Lifelogging as a rehabilitation tool in patients with amnesia: A narrative literature review on the effect of lifelogging on memory loss

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flowchart literature search.

Table 1. Summary of results of lifelogging studies.

Study number	Authors (year)	Study type	Sample	Study design	Results	Number of measure points	Conclusion + / 0*
1	Berry et al. (2007)	Case study	63-year-old, librarian with limbic encephalitis and memory loss	– SC vs diary condition during memorable events – Memory test after 1 day (scores are noted), after which SC or diary is reviewed – Subsequent memory test every 2 days, until 7 trials completed – After 3 months memory recall test	– In SC condition significant memory improvement compared to baseline (p < 0.001) – SC condition significantly higher memory scored than diary condition (p < 0.001) – In diary condition no significant improvement – After 3 months SC recollection was 76%	High	+
2	Berry et al. (2009)	Case study	66-year-old, librarian with limbic encephalitis and memory loss	– Use SC/ diary “memorable” events – Review SC images, review diary, or no review – Review every 2 days, for 2 weeks, – fMRI scan during testing – 4 conditions of images shown during testing: 1: reviewed SC 2: not reviewed SC 3: SC images of diary reviewed event 4: another person’s SC	– No behavioural and neural difference between condition 2 and 4 ◊ confirm severity memory loss – Images condition 1 were significantly more familiar than condition 2 (p < .001) – SC provides subjective and objective improvements of autobiographical memory – Associated with activation frontal and posterior cortical regions.	High	+
3	Brindley et al. (2011)	SCED	21-year-old male, who suffered a number of pre-existing neurological problems, and memory loss	– Automatic though record sheet (ATR) vs SC – use both techniques for 3 events – recollection test 7 days post event, 2 times per week, for 3 weeks – for each event, one review strategy: SC/ ATR/ no review – after review, recollection test	– Recall increased to 94% in SC condition – ATR recall decreased from 56% to 22% – Baseline decreased from 78% to 39%	Medium	+
4	Browne et al. (2011)	Case study	55-year-old, retired social worker, MCI	– SC vs written diary condition compared as memory rehabilitation techniques – Use SC/ diary during event – Recall sessions: 1 cueing question, 1. & 2 days, & 2–week post event – After recall review of SC images or diary and second recall test – After 1-, 3- & 6-months long term recollection tests	– 2-week recall was significantly higher in SC condition (p < 0.001) – recall in SC condition: 64%–68%, vs 30%–50% for diary condition and 38% for baseline condition – 6-month recall was also best with SC: 41% recollection vs 20% in diary condition	High	+
5	Loveday and Conway (2011)	Case study	47-year-old patient with damage to right brain hemisphere and suffers from amnesia	– Diary vs SC condition – Use diary and SC for 1 event per day for 4 weeks – Free recall session every weekend (pre-cue), followed by review of SC or diary – Patient was asked to rate SC and diary on vividness during review – After review, same recall procedure (post-cue)	– Vividness ratings went down over time – No significant difference vividness rating between SC and diary – SC condition (pre-cue) improved significantly most on recall of episodic detail and qualified memory (p < 0.05) – SC condition (post-cue) improved significantly most on recall episodic detail & qualified memory (p < 0.001) – Most self-references in SC condition	High	+
6	Pauly-Takacs et al. (2011)	Case study	13-year-old boy with anterograde amnesia due to multiple brain disorders	– Walk at 4 locations, accompanied by experimenter, both wearing SC – At 2 locations patient’s SC was off – Post event, SC images reviewed 3 times a week for 2 weeks – 2, 10 and 15 weeks after the walk, recognition of SC images was tested – recognition tested for own SC images, reviewed, own SC images not reviewed and experimenters SC images	– Recognition scores were significantly above change at short term test for own reviewed SC as well as for own not reviewed SC (both p = 0.0009) – Recognition scores were significantly above change after 10 weeks, for own reviewed SC (p = 0.009) but not for own not reviewed SC (p = 0.205), as well as after 15 weeks: own reviewed SC (p = 0.009) own not reviewed SC (p = 0.117) – Patient understood difference between own SC and experimenters SC – Recognition often based on familiarity	Medium	+
7	Svanberg and Evans (2014)	SCED	51-year-old woman with memory loss as a result Korsakoff	– Patient recorded 1 activity per week, total of 5 weeks – Review SC images on daily basis until new event – No objective memory test, but questionnaire about subjective memory improvement.	– Patient quit study before finished – Patient indicated subjective improvement of memory when SC images were reviewed	High	+
8	Crete-Nishihata et al. (2012)	Clinical group study	5 patients with AD or MCI	– Use SC at 2–4 hr events at novel location – 5 review sessions in 2.5 weeks – Review sessions consist of free recall, general probed recall, general probed questioning and SC review or no SC review –(repeated for 3–4 months, with 1–2-week break after each event+ review)	– Recollection improved when patients had reviewed SC images (p < 0.05)	High	+
9	Woodberry et al. (2015)	Clinical group study	6 AD patients	– SC vs diary – Patients used SC for 3.5 months, record noteworthy events – After any recorded event, 6 review sessions, every 2 days – Free recall, followed by review SC or diary – Another recollection test after review and after 1 and 3 months	– Recollection episodic details highest in SC condition (p = 0.032) – After 3 months SC recollection also highest	High	+
