Characterising strategy use during the performance of hippocampal-dependent tasks

VPA (Clark et al., 2018). 206 The abstract VPA is identical to the concrete VPA with one important difference. Instead of 207 using concrete, high imagery words, it uses only abstract, very low imagery words. 208 Importantly, the words in the abstract VPA task are highly matched with those in the concrete 209 VPA task in terms of linguistic characteristics (e.g., length, phonemes and syllables) and 210 frequency of use in the English language. This allows for two very similar tasks to be 211 assessed, where one (the concrete VPA) is thought to be hippocampal-dependent, while the 212 other (the abstract VPA) is not (Maguire and Mullally, 2013; Clark and Maguire, 2016; Clark 213 et al., 2018). 214 Dead or alive task (Kapur et al., 1989). 215 This is a test of semantic knowledge. Participants are presented with the names of 74 famous 216 individuals and are first asked to remove any names that they do not recognise. For those that 217 the participant knows, they are then asked to indicate whether the individual is dead or alive. 218 219 220 Strategies and Hippocampal Tasks


221
Strategy use 222 There is currently no standard methodology for studying strategy use in the context of these 223 cognitive tasks. We therefore designed a novel protocol for collecting and analysing detailed 224 strategy information for each cognitive task.

225
Identification of strategies 226 To identify possible strategies used to perform the tasks, 30 participants were recruited who 227 did not take part in the main study (15 female; mean age 27.07 years, SD = 7.32). Participant 228 recruitment was based on an individual's general use of visual imagery. The use of visual 229 imagery is a well-known strategy (Paivio, 1969;Andrews-Hanna et al., 2014;Greenberg and 230 Knowlton, 2014) and we wanted to represent all types of strategies, not just those that are 231 based on visual imagery. General visual imagery use was determined via the Spontaneous 232 Use of Imagery Scale (SUIS; Reisberg et al., 2003), where scores can range from 12 (very 233 low/no spontaneous use of visual imagery) to 60 (high spontaneous use of visual imagery).

234
Fifteen participants were recruited who reported high scores on the SUIS (≥ 46) and 15 with 235 low SUIS scores (≤ 40), with 11 of these low scoring participants reporting values ≤ 31. The 236 average score of the participants in this identification of strategies study was 40.03 (SD = 237 9.97) with a range from 24 to 57. 238 To collect information on individual task strategies, participants first performed the 239 cognitive tasks, after which they were asked open-ended questions about the strategies they 240 employed for each task. Participants were encouraged to report all strategies that they used 241 for a task in as much detail as possible, regardless of how much or little they used them.

242
Strategy responses from the participants were then combined with any relevant 243 additional strategies identified from the extant literature. Examination of all of these 244 strategies highlighted both specific and more general techniques that participants used to 245 perform each of the tasks. From this, we generated a large number of strategy statements, 246 ranging from 12 to 24 strategies, for each task. 247 The strategies generated for each task are provided in the Supplementary Material.

248
Strategy questionnaires 249 The information from the strategy identification study was used to construct a strategy 250 questionnaire for each task for use with the participants in the main experiment. The 251 questionnaires were presented on a computer screen and were participant-paced and led, but 252 with the involvement of the experimenter where required. The strategy questionnaires were 253 administered in a separate session after all the tasks had been completed. This session 254 focused solely on collecting the strategy information for each task. The average length of 255 time between the final testing session and the strategy questionnaires session was 6.05 days 256 (SD = 5.33).

257
Three steps were involved in data collection. First, a brief reminder of the task was 258 presented. Second, participants selected the strategies they used for that task from the 259 extensive list of possible strategies. Third, participants ranked their selected strategies in 260 relation to their degree of use.

261
Strategies were requested for scene construction, each memory age of the AI, future 262 thinking, for the learning of the town in the navigation task and each of the five navigation 8 tasks, for the learning and delayed recall of the concrete and also the abstract VPA tasks, and 264 for the dead or alive task. 265 Task reminder. The task reminder varied according to the task. For some tasks, a picture of 266 the task was presented, while for others the tasks were verbally described. The experimenter 267 then ensured that the participant fully remembered the task (providing additional information 268 if required) before the participant moved on to the strategy selection.

269
Strategy selection. Following the task reminder, all the possible strategies for the task that 270 were generated from the strategy identification study were presented as a list on a computer 271 screen. For each strategy, participants were requested to respond either "Yes" (that they used 272 the strategy) or "No" (that they did not use the strategy). A response was required for every 273 strategy to ensure that none were accidently overlooked. It was made clear that selecting one 274 strategy did not preclude the selection of any of the others, as more than one strategy could be 275 deployed during a task.

276
"Other" strategies. While our strategy list for each task was extensive, we also accounted for 277 the possibility that participants may have used strategies that were not included on the list. As 278 such, for all tasks the option "Other", with space to describe new strategies, was also 279 available.

280
Strategy ranking. A list of the strategies that a participant indicated they used during the task 281 was then presented to them. They were asked to rank each of the strategies according to how 282 much of the time they used them. Outside of these instructions they were free to indicate any 283 form of ranking. Thus, if they felt they used multiple strategies equally this could be 284 indicated. For example, if three strategies were chosen they could be ranked: 285  1, 2, 3where the strategy ranked 1 was used most of the time, followed by the 286 strategy ranked 2, and then the strategy ranked 3.

