Does the Memory Palace Work? What the Research Found

Three studies, three different questions

The three studies did not ask the same thing, so they should not be stacked into one verdict. One tested beginners on the method of loci in a laboratory task. The other two studied people known for memory feats and describe their methods in general terms (a spatial strategy, mnemonic training), so they are related evidence, not direct tests of the palace.

Beginners and word lists

Legge and colleagues asked beginners to apply the method of loci to 10 lists of 11 unrelated words (Legge et al., 2012). The twist was the place: a virtual environment studied only briefly, compared with a highly familiar environment, the traditional choice.

The authors reported that the briefly studied virtual place worked as well as the familiar one, when both were compared with an uninstructed control group. They concluded that, at least for beginners, a highly detailed environment does not support substantially better memory for word lists in order. In plain words: in this task, a more detailed place did not give a much better result.

This was a short laboratory study with word lists. It does not show how long the memories lasted, and it does not show a benefit in class. The phrase in minutes in the paper's title describes that procedure and should not be read as a promise about how fast you will learn.

Memory athletes and the brain

Maguire and colleagues studied people renowned for outstanding memory feats, using tests and brain imaging. They reported that the superior memorizers used a spatial learning strategy that engaged brain regions, such as the hippocampus, that are critical for spatial memory (Maguire et al., 2003). A spatial strategy sounds close to the idea behind a memory palace, but the abstract we read describes it only in general terms, so we do not claim it was the memory palace itself.

It was a small group studied at one point in time, so it shows an association. It cannot show that a strategy made these people good at memorizing.

Dresler and colleagues went a step further. They compared brain network organization, measured with fMRI (a scan that tracks activity across the brain), in 23 of the world's most successful memory athletes and matched controls. In novices, brain connectivity changed after six weeks of mnemonic training, moving toward the athletes' pattern, and the similarity predicted memory gains up to four months later (Dresler et al., 2017). We describe the training as the abstract does, as mnemonic training, not as a test of the palace alone. Having read only the abstract, we cannot say how large the training group was.

What none of this shows

• Exam results. The abstracts we read do not report school or college exams.
• Understanding. The abstracts describe memory tasks, such as word lists, not explaining or applying ideas.
• Long-term use. The beginners' study does not show long-term retention. The training study followed novices for up to four months, but on laboratory memory tasks.
• Who benefits. Results vary between people, and extreme groups such as memory athletes may not resemble a typical student.

Frances Yates's book The Art of Memory, first published in 1966, is described by its publisher as a history of the technique. We know it only from catalog and publisher descriptions, so we take no historical claims from it. One study above calls the method an ancient strategy, which tells you it is old. Age does not tell you it works.

How to read a memory-technique claim

These questions work for any headline about a memory method. Use them before you spend an evening on a new technique.

• Who took part: beginners, experts, or students like you?
• What did they memorize: word lists, vocabulary, or ideas?
• When was the test: minutes later, or weeks later?
• Compared with what: nothing, another method, or an uninstructed group?
• Does the claim go beyond what the abstract reports?

Our practical reading is modest. The memory palace is a reasonable tool to try on an ordered list, and you can find out whether it works for you by testing yourself the next day. Put your list on cards in Practice to revisit it later; the ready-made Memory Palace Steps deck also covers the studies above. For the other side of the argument, see when mnemonics fall short, and for the picture-making skill that every palace needs, see mental imagery and memory.

Common mistakes

• Treating a study of memory champions as proof that the technique will work for you. Check who took part. A study of experts shows what experts do, and it does not show what a beginner will gain.
• Reading a brain-scan result as a study-skills result. A scan shows how brain activity changed. Ask whether the study also measured memory on a task you care about, and how long afterward.
• Quoting the title of a study as if it were a promise. Read what was actually tested. A title phrase describes the procedure in that experiment, and it says nothing about your own results.

Frequently asked questions

Is there research showing that the memory palace works?

There is laboratory research. A short study found that beginners using the method of loci did as well with a briefly studied virtual place as with the traditional method using a highly familiar place, compared with an uninstructed control group (Legge et al., 2012). That result is about word lists, not about exams.

Do memory athletes use the memory palace?

The study of people renowned for memory feats reported that the superior memorizers used a spatial learning strategy that engaged brain regions critical for spatial memory (Maguire et al., 2003). That sounds close to the idea behind the palace, but the abstract we read does not let us say they used the palace itself.

Will the memory palace help me pass exams?

We cannot say. None of the abstracts we read report exam results, and tasks like word lists differ from understanding a subject. Try it on an ordered list and judge by your own delayed recall.

Is the memory palace the same as the method of loci?

Yes. Both names describe the same idea: you imagine walking through a place and leaving items to remember at specific spots along the way. One of the studies we read calls it an ancient mnemonic strategy (Legge et al., 2012).

Sources

We opened each source below before citing it. See Methodology and Sources for how we check them.

1. Legge, E. L. G., Madan, C. R., Ng, E. T., & Caplan, J. B. (2012). Building a memory palace in minutes: Equivalent memory performance using virtual versus conventional environments with the Method of Loci. Acta Psychologica, 141(3), 380-390. Open the source
2. Maguire, E. A., Valentine, E. R., Wilding, J. M., & Kapur, N. (2003). Routes to remembering: the brains behind superior memory. Nature Neuroscience, 6(1), 90-95. Open the source
3. Dresler, M., Shirer, W. R., Konrad, B. N., Müller, N. C. J., Wagner, I. C., Fernández, G., Czisch, M., & Greicius, M. D. (2017). Mnemonic Training Reshapes Brain Networks to Support Superior Memory. Neuron, 93(5), 1227-1235.e6. Open the source