10	Silva, Pinho, et al. (2017) and Silva, Salome Pinho, et al. (2017)	Clinical group study	51 AD patients	– SC vs diary vs alternative cognitive memory rehabilitation technique – Use one technique for a number of weeks – Recollection test performed after review per condition	– Sensecam was proved to be the most effective strategy for memory rehabilitation (p < 0.001) – Effect on autobiographical, semantic and episodic memory established	High	+
11	Dassing et al. (2020)	Clinical group study	17 (female) AD patients, 15 (female) control participants	– Participants used NC for 4 days, 7 hrs per day – 4 conditions (absent of retrospective (AbsR), verbal retrospective (VerR), visual retrospective (VisR), visual retrospective+ event cueing(VisR + EC)) – Memory test 2 weeks after event (cued recall and recognition)	– More internal detail were recollected in VisR + EC than in VerR (Pr (VirSR + EC > VerR) = 0.99) – In cued recall test higher memory details in VisR than VerR (Pr (VisR > VerR) = 0.95) – Recognition scored higher in VisR + EC than in AbsR (Pr (VisR + EC > AbsR) = 0.99) and higher in VisR + EC than in VerR (PR (VisR + EC > VerR) = 0.95)	High	+
12	Sellen et al. (2007)	Experimental study	19 undergraduate students	– 2 days, participants wore SC for 8 hrs – Participants manually had to take photos, or automatic (active vs passive) – Memory test 3 and 10 days after recording – Memory test: free recall, review images, final recall, followed by recognition test, to distinguish “own” images from “other’s” images	– Higher event recollection in SC condition compared to control after image review (p < 0.03) – In the passive condition recollection scores were higher than active condition (p < 0.03)	High	+
13	Finley et al. (2011)	Experimental study	12 undergraduate students	– Time-triggered SC vs Sensor-triggered SC – Use SC for 4 days – Recognition test: participants asked about their day while review SC – 2 out of 4 days SC images reviewed, the other 2 days no review – Recognition& picture cued recall test 1, 3 & 8 weeks after SC recordings	– No significant difference between time-triggered and sensor-triggered SC – Significant effect of condition (p < 0.05) – Recognition scores higher on review days (M = 3.55, SD = 0.69) compared to no-review days (M = 3.25, SD = 0.80) – Picture-cued recall scores higher and review days (M = 50.55, SD = 20.85) compared to no-review days (M = 45.51, SD = 18.49)	High	+
14	Seamon et al. (2014)	Experimental study	144 university Students	– SC vs diary vs review without external aid – Recordings during walk on campus – 6 different groups, divided over SC-, diary- and control condition (2 per condition) – Per condition 1 group of participants went on walk alone, the other group accompanied by experimenter – After walk, review of event – 1-week post event another review session and memory test	– Participants accompanied by experimenter scored significantly highest in free recall (p < 0.001) – No significant difference between memory aid conditions found	Low	0
15	Silva et al. (2013)	Experimental study	29 participants, 15 young adults, 14 old adults	SC vs diary – Use SC for 3 days straight, followed by use of diary for 3 days – Review sessions followed by neuropsychological assessment of memory	– Higher performance on recollection test in SC condition (p < 0.05) – Similar results for both groups (young and old participants)	High	+
16	Mair et al. (2017)	Experimental study	21 young participants, 21 old participants	Diary vs SC – Record 15 typical events in 5 days – 2-weeks post event free recall test – Review after test, either SC in forward temporal order, or random order, or review diary or no review – After and during review, second recollection test	– Review SC images significantly improve episodic memory, compared to diary and baseline (p < 0.0005) – Review SC in forward temporal order was more successful than random temporal order (p = 0.03) – No significant age effect	High	+
17	Mair et al. (2019)	Experimental study	Experiment I: 18 young adults and 25 older adults Experiment II: 17 young adults and 19 older adults	Experiment I: – SC during staged events in room, multiple participants present (3 rooms) – Perform difficult cognitive task – 14 days post event, recall session – Asked about experience in rooms, 3 conditions: no SC shown, SC shown in forward temporal order, SC shown in random order – 2 questionnaires, 1 pre and 1 post review SC Experiment II: – encoding sessions same as 1st experiments, but 2 rooms – 14 days post event, recall session – Participants asked to remember as many details about the event as possible – Review SC: SC shown for 1st room (forward temporal order), not for 2nd room	Experiment I: – Younger participants scored higher than older participants (p = 0.006) – Memory scores in SC condition in forward temporal order higher than control (p < 0.005) – Memory scores in SC condition in random temporal order higher than in control (p = 0.002) – No significant difference between random temporal order and forward temporal order Experiment II: – Younger participants score higher than older participants (p = 0.006) – Memory scores in SC condition in higher than in control (p = .001)	Low	+
18	Selwood et al. (2020)	Experimental study	51 older adults	Use AC vs DC* (with audio recorder) during visit to predetermined site (45–60 min) – Three photo viewing conditions (immersive AC, desktop AC, DC) – 4 stages (baseline testing, initial site visit, review 1, review 2) – Review 1 (1 day after visit): free recall, followed by photo review and recall –Review 2 (14 days after review 1): identical to review 1	– In recall, in AC conditions more details were recalled than in DC condition (p = 0.002), no significant difference between AC conditions – This was the case in photo review as well (p < 0.001) – In free recall in AC conditions also more details relating to activity, place, cognition and sensory perceptive information was recalled (p < 0.024), no significant difference between AC conditions – This was the case in photo review as well (p < 0.007)	Low	+