288
 1, 2, 2where one strategy was used the most, and the other two less frequently, 289 but the secondary strategies were used equally. 290 Question order. The task reminders and strategy selection were presented in two orders (with 291 half the participants doing each order) to reduce the possibility of order effects. For order 1 292 the task order was: concrete VPA, AI, abstract VPA, navigation, dead or alive, scene 293 construction, future thinking. The strategies were listed with visual imagery strategies first, 294 followed by verbal strategies. For order 2, the task order was reversed, and the strategies were 295 listed starting with verbal strategies first followed by visual imagery strategies.

296
Data analysis 297 For the AI, strategies were examined for each memory age separately and were then 298 combined across all four memory ages to provide an overall autobiographical memory recall 299 strategy. For navigation, strategies were examined separately for the learning phase during 300 movie viewing, and the five navigation tasks, and then by combining across the five 301 navigation tasks to provide an overall navigation strategy. For the concrete VPA, and also the 302 abstract VPA, strategies were examined for the learning and delayed recall phases separately. 303 For all tasks, we focused specifically on rank 1 strategies, that is, the strategy or 304 strategies that the participant used most often and deemed the most important for that task.

305
If "Other" responses were provided, these were examined to ascertain if the 306 description closely resembled a strategy that was already listed and, if this was the case, the 9 strategy was reallocated from Other to that strategy. There was no situation where the Other 308 description referred to a new strategy that was not already represented on the list (a detailed 309 breakdown of Other responses and their reallocations is provided in the Supplementary 310 Material).

311
To streamline the data analysis process, each strategy was allocated to one of three 312 primary strategy categories: scene visual imagery strategies, other visual imagery strategies 313 and verbal strategies (see the Supplementary Material for all of the strategies generated for 314 each task, and into which primary category they were placed). Note that participants were not 315 aware of the strategy category distinctions. In general, a scene visual imagery strategy was 316 one which evoked a visual image of a scene, that is, the visual imagery had a sense of depth 317 and background. Other visual imagery strategies evoked visual imagery, but this could not be 318 defined as a scene. There was no sense of depth or background, a typical example being a 319 visual image of a single object. A verbal strategy was one which evoked no visual imagery at 320 all, with reliance instead upon words and phrases.  In this study, which involved a large sample of participants, we sought to systematically 389 characterise the explicit strategies people used when performing a range of cognitive tasks. 390 We found that scene visual imagery was the dominant strategy not only when mentally 391 imagining scenes, but also during autobiographical memory recall, when thinking about the 392 future and during navigationall naturalistic tasks associated with the hippocampus. In 393 addition, examination of three laboratory-based memory tasks showed that the use of scene 394 visual imagery strategies was not limited to naturalistic tasks, whilst also indicating that 11 participants did not invariably favour such strategies. Scene visual imagery strategies were 396 used during concrete VPA, a task also linked to the hippocampus, whereas verbal strategies 397 were most prevalent for tasks thought to be hippocampal-independent, namely abstract VPA 398 and the dead or alive semantic memory task.

399
Behavioural experiments in healthy people have shown that the ability to construct 400 scene visual imagery explained performance across tasks assessing autobiographical recall,  Why might scene imagery be used so pervasively? The most obvious answer is that it 417 mirrors how people experience and perceive the world. In pragmatic terms it makes sense 418 that the neural hardware and software underpinning perception would also be utilised for 419 mental representations and during recall. In addition, scenes are a highly efficient means of 420 packaging information. Its apparent prevalence has even led to the suggestion that scene 421 imagery may be the currency of cognition (Maguire and Mullally, 2013).

422
The ubiquity of scene visual imagery affected another issue, namely, whether using 423 such strategies actually confers any benefit for task performance. We were keen address this 424 question. However, given the majority of participants used scene visual imagery strategies to 425 perform the naturalistic tasks of primary interest, it was not possible to conduct meaningful 426 analyses. For example, 212 of the 217 participants reported scene visual imagery as a rank 1 427 strategy during autobiographical memory recall, meaning a comparison with the remaining 5 428 participants would simply not have been valid.

429
Our results also highlight the potential perils of making assumptions about task 430 modality. For example, as VPA tasks involve the learning and later recall of word pairs, they 431 are typically regarded as verbal tasks. However, we found that when the words in the VPA 432 task were imageable and concrete in nature, scene imagery strategies were used most 433 frequently. By contrast, when the VPA task comprised low imagery abstract words, verbal 434 strategies dominated. Therefore, focusing on the task stimuli to define task modality may not 435 accurately reflect how participants perform a task, and underline that it is essential that task 436 modality is assessed and not assumed. In addition, by examining the strategies used to perform each task, we were able to 438 make a distinction within the visual imagery domain between scene visual imagery and other 439 visual imagery strategies. This would be difficult to assess by focusing just on task modality.

440
Importantly, across the hippocampal-dependent tasks it was scene visual imagery strategies 441 that were predominant. If the strategies simply reflected a visual versus verbal modality split, 12 then a higher frequency of other visual imagery strategies might have been expected, but this 443 is not what we found.

