was not significant.

The researchers then divided the aged adults into two groups, aged unimpaired and aged impaired, according to a [[neuropsychological testing]]. With the aged groups split, there was an apparent deficit in target recognition in aged impaired adults compared to both young adults and aged unimpaired adults. This further supports the varying effectiveness of mnemonics in different age groups.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Reagh|first1=Zachariah M.|last2=Roberts|first2=Jared M.|last3=Ly|first3=Maria|last4=DiProspero|first4=Natalie|last5=Murray|first5=Elizabeth|last6=Yassa|first6=Michael A.|title=Spatial discrimination deficits as a function of mnemonic interference in aged adults with and without memory impairment|journal=Hippocampus|date=March 2014|volume=24|issue=3|pages=303–314|doi=10.1002/hipo.22224|pmid=24167060|pmc=3968903}}</ref>

Moreover, different research was done previously with the same notion, which presented with similar results to that of Reagh et al. in a verbal mnemonics discrimination task.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Ly|first1=Maria|last2=Murray|first2=Elizabeth|last3=Yassa|first3=Michael A.|title=Perceptual versus conceptual interference and pattern separation of verbal stimuli in young and older adults|journal=Hippocampus|date=June 2013|volume=23|issue=6|pages=425–430|doi=10.1002/hipo.22110|pmid=23505005|pmc=3968906}}</ref>

Studies (notably "[[The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two]]") have suggested that the [[short-term memory]] of adult humans can hold only a limited number of items; grouping items into larger chunks such as in a mnemonic might be part of what permits the retention of a larger total amount of information in short-term memory, which in turn can aid in the creation of long-term memories.{{citation needed|date=March 2019}}<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Baddeley |first=Alan |date=27 September 2011 |title=Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies |journal=Annual Review of Psychology|volume=63 |pages=1–29 |doi=10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422 |pmid=21961947 |s2cid=53390575 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Miller|first=George A.|date=1956|title=The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information.|journal=Psychological Review|language=en|volume=63|issue=2|pages=81–97|doi=10.1037/h0043158|pmid=13310704|issn=1939-1471|hdl=11858/00-001M-0000-002C-4646-B|s2cid=15654531 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>