*Abbreviations: SCED = Single case experimental design; AD = Alzheimer’s dementia; MCI = Mild Cognitive Impairment; + = research concludes that lifelogging has a positive effect on memory rehabilitation; 0 = research does not come to the conclusion that lifelogging has a positive effect on memory rehabilitation; SC = Sensecam; AC = Autographer camera; DC = Digital camera; NC = Narrative clip.

Berry, E., Kapur, N., Williams, L., Hodges, S., Watson, P., Smyth, G., Srinivasan, J., Smith, R., Wilson, B., & Wood, K. (2007). The use of a wearable camera, SenseCam, as a pictorial diary to improve autobiographical memory in a patient with limbic encephalitis: A preliminary report. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 17(4-5), 582–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602010601029780

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Berry, E., Hampshire, A., Rowe, J., Hodges, S., Kapur, N., Watson, P., Browne, G., Smyth, G., Wood, K., & Owen, A. M. (2009). The neural basis of effective memory therapy in a patient with limbic encephalitis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 80(11), 1202–1205. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2008.164251

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brindley, R., Bateman, A., & Gracey, F. (2011). Exploration of use of SenseCam to support autobiographical memory retrieval within a cognitive-behavioural therapeutic intervention following acquired brain injury. Memory (Hove, England), 19(7), 745–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.493893