444
How would analysing strategies, instead of using assumed task modality, potentially 445 change conclusions previously drawn? Understanding the strategies used to perform a task 446 may, for example, allow us to better explain the relationship between what are traditionally 447 described as verbal memory tasks and the hippocampus. The use of scene visual imagery 448 strategies may be why concrete VPA, for example, activates the hippocampus during 449 neuroimaging (Clark et al., 2018) and why patients with hippocampal damage, who are 450 impaired at imagining scenes, perform so poorly on this test (e.g., Zola-Morgan et al., 1986;451 Spiers et al., 2001;Giovanello et al., 2003). This stands in stark contrast to the abstract VPA 452 task comprising low imagery words which, along with the semantic memory dead or alive 453 task, involved the use of verbal strategies. Abstract VPA stimuli do not seem to engage the 454 hippocampus during neuroimaging (Clark et al., 2018) and, in this context, the prediction is 455 that hippocampal-damaged patients would be relatively unimpaired on an abstract VPA task. help participants remember the tasks, with no participant indicating they were unable to recall 484 the concomitant strategies they used. By not using trial-by-trial assessments we may have 485 missed nuances or changes in strategy use throughout the tasks. However, our participants 486 were provided with numerous possible strategies for each task, and were encouraged to 487 indicate all the different strategies they used during task performance, with additional 488 information probing the extent to which each strategy was used. We were, therefore, able to 489 collect comprehensive information about the use of multiple strategies by an individual 13 participant for the same task. In common with concurrent reporting methods, we investigated 491 only those strategies that could be explicitly described by participants. We acknowledge that 492 implicit strategies also play a role in task performance, but remain challenging to discover. 493 We collected strategy information by having participants choose from a list of 494 provided strategies, instead of asking them to freely describe the strategies they used, for a 495 number of reasons. First, this ensured that all participants underwent exactly the same 496 procedure for strategy data collection. By contrast, in a free description situation, differing 497 levels of experimenter involvement would likely be required depending on the participant 498 (e.g., variation in the extent of probing), which could affect the data obtained. Second, we 499 wanted participants to consider in-depth how they performed each of the tasks in question.

500
Providing a large range of strategy options with responses required for each option meant that 501 all participants had to consider their use of strategies from across different modalities. Free 502 descriptions, on the other hand, do not necessarily encourage this, and again there could be 503 wide variability in terms of the range of options that each participant considers. Finally, 504 providing a list of strategy options allowed us to include specific nuances within the 505 strategies, for example, asking whether a visual image came to mind immediately or whether 506 the image took time to form. Obtaining this information from free descriptions would be 507 much more difficult and likely involve substantial questioning and involvement of the 508 experimentersomething we were keen to avoid in order to reduce any potential 509 experimenter influence. The option "Other" was also available for all tasks, where 510 participants were able to indicate any additional strategies they felt were not represented by 511 the lists provided. However, Other descriptions were rarely provided, and there was no 512 situation where the Other description referred to new strategies that were not already 513 represented on the lists, suggesting our technique did not omit any key strategies. It will be 514 important in future studies to investigate if rates of reported strategy use are related to the 515 methodology used to collect them. 516 We have alluded throughout to cognitive task-hippocampus relationships without 517 measuring the hippocampus itself. We felt able to do this because of the many previous 518 neuropsychological and neuroimaging findings associating scene imagination, 519 autobiographical memory, future thinking and navigation tasks with the hippocampus. 520 Moreover, understanding the strategies used to perform these tasks is not reliant upon 521 hippocampal measurement. However, establishing a direct link between strategy use and the 522 hippocampus will be an important next step. These relationships could be assessed using 523 resting state fMRI, task-based fMRI and structural brain measurements of the hippocampus 524 and its connectivity.

525
In conclusion, the strategies used to perform naturalistic tasks have been under-526 studied, and yet such information could augment our understanding of the associated 527 cognitive processes and neural substrates. In a large sample of participants we identified 528 scene visual imagery as a dominant strategy specifically in tasks associated with the 529 hippocampus, aligning with perspectives that emphasise a link between scene processing and 530 this brain structure. The test materials are all available in the published literature. The data will be made freely 538 available once the construction of a dedicated data-sharing portal has been completed. In the 539 meantime, the raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available 540 by the authors to any qualified researcher upon request. Requests for the data can be sent to 541 e.maguire@ucl.ac.uk.

543
This study involving human participants was approved by the University College London

555
We thank Victoria Hotchin, Gloria Pizzamiglio and Alice Liefgreen for assistance with data 556 collection and scoring, and Narinder Kapur for providing the dead or alive test materials.

558
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or 559 financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Strategies for each task
The specific strategies presented to the participants for each task are shown below. Note that for each task the participants were presented only with a list of the strategies and were not aware of the strategy categories. The strategy category information is included to show how the strategies were allocated into the three primary categories for data analysis.
Participants were asked to indicate the use of each strategy by "Yes" or "No". They could select as many strategies as were relevant to how they performed a task. Half of the participants saw the visual imagery strategies first, the other half saw the verbal strategies first.
For all tasks, the option "Other", with space to describe new strategies, was also available.

Scene visual imagery
I had an immediate visual image of the scene in my mind, with details appearing all at once as a coherent whole. It almost felt like I was really there.
I had a visual image of the scene which I imagined in a piece-by-piece manner, adding details to gradually form a coherent whole.
I had a static 2D visual image of the scene in my mind, like looking at a photograph.
When describing part of the scene to the experimenter, my visual focus was only on that specific section and I did not visualise the rest of the scene around it.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I had separate visual images of individual objects I would typically expect to find in the scene, but did not picture the scene as a coherent whole with all the objects together.
I visualised words for possible objects that I would expect to find in the scene as though written in the air.
I visualised sentences that describe the scene, as though written in the air.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image

Verbal
I verbally thought about the scene overall, in words or sentences alone, so that the description of the scene I gave was a continuous narrative describing the scene as a coherent whole. I did this without involving visual imagery.
I verbally thought about the scene in sections, using words or sentences alone, so that I built up an overall description gradually piece-by-piece. There was no visual imagery involved in doing this.
I verbally listed, using words and sentences alone, individual objects that I would expect to typically find in the scene, without combining them into a whole. There was no visual imagery involved in doing this.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above.

