Aphantasia Logo
Back to all discussions
Community

Join the conversation and share your experiences with the community.

Start a Discussion
Discussion Guidelines

Please remember to:

  • • Be respectful and constructive
  • • Share your personal experiences
  • • Ask questions if you're curious
  • • Help others feel welcome
You're not alone

Talk to counselors, coaches, and educators who already understand aphantasia — so you don't have to start by explaining what it is.

Find aphantasia-aware support
Aphantasia Logo

Building awareness and understanding of aphantasia through research, education, and community support.

About

  • What is Aphantasia?
  • What is Hyperphantasia?
  • Take Assessment
  • Getting Started
  • Newsletter
  • About Us
  • Contact

Community

  • Premium Membership
  • Find support
  • Discussions
  • Events
  • Visualize

For Professionals

  • Overview
  • Free Introduction
  • Counselor Training
  • Educator Training
  • List Your Practice
  • Pricing & Bundles

Resources

  • Articles & Stories
  • Videos & Interviews
  • Aphantasia Course
  • FAQs

Research

  • Research Library
  • Participate in Studies
  • Recruitment Services

© 2026 Aphantasia Network. All rights reserved.

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
Aphantasia Logo
Back to all discussions
Community

Join the conversation and share your experiences with the community.

Start a Discussion
Discussion Guidelines

Please remember to:

  • • Be respectful and constructive
  • • Share your personal experiences
  • • Ask questions if you're curious
  • • Help others feel welcome
You're not alone

Talk to counselors, coaches, and educators who already understand aphantasia — so you don't have to start by explaining what it is.

Find aphantasia-aware support
Aphantasia Logo

Building awareness and understanding of aphantasia through research, education, and community support.

About

  • What is Aphantasia?
  • What is Hyperphantasia?
  • Take Assessment
  • Getting Started
  • Newsletter
  • About Us
  • Contact

Community

  • Premium Membership
  • Find support
  • Discussions
  • Events
  • Visualize

For Professionals

  • Overview
  • Free Introduction
  • Counselor Training
  • Educator Training
  • List Your Practice
  • Pricing & Bundles

Resources

  • Articles & Stories
  • Videos & Interviews
  • Aphantasia Course
  • FAQs

Research

  • Research Library
  • Participate in Studies
  • Recruitment Services

© 2026 Aphantasia Network. All rights reserved.

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy

Where Does “Immersive but Non-Visual” Imagery Fit?

2 min readByDeborah Kilmer
I’ve had a clarification about my imagery that might be useful for others who feel misclassified by standard aphantasia questionnaires. When I imagine a scene (e.g., “cat in a tree”), I can construct it fully and vividly in space and structure: the tree growing up from the ground, branch layout, the cat’s position and color, surrounding ground, context, and associated sounds, textures, and the feel of wind. It’s immersive and coherent, almost like stepping into the scene. However, the visual phenomenology is low. The scene isn’t visually illuminated in the way questionnaires often seem to assume. It’s more accurate to describe it as existing in shadow: spatially precise, richly contextual, and embodied, but without bright, pictorial “seeing.” This led me to realize I may have answered some earlier questionnaires inconsistently. I initially interpreted questions about “seeing,” “vividness,” or “imagery” differently than the test intended. Later questions clarified the intent, and my answers shifted accordingly. The term that currently feels most accurate for my experience is: immersive spatial imagery with low visual phenomenology This doesn’t fit neatly into aphantasia vs. hyperphantasia binaries, and it highlights a limitation in many instruments that conflate visual brightness with imaginal richness. I’m sharing this in case others recognize a similar pattern and have struggled with how to categorize or describe their imagery. If there’s existing research or terminology that better captures this, I’d be interested to learn more.

Where Does “Immersive but Non-Visual” Imagery Fit?