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Browne, G., Berry, E., Kapur, N., Hodges, S., Smyth, G., Watson, P., & Wood, K. (2011). Sensecam improves memory for recent events and quality of life in a patient with memory retrieval difficulties. Memory (Hove, England), 19(7), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.614622

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Loveday, C., & Conway, M. A. (2011). Using SenseCam with an amnesic patient: Accessing inaccessible everyday memories. Memory (Hove, England), 19(7), 697–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.610803

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pauly-Takacs, K., Moulin, C. J., & Estlin, E. J. (2011). Sensecam as a rehabilitation tool in a child with anterograde amnesia. Memory (Hove, England), 19(7), 705–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.494046

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Svanberg, J., & Evans, J. J. (2014). Impact of SenseCam on memory, identity and mood in Korsakoff’s syndrome: A single case experimental design study. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3-4), 400–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.814573

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Crete-Nishihata, M., Baecker, R. M., Massimi, M., Ptak, D., Campigotto, R., Kaufman, L. D., Brickman, A. M., Turner, G. R., Steinerman, J. R., & Black, S. E. (2012). Reconstructing the past: Personal memory technologies are not just personal and not just for memory. Human–Computer Interaction, 27(1-2), 92–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2012.656062

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Woodberry, E., Browne, G., Hodges, S., Watson, P., Kapur, N., & Woodberry, K. (2015). The use of a wearable camera improves autobiographical memory in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Memory (Hove, England), 23(3), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.886703

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Silva, A. R., Pinho, M. S., Macedo, L., Moulin, C., Caldeira, M. S., & Firmino, H. (2017). It is not only memory: Effects of SenseCam on improving well-being in patients with mild Alzheimer disease.

 Google Scholar

Silva, A. R., Salome Pinho, M., Macedo, L., & Moulin, J. A. (2017). The cognitive effects of wearable cameras in mild Alzheimer disease – An Experimental study. Current Alzheimer Research, 14(12), 1270–1282. https://doi.org/10.2174/1567205014666170531083015

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dassing, R., Allé, M. C., Cerbai, M., Obrecht, A., Meyer, N., Vidailhet, P., Danion, J.-M., Mengin, A. C., & Berna, F. (2020). Cognitive intervention targeting autobiographical memory impairment in patients with schizophrenia using a wearable camera: A proof-of-concept study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 397. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00397

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sellen, A. J., Fogg, A., Aitken, M., Hodges, S., Rother, C., & Wood, K. (2007, April). Do life-logging technologies support memory for the past? An experimental study using SenseCam. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 81–90).

 Google Scholar

Finley, J. R., Brewer, W. F., & Benjamin, A. S. (2011). The effects of end-of-day picture review and a sensor-based picture capture procedure on autobiographical memory using SenseCam. Memory (Hove, England), 19(7), 796–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.532807

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Seamon, J. G., Moskowitz, T. N., Swan, A. E., Zhong, B., Golembeski, A., Liong, C., Narzikul, A. C., & Sosan, O. A. (2014). Sensecam reminiscence and action recall in memory-unimpaired people. Memory (Hove, England), 22(7), 861–866. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.839711

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Silva, A. R., Pinho, S., Macedo, L. M., & Moulin, C. J. (2013). Benefits of SenseCam review on neuropsychological test performance. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(3), 302–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.11.005

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mair, A., Poirier, M., & Conway, M. A. (2017). Supporting older and younger adults’ memory for recent everyday events: A prospective sampling study using SenseCam. Consciousness and Cognition, 49, 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.02.008

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mair, A., Poirier, M., & Conway, M. A. (2019). Memory for staged events: Supporting older and younger adults’ memory with SenseCam. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(4), 717–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818765038

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Selwood, A., Bennett, J., Conway, M. A., Loveday, C., & Kuchelmeister, V. (2020). Mnemoscape: Supporting older adults’ event memory using wearable camera photographs on an immersive interface. Gerontology, 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1159/000505848

 Google Scholar