Autobiographical Interview (for all memory ages)
Strategy category

Scene visual imagery
I had an immediate, fully-formed visual image of a scene or scenes from my memory that was quite immersive, like a movie playing out.
I had an immediate, fully-formed visual image of my memory, with details appearing all at once as a coherent scene, as though looking at a photograph.
I reconstructed a visual image of the memory, by adding details in a pieceby-piece manner to gradually form a coherent whole scene.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I had separate visual images of various individual features and/or people involved in the memory in isolation, but did not picture them all together within a scene or the wider context of the overall memory.
I focused on one image of a particular feature/person involved in the memory in isolation, and described my memory using that as a reference.
I imagined written in my mind the dates/numbers/short facts in regards to the memory.
I imagined written in my mind sentences that described the memory.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image Verbal I verbally described, using words or sentences alone, the whole memory as a coherent story, without using visual imagery.
I verbally described, using words or sentences alone, each main element of the memory, and combined the individual elements to form a coherent story without using visual imagery.
I verbally listed, using words or sentences alone, single facts about the memory, although not in a coherent or chronological order.
I thought of the word for a single element, fact or detail in particular that stood out.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above.

Future thinking task
Strategy category

Scene visual imagery
I had an immediate visual image of the scene in my mind, with details appearing all at once as a coherent whole. It almost felt like I was really there.
I had a visual image of the scene which I imagined in a piece-by-piece manner, adding details to gradually form a coherent whole.
I had a static 2D visual image of the scene in my mind, like looking at a photograph.
When describing part of the scene to the experimenter, my visual focus was only on that specific section and I did not visualise the rest of the scene around it.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I had separate visual images of individual objects I would typically expect to find in the scene, but did not picture the scene as a coherent whole with all the objects together.
I visualised words for possible objects that I would expect to find in the scene as though written in the air.
I visualised sentences that describe the scene, as though written in the air.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image

Verbal
I verbally thought about the scene overall, in words or sentences alone, so that the description of the scene I gave was a continuous narrative describing the scene as a coherent whole. I did this without involving visual imagery.
I verbally thought about the scene in sections, using words or sentences alone, so that I built up an overall description gradually piece-by-piece. There was no visual imagery involved in doing this.
I verbally listed, using words and sentences alone, individual objects that I would expect to typically find in the scene, without combining them into a whole. There was no visual imagery involved in doing this.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above.

Navigation learning
Strategy category

Scene visual imagery
I created a visual image of the overall layout of the town over the course of watching the movies, as though having a bird's eye view looking down at the whole town with both routes combined.
I replayed the movies of the routes in my mind, and combined the routes to create an overall visual layout in my mind's eye.
I replayed in my mind's eye the movies of each route separately, but could not picture how they crossed over.
I visualised in my mind scenes containing landmarks, all connected in the order in which they appear within the overall layout of the town.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I visualised in my mind images of individual landmarks connected in the order in which they appeared, but without visualising other surrounding details such as the background and foreground details, so it was not scene-like.
I had visual images in my mind of individual landmarks, imagining each separately and was not able to connect them together or imagine them within a scene.
I focused on specific features of landmarks (e.g. a shop name, the colour of a building) and tried to form a visual image of them in my mind.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image Verbal I verbally described to myself, using words or sentences alone, how to navigate from start to finish through the town, combining both routes and describing the relative locations of the landmarks.
I verbally described to myself, using words or sentences alone, how to navigate from start to finish along each route separately, but without combining the routes.
I said to myself, using words or sentences alone, whereabouts along the routes the landmarks occurred (such as the start, middle or end).
I had a sense of the time taken to travel along the route, and the time that passed between landmarks, but this sense of time did not come from visual imagery in my mind.
I verbally noted, using words or sentences alone, the names of individual landmarks and road names, but I could not connect them together.
I verbally noted, using words or sentences alone, particular features of landmarks.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above.

Scene visual imagery
I created a visual image of the overall layout of the town over the course of watching the movies, as though having a bird's eye view looking down at the whole town with both routes combined.
I replayed the movies of the routes in my mind, and combined the routes to create an overall visual layout in my mind's eye.
I replayed in my mind's eye the movies of each route separately, but could not picture how they crossed over.
I visualised in my mind scenes containing landmarks, all connected in the order in which they appear within the overall layout of the town.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I visualised in my mind images of individual landmarks connected in the order in which they appeared, but without visualising other surrounding details such as the background and foreground details, so it was not scene-like.
I had visual images in my mind of individual landmarks, imagining each separately and was not able to connect them together or imagine them within a scene.
I focused on specific features of landmarks (e.g. a shop name, the colour of a building) and tried to form a visual image of them in my mind.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image Verbal I verbally described to myself, using words or sentences alone, how to navigate from start to finish through the town, combining both routes and describing the relative locations of the landmarks.
I verbally described to myself, using words or sentences alone, how to navigate from start to finish along each route separately, but without combining the routes.
I said to myself, using words or sentences alone, whereabouts along the routes the landmarks occurred (such as the start, middle or end).
I had a sense of the time taken to travel along the route, and the time that passed between landmarks, but this sense of time did not come from visual imagery in my mind.
I verbally noted, using words or sentences alone, the names of individual landmarks and road names, but I could not connect them together.
I verbally noted, using words or sentences alone, particular features of landmarks.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above. I imagined the movies being replayed on the computer screen, so that the visual image in my mind was of seeing the screen with the movie playing. This helped me to see if I recognised each scene.