2 min readByDeborah Kilmer
I’ve had a clarification about my imagery that might be useful for others who feel misclassified by standard aphantasia questionnaires. When I imagine a scene (e.g., “cat in a tree”), I can construct it fully and vividly in space and structure: the tree growing up from the ground, branch layout, the cat’s position and color, surrounding ground, context, and associated sounds, textures, and the feel of wind. It’s immersive and coherent, almost like stepping into the scene. However, the visual phenomenology is low. The scene isn’t visually illuminated in the way questionnaires often seem to assume. It’s more accurate to describe it as existing in shadow: spatially precise, richly contextual, and embodied, but without bright, pictorial “seeing.” This led me to realize I may have answered some earlier questionnaires inconsistently. I initially interpreted questions about “seeing,” “vividness,” or “imagery” differently than the test intended. Later questions clarified the intent, and my answers shifted accordingly. The term that currently feels most accurate for my experience is: immersive spatial imagery with low visual phenomenology This doesn’t fit neatly into aphantasia vs. hyperphantasia binaries, and it highlights a limitation in many instruments that conflate visual brightness with imaginal richness. I’m sharing this in case others recognize a similar pattern and have struggled with how to categorize or describe their imagery. If there’s existing research or terminology that better captures this, I’d be interested to learn more.
Aphantasia Logo
P
Paulina Bartosiewicz•recently•edited
I had very similar experience. 2 days ago I listened to dr Russell Hurlburt explaining that people don't know what their inner experiences are and I realised that "images" I have in my head have no colours at all (not even white or black though I have ideas about the colours) while actual seeing images is all about colours - if everything is for example pitch black it means you don't see anything. I thought that I had mental images because I had something visual happening in my head - putting objects in space, knowing their shapes. I feel the movement of my eyeballs when I imagine looking at something, how I watch different elements, moving my gaze from one element to another or focusing to watch details, and can imagine touch, emotions associated with a things, get concepts about colours and other details. Like I have all elements of seeing just without actual seeing. When there was a question "how vivid the image is?" my brain somehow interpreted is "how vivid the mental representation is" - I didn't rate it high because I didn't have a clear picture but also not very low because I had vivid mental representation. When I read fiction, it's very immersive to me. I also cheat — I combine in my head colours which I really see with shapes I can imagine, so it feels like I can almost see images in my head, which obviously doesn't work at all in the darkness. So only 2 days ago I realised that what interpreted as some kind of images was actually something else. Just like you I could answer all detailed questions about what I imagined but because I conceptualised the scene with details, not because I really saw it. I just don't need another person to prompt the conceptualisation. When I took tests with more awareness about what is an inner "image", I got a confirmation that I actually have "aphantasia". That's why I came here. I love discovering names and descriptions of my inner experiences, it will help me communicating that to others. It is also fascinating to learn about different ways of experiencing the world.
0
J
Jen Smith•recently•edited
So I think I read that spatial visualization is in a different part of the brain from visual imagery. For example, I have really good spatial memory. I can imagine my childhood home and construct the spatial layout nearly perfectly in my brain (I don't really see it but it's there) but I can't imagine the face of a loved one who I haven't seen in a while other than to tell myself something like, "they're short, they have brown hair, etc". I can easily remember how to get from point a to point b as I'm almost mapping it out in my head, but I can't picture an apple. That may account for what you're experiencing.
0
N
Neal White•recently•edited
My understanding is that if you experience "associated sounds, textures, and the feel of wind" AND visuals, you'd have hyperphantasia. Given your description, it does sound like you have aphantasia. Apparently, the senses people can imagine vary more than most people realize. I can imagine sounds, but none of the other senses. As for the cat in the tree, I can imagine the tree's structure and could sketch it, but it's not in shadow. Instead, it feels like it's behind a wall of black glass. Somehow, I know it's there, but all I see is black. I can sometimes get vague visuals when I (rarely) have a lucid dream, and can sometimes even punch a hole in the wall for a few seconds and see something, then it's back to black.
0