Aphantasia Logo
Back to all research
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 research
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
Ask AI About This Paper

Rethinking modality-specificity in mental imagery

DOI: 10.1007/s11229-026-05561-6
Calzavarini, F. (2026). Rethinking modality-specificity in mental imagery. Synthese, 207(5). doi:10.1007/s11229-026-05561-6

Abstract

Despite recent attention to multimodal imagery, the field remains dominated by the traditional view that mental imagery is divided by sensory modality. However, growing evidence from neuroscience challenges this view, showing that brain areas traditionally thought to be modality-specific actually process sensory information (e.g. shape, motion, or speech) independently from modality, even in sensory-deprived individuals. This paper argues that the assumption of modality-specificity in mental imagery should be significantly revised, if not abandoned. Instead, it proposes a shift in perspective: mental imagery may be better understood in terms of modality-invariant properties, such as shape or frequency, rather than sensory-based divisions.

Authors

  • Fabrizio Calzavarini1
Ask AI About This Paper

Rethinking modality-specificity in mental imagery

DOI: 10.1007/s11229-026-05561-6
Calzavarini, F. (2026). Rethinking modality-specificity in mental imagery. Synthese, 207(5). doi:10.1007/s11229-026-05561-6

Abstract

Despite recent attention to multimodal imagery, the field remains dominated by the traditional view that mental imagery is divided by sensory modality. However, growing evidence from neuroscience challenges this view, showing that brain areas traditionally thought to be modality-specific actually process sensory information (e.g. shape, motion, or speech) independently from modality, even in sensory-deprived individuals. This paper argues that the assumption of modality-specificity in mental imagery should be significantly revised, if not abandoned. Instead, it proposes a shift in perspective: mental imagery may be better understood in terms of modality-invariant properties, such as shape or frequency, rather than sensory-based divisions.

Authors

  • Fabrizio Calzavarini1
Most-Cited Researchers
Top 10 researchers by number of papers published in Aphantasia
1

Joel Pearson

32
2

Merlin Monzel

31
3

Adam Zeman

19
4

Rebecca Keogh

17
5

Martin Reuter

16
6

Juha Silvanto

14
7

Carla Dance

10
8

Paolo Bartolomeo

10
9

Jianghao Liu

9
10

Fraser Milton

8
Recruit from the largest aphantasia cohort on earth

94.2K+ users & subscribers across the imagery spectrum, plus 1.5M+ survey responsesin our dataset. Skip the recruitment bottleneck and run your study with the community we've built for a decade.

Partner with us
Aphantasia Logo

What This Study Is About

This research explores whether mental imagery—the ability to "see" or "hear" things in your mind—is strictly tied to our individual senses like sight and sound, or if it works through a more general system in the brain. The author argues that we should rethink imagery as a way the brain processes specific properties, like shape or movement, regardless of which sense originally provided that information.

How They Studied It

This paper is a theoretical review of existing neuroscientific and philosophical evidence. The author analyzed brain scan data (fMRI) and studies of people with sensory differences, such as those who are congenitally blind. By looking at how the brain processes information when one sense is missing, the researcher examined whether "visual" parts of the brain are actually dedicated to sight, or if they are designed to handle specific tasks like identifying shapes through touch or sound.

What They Found

The study highlights that the brain often organizes itself by "supramodal" properties—meaning it cares more about what is being processed (like a 3D shape) than how it was sensed (through the eyes or the hands). For example, the "visual" cortex in blind individuals can be activated by touch or sound to recognize objects. This suggests that mental imagery might not be a collection of separate "picture" or "sound" faculties, but rather a unified system that represents properties like frequency, motion, and structure in a way that doesn't depend on a specific sense.

What This Might Mean

This suggests that aphantasia—the absence of a "mind's eye"—might be more complex than just a "broken" visual link. If imagery is truly "modality-invariant" (not tied to one sense), it could explain why some people can navigate space or recognize objects perfectly well without "seeing" them. However, this is a new way of looking at the mind, and more research is needed to understand how these "sense-free" properties create the subjective feelings we experience.

One Interesting Detail

The author suggests that instead of classifying imagery by sense (visual, auditory, etc.), we should use a "property-based" taxonomy, focusing on things like "kinetic motion" or "spatial frequency" which the brain can process whether you are looking at an object or feeling it in the dark.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain errors. Always refer to the original paper for accuracy.