Navigation scene recognition
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I had visual images in my mind of individual, isolated landmarks, without visualising other surrounding details such as the background and foreground details, to see if any matched the scene.
I pictured in my mind specific features of isolated landmarks (e.g. a shop name, the colour of a building) to see if they matched the scene.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image Verbal I verbally described the route to myself, using words or sentences alone, from start to finish to see if the scene matched any point on the route description.
I verbally thought, using words and sentences alone, of the names of individual isolated landmarks and road names, to see if they were in the scene on the screen.
I verbally recalled, using words or sentences alone, particular features of landmarks to see if they were in the scene on the screen.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above.

Navigation proximity judgements
Strategy category

Scene visual imagery
I had an overall visual mental map of the layout of the town as though having a bird's eye view looking down at the whole town with both routes combined, and this helped me to judge the proximity of the landmarks.
I replayed the movies of the routes in my mind as though I was reexperiencing the movies and travelling through the town, and this helped me to judge the proximity of the landmarks; I could also visually imagine how the two routes crossed over.
I replayed the movies of each route separately, and could not imagine how they crossed overso, I could judge distances between landmarks when they were in the same route, but it was more difficult when they were located on different routes.
I visualised mental snapshots of landmarks placed within scenes along the routes to help me to judge the proximity of the landmarks.
I imagined the movies being replayed on the computer screen, so that the visual image in my mind was of seeing the screen with the movie playing. This helped me to judge the proximity of the landmarks.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I visualised in my mind images of individual landmarks connected in the order in which they appeared but without visualising other surrounding details such as the background and foreground details. This helped me to judge the proximity of the landmarks.
I had visual images in my mind of isolated and unconnected landmarks, without visualising other surrounding details or in a particular order. This helped me to judge the proximity of the landmarks.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image Verbal I verbally described, using words or sentences alone, how to navigate from start to finish through the town, combining both routes, to judge distances between the landmarks. There was no visual imagery involved when I did this.
I described to myself, using words or sentences alone, how to navigate from start to finish along each route separately, without combining the routesso, I could judge distances between landmarks when they were in the same route, but it was more difficult when they were located on different routes. There was no visual imagery involved when I did this.
I verbally described to myself, using words or sentences alone, the relative positions of landmarks to help me to judge the proximity of the landmarks, and I did this without visual imagery.
I had a sense of the time taken to travel along the route and the time that passed between landmarks, and this helped me to judge the proximity of the landmarks. This sense of time did not come from visual imagery in my mind.
I verbally thought, using words or sentences alone, of the names of individual isolated landmarks, and this helped me to do the task.
I verbally recalled, using words or sentences alone, particular features of landmarks, and this helped me to do the task.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above.

Navigation route knowledge
Strategy category

Scene visual imagery
I had an overall visual mental map of the layout of the town as though having a bird's eye view looking down at the whole town with both routes combined, in order to identify the correct order of the images.
I replayed the movies of the routes in my mind as though I was reexperiencing the movies and travelling through the town, in order to identify the correct order of the images; I could also visually imagine how the two routes crossed over.
I replayed the movies of each route separately, and could not imagine how they crossed overso, I could work out the order of landmarks when they were in the same route, but it was more difficult when they were located on different routes.
I visualised mental snapshots of scenes containing landmarks, all in order along the routes, and this helped me to work out the order.
I imagined the movies being replayed on the computer screen, so that the visual image in my mind was of seeing the screen with the movies playing, and this helped me to judge the order of the landmarks.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I visualised in my mind images of landmarks connected in the order in which they appeared but without visualising other surrounding details such as the background and foreground details.
I had visual images in my mind of isolated and unconnected landmarks, without visualising other surrounding details, and this helped me to judge the order of the landmarks.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image

Verbal
Using words or sentences alone I verbally described how to navigate from start to finish through the town, combining both routes. This helped me to identify the correct order of the images, and I did this without visual imagery.
I described to myself, using words or sentences alone, how to navigate from start to finish along each route separately, without combining the routesso, I could work out the order of landmarks when they were in the same route, but it was more difficult when they existed in different routes. There was no visual imagery when I did this.
I verbally described to myself, using words or sentences alone, the relative positions of landmarks in order to work out the order of the landmarks. There was no visual imagery when I did this.
I had a sense of the time taken to travel along the route and the time that passed between landmarks, and this helped me to judge the order of the landmarks. This sense of time did not come from visual imagery in my mind.
I verbally thought of the names of individual isolated landmarks using words or sentences alone, which helped me to judge the order of the landmarks.
I verbally recalled, using words or sentences alone, particular features of landmarks, which helped me to judge the order of the landmarks.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above.

