Table 1 Retrieval practice on memory-impaired clinical populations: previous results

Avci et al. (2017)

52 people living with HIV21 seronegative controls

3 (learning condition: RP, MR, SR)

Large main effect of learning condition where participants recalled significantly more VPAs studied through RP compared with MR and SR.

Coyne et al. (2015)

15 pediatric survivors of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) aged 8 to 16 years with below-average memory.

2 (stimulus type: VPA, FNP)*3 (learning condition: RP, MR, SR)

Very large main effect of learning condition on delayed recall. RP led to better memory than did both MR and SR in all subjects, and SR better memory than MR.

Sumowski, Chiaravalloti et al. (2010)

32 persons with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)16 demographically matched healthy controls

3 (learning condition: RP, MR, SR)

Very large main effect of learning condition on VPA delayed cued recall. In MS patients, large mnemonic advantages for VPAs learned through RP relative to SR, SR relative to MR, and RP relative to MR. RP was the best learning condition for 90% of all participants (MS: 91%; HC: 88%).

Sumowski, Coyne et al. (2014)

10 memory-impaired survivors of severe TBI

3 (learning condition: RP, MR, SR)

Large main effect of learning condition after the short delay. Enduring beneficial effect of RP: the large effect of learning condition remained after the long delay.

Sumowski, Leavitt et al. (2013)

12 memory-impaired MS patients

3 (learning condition: RP, MR, SR)

Large main effect of learning condition after the short delay. Enduring beneficial effect of RP: the large effect of learning condition remained after the long delay.

Sumowski, Wood et al. (2010)

14 persons with chronic memory impairment following a TBI 14 age-matched healthy controls

3 (learning condition: RP, MR, SR)

Large effect of learning condition on delayed cued-recall in both groups, with RP leading to the best recall, followed by SR, and then MR. RP was the best strategy for 93% of persons with TBI.