Navigation sketch map
Strategy category

Scene visual imagery
I had an overall visual mental map of the layout of the town as though having a bird's eye view looking down at the whole town with both routes combined, and drew this mental map.
I replayed the movies of the routes in my mind as though I was reexperiencing the movies and travelling through the town, in order to create an overall mental layout combining both routes and drew this.
I replayed the movies of each route separately and could draw the individual routes, but I struggled to draw how they crossed over.
I visualised mental snapshots of landmarks placed within scenes in order along the routes, and drew the map based upon this.
I imagined the movies being replayed on the computer screen, so that the visual image in my mind was of seeing the screen with the video playing, helping me to draw the sketch map.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I visualised in my mind images of landmarks connected in the order in which they appeared to help me draw the sketch map, but without visualising other surrounding details such as the background and foreground details.
I had visual images in my mind of isolated landmarks, imagining each separately and I found it difficult to imagine where they were located on a map in relation to one another.
I imagined specific parts of landmarks in isolation (e.g. a shop name, the colour of a building), and I found it difficult to imagine where they were located on a map.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image Verbal I verbally described, using words and sentences alone, how to navigate from start to finish through the town, combining both routes in order, and drew the map from this description. I did not have visual imagery when I did this.
I verbally described to myself how to navigate from start to finish along each route separately, using words and sentences alone, and without combining the routesso, I could draw individual routes, but struggled to draw how they crossed over. I did not have visual imagery when I did this.
I knew factually whereabouts along the routes the landmarks occurred (such as the start, middle or end), and drew the map from there. There was no visual imagery involved when I did this.
I had a sense of the time taken to travel along the route and the time that passed between landmarks, and drew the map from that. This sense of time did not come from visual imagery.
I verbally thought of the names of individual isolated landmarks and road names using words and sentences alone, but I found it difficult to imagine where they were located on a map.
I verbally recalled particular features of landmarks using words or sentences alone, and used this to help with the sketch map.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above.

Concrete verbal paired associates learning
Strategy category

Scene visual imagery
I created a single visual image incorporating all/most of the word pairs as they were read outseeing them all together as objects within a single scene or story.
I used a visual representation of all the words in different locations to associate locations with words.
For each word pair, I had a visual image of the objects within one single scene.
I grouped together multiple word pairs, and I had a visual image of these groupings as objects within scenes.
I imagined a word pair as one single object in a particular setting or scene.
I visualised the word pairs as though written down on a piece of paper or on a computer screen.
I noticed the sounds and syllables in the words and tried to remember them. This then caused me to experience related visual imagery. The visual imagery that was evoked could be described as something scene-like I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I visually imagined a word pair as one single object to represent the pair in isolation. I did not visualise any other contextual information or background.
I visually imagined many of the word pairs as objects grouped together. I did not have any visual imagery other than the groups of objects, including no background or context. I imagined each word as a separate object, visualising each object on its own with no background or context and each object was not placed within a scene.
I imagined a word pair as one single object on its own with no background or context and each object was not placed within a scene.
I visualised the word pairs as though they were written in the air.
I visualised the overall form of a word so that I had a visual image of the shape and size of it.
I noticed the sounds and syllables in the words and tried to remember them. This did not elicit any visual imagery The visual imagery that was evoked could be described as something comprising single objects (not a scene).
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image Verbal I verbally created a single story to incorporate all/most of the word pairs. There was no visual imagery involved.
I verbally created a story that grouped multiple word pairs. There was no visual imagery involved.
I verbally created a story or sentence to link the two words in the pair. There was no visual imagery involved.
I listened to each word in turn as it was read out, thinking of each word on its own. There was no visual imagery involved.
I used a single word to link each word pair. There was no visual imagery involved.
I noticed the sounds and syllables in the words and tried to remember them. This did not elicit any visual imagery.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above.

Concrete verbal paired associates delayed recall
Strategy category

Scene visual imagery
I recalled a single visual image that I had created during learning which incorporated all/most of the word pairs as they were read outseeing them all together as objects within a single scene or story.
I recalled a visual representation of all the words in different locations that I had created during learning.
For each word pair, I recalled a visual image of the objects within one single scene.
I recalled groups of multiple word pairs in one go, and I had a visual image of each of these groupings as objects within scenes.
I recalled a word pair as one single object in a particular setting or scene.
I recalled visual images of the word as though written down on a piece of paper or on a computer screen.
I recalled the sounds and syllables in the words. This then caused me to experience related visual imagery. The visual imagery that was evoked could be described as something scene-like I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I recalled a visual image of a word pair as one single object to represent the pair in isolation. I did not visualise any other contextual information or background.
I recalled visual images of many of the word pairs as objects grouped together. I did not have any visual imagery other than the groups of objects, including no background or context.
I recalled a visual image of each word as a separate object, visualising each object on its own with no background or context and each object was not placed within a scene.
I recalled a visual image of a word pair as one single object on its own with no background or context and each object was not placed within a scene.
I recalled the two words in a pair as though they were written in the air.
I visually recalled the overall form and shape of words.
I recalled the sounds and syllables in the words. This then caused me to experience related visual imagery. The visual imagery that was evoked could be described as something comprising single objects (not a scene).
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image Verbal I verbally recalled a single story to incorporate all/most of the word pairs. There was no visual imagery involved.
I verbally recalled a story that grouped multiple word pairs. There was no visual imagery involved.
I verbally recalled a story or sentence that linked the two words in the pair. There was no visual imagery involved.
I verbally recalled of a jumble of single words and tried to match the words up verbally. There was no visual imagery involved.
I verbally recalled a single word that linked each word pair. There was no visual imagery involved.
I recalled the sounds and syllables in the words. This did not elicit any visual imagery.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above.
Abstract verbal paired associates learning* Strategy category

Scene visual imagery
I created a single visual image incorporating all/most of the word pairs as they were read outseeing them all together as objects within a single scene or story.
I used a visual representation of all the words in different locations to associate locations with words.
For each word pair, I had a visual image of the objects within one single scene.
I grouped together multiple word pairs, and I had a visual image of these groupings as objects within scenes.
I imagined a word pair as one single object in a particular setting or scene.
I visualised the word pairs as though written down on a piece of paper or on a computer screen.
I noticed the sounds and syllables in the words and tried to remember them. This then caused me to experience related visual imagery. The visual imagery that was evoked could be described as something scene-like.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I visually imagined a word pair as one single object to represent the pair in isolation. I did not visualise any other contextual information or background.
I visually imagined many of the word pairs as objects grouped together. I did not have any visual imagery other than the groups of objects, including no background or context. I imagined each word as a separate object, visualising each object on its own with no background or context and each object was not placed within a scene.
I imagined a word pair as one single object on its own with no background or context and each object was not placed within a scene.
I visualised the word pairs as though they were written in the air.
I visualised the overall form of a word so that I had a visual image of the shape and size of it.
I noticed the sounds and syllables in the words and tried to remember them. This did not elicit any visual imagery The visual imagery that was evoked could be described as something comprising single objects (not a scene).
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image Verbal I verbally created a single story to incorporate all/most of the word pairs. There was no visual imagery involved.
I verbally created a story that grouped multiple word pairs. There was no visual imagery involved.
I verbally created a story or sentence to link the two words in the pair. There was no visual imagery involved.
I listened to each word in turn as it was read out, thinking of each word on its own. There was no visual imagery involved.
I used a single word to link each word pair. There was no visual imagery involved.
I noticed the sounds and syllables in the words and tried to remember them. This did not elicit any visual imagery.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above.
*The abstract verbal paired associates task used very low imagery words (e.g., Concept-Instance) which may seem at odds with some of the visual imagery strategies provided (e.g., "For each word pair, I had a visual image of the objects within one single scene"). However, despite the very low imagery ratings of the words used, some participants were able to create visual images of the abstract word pairs. In addition, the strategies for the concrete and abstract verbal paired associates tasks were designed to be similar to enable direct comparisons between the two tests.
Abstract verbal paired associates delayed recall* Strategy category

Scene visual imagery
I recalled a single visual image that I had created during learning which incorporated all/most of the word pairs as they were read outseeing them all together as objects within a single scene or story.
I recalled a visual representation of all the words in different locations that I had created during learning.
For each word pair, I recalled a visual image of the objects within one single scene.
I recalled groups of multiple word pairs in one go, and I had a visual image of each of these groupings as objects within scenes.
I recalled a word pair as one single object in a particular setting or scene.
I recalled visual images of the word as though written down on a piece of paper or on a computer screen.
I recalled the sounds and syllables in the words. This then caused me to experience related visual imagery. The visual imagery that was evoked could be described as something scene-like.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I recalled a visual image of a word pair as one single object to represent the pair in isolation. I did not visualise any other contextual information or background.
I recalled visual images of many of the word pairs as objects grouped together. I did not have any visual imagery other than the groups of objects, including no background or context.
I recalled a visual image of each word as a separate object, visualising each object on its own with no background or context and each object was not placed within a scene.
I recalled a visual image of a word pair as one single object on its own with no background or context and each object was not placed within a scene.
I recalled the two words in a pair as though they were written in the air.
I visually recalled the overall form and shape of words.
I recalled the sounds and syllables in the words. This then caused me to experience related visual imagery. The visual imagery that was evoked could be described as something comprising single objects (not a scene).
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image Verbal I verbally recalled a single story to incorporate all/most of the word pairs. There was no visual imagery involved.
I verbally recalled a story that grouped multiple word pairs. There was no visual imagery involved.
I verbally recalled a story or sentence that linked the two words in the pair. There was no visual imagery involved.
I verbally recalled of a jumble of single words and tried to match the words up verbally. There was no visual imagery involved.
I verbally recalled a single word that linked each word pair. There was no visual imagery involved.
I recalled the sounds and syllables in the words. This did not elicit any visual imagery.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above.
*The abstract verbal paired associates task used very low imagery words (e.g., Concept-Instance) which may seem at odds with some of the visual imagery strategies provided (e.g., "For each word pair, I had a visual image of the objects within one single scene"). However, despite the very low imagery ratings of the words used, some participants were able to create visual images of the abstract word pairs. In addition, the strategies for the concrete and abstract verbal paired associates tasks were designed to be similar to enable direct comparisons between the two tests.

Dead or alive task
Strategy category

Scene visual imagery
I recalled a visual image of a media report featuring the individual within a particular scene or context.
I had a visual image in my mind that depicted a scene from when I heard about or discussed the individual.
I visualised in my mind printed or written information about the individual, such as picturing a page in a newspaper or webpage on a screen, as though it was there in front of me.
I recalled sound snippets or sections of audio from a news item or from a conversation about the individual or from the individual themselves. This then caused me to experience related visual imagery. The visual imagery that was evoked could be described as something scene-like.
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image was scene-like (in that I had a sense of a space or context, albeit very vague).

Other visual imagery
I had a visual image in my mind of the individual, with no background, context or scene around them.
I imagined separate objects and/or items that I associate with the individual, without imagining these items within a scene.
I visualised in my mind words associated with the individual as though written or printed in the air.
I recalled sound snippets or sections of audio from a news item or from a conversation about the individual or from the individual themselves. This then caused me to experience related visual imagery. The visual imagery that was evoked could be described as something comprising single objects (not a scene).
I had a very vague or fleeting sense of a visual image in my mind, which was really unclear and hazyit was more the idea of an image in my mind than actually seeing an image itself clearly. My very vague impression is that the image (choose one): -had multiple elements but was not a scene -involved single isolated objects -I cannot describe the image Verbal I verbally thought through a media story about the individual using words or sentences alone, as though retelling the story to myself.
I verbally thought through, using words or sentences alone, a time when I heard about or discussed the individual.
The verbal idea of whether the individual was "dead" or "alive" came to mind immediately without me having to bring to mind further contextual or visual information or images.
I listed single items, objects or facts associated with the individual, using words or sentences alone, to logically work out whether the person was living or dead.
I recalled sound snippets or sections of audio from a news item or from a conversation about the individual or from the individual themselves. This did not elicit any visual imagery.

Other
Please describe here other strategies you used that are not listed above.

"Other" responses
Other responses were examined to ascertain whether or not the descriptions closely resembled strategies that were already listed and, if this was the case, a strategy was reallocated from Other to the relevant strategy. Here, we detail how many rank 1 Other responses were given for each task, and to which strategy category they were reallocated if that was appropriate (scene visual imagery, other visual imagery, verbal), or whether the Other description contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification (e.g., "I guessed"; "I imagined how I would feel in that scene"). There was no situation where the Other description referred to a new strategy that was not already represented on the list.
For the scene construction task, seven participants provided rank 1 Other responses. Two of these responses contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification and five were reallocated to scene visual imagery strategies. However, all five participants whose Other responses were reallocated to scene visual imagery strategies already indicated rank 1 scene visual imagery strategies from the list provided.
On the autobiographical interview, for childhood autobiographical memories, four participants indicated rank 1 Other responses. Three of these responses contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification and one was reallocated to a scene visual imagery strategy. However, this participant had already indicated a rank 1 scene visual imagery strategy from the list provided. For teenage autobiographical memories, seven participants indicated rank 1 Other responses. Six of these responses contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification and one was reallocated to a scene visual imagery strategy. Again, however, this participant had already indicated a rank 1 scene visual imagery strategy from the list provided. For adulthood autobiographical memories, six participants indicated rank 1 Other responses, none of which contained additional information that could be used for strategy classification. For autobiographical memories from the last year, five participants indicated rank 1 Other responses, none of which contained additional information that could be used for strategy classification. For the future thinking task, four participants indicated rank 1 Other responses. Three of these responses contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification and one was reallocated to a scene visual imagery strategy. However, this participant had already indicated a rank 1 scene visual imagery strategy from the list provided.
For the navigation tasks, when viewing the movies while learning, four participants indicated rank 1 Other responses. One of these responses contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification, one was reallocated to a scene visual imagery strategy, one to other visual imagery strategy and one to a verbal strategy. However, all three participants whose other responses were reallocated had already indicated rank 1 strategies in the corresponding strategy category. For the navigation movie clip recognition task, six participants indicated rank 1 Other responses. Four of these responses contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification, one was reallocated to a scene visual imagery strategy and one to other visual imagery strategy. Again, both the participants whose strategies were reallocated had already indicated rank 1 strategies in the corresponding strategy category. For the navigation scene recognition task, six participants indicated rank 1 Other responses. Four of these responses contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification, one was reallocated to a scene visual imagery strategy and one to a verbal strategy. For the participant whose Other response was reallocated to a scene visual imagery strategy, they had already indicated a rank 1 scene visual imagery strategy. However, the participant whose Other response was reallocated to a verbal strategy had not indicated using a rank 1 verbal strategy, even though their Other strategy description did match one of the verbal strategies on the list provided. For the navigation proximity judgements task, five participants indicated rank 1 Other responses. Four of these responses contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification and one was reallocated to other visual imagery strategy. While this participant had not indicated using a rank 1 other visual imagery strategy, the strategy detailed did match other visual imagery strategy from the strategy list provided. For the navigation route knowledge task, five participants indicated rank 1 Other responses, none of which contained additional information that could be used for strategy classification. For the navigation sketch map, three participants indicated rank 1 Other responses, none of which contained additional information that could be used for strategy classification.
For the concrete verbal paired associates (VPA) learning task, seven participants indicated rank 1 Other responses. Three of these responses contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification and four were reallocated to verbal strategies. However, all four participants whose Other responses were reallocated to verbal strategies already indicated rank 1verbal strategies from the list provided. For the concrete VPA delayed recall task, eight participants indicated rank 1 Other responses. Six of the responses contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification and two were reallocated to verbal strategies. Again, both participants whose Other responses were reallocated to verbal strategies had already indicated rank 1 verbal strategies from the list provided.
For the abstract VPA learning task, 15 participants indicated rank 1 Other responses. Four of these responses contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification, two were reallocated to scene visual imagery strategies, four to other visual imagery strategies and five to verbal strategies. However, all the participants whose strategies were reallocated had already indicated rank 1 strategies in the corresponding strategy category. For the abstract VPA delayed recall task, 15 participants indicated rank 1 Other responses. Ten of these responses contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification, two were reallocated to scene visual imagery strategies, two to other visual imagery strategies and one to a verbal strategy. As before, all the participants whose strategies were reallocated had already indicated rank 1 strategies in the corresponding strategy category.
Finally, for the dead or alive semantic memory task, two participants indicated rank 1 Other responses. One of these responses contained no additional information that could be used for strategy classification while the other was reallocated to other visual imagery strategy. However, this participant had already indicated using a rank 1 other visual imagery strategy from the list provided.
Overall, therefore, examination of the Other responses resulted in very little additional information not already identified by the strategy questionnaires.