Objective priming from pre-imagining inputs before binocular rivalry presentations does not predict individual differences in the subjective intensity of imagined experiences

DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2024.106048

Tags:

Bouyer, L. N., Schwarzkopf, D. S., Saurels, B. W., & Arnold, D. H. (2025). Objective priming from pre-imagining inputs before binocular rivalry presentations does not predict individual differences in the subjective intensity of imagined experiences. Cognition, 256, 106048. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.106048

Abstract

Most people can imagine images that they experience within their mind's eye. However, there are marked individual differences, with some people reporting that they are unable to visualise (aphantasics), and others who report having imagined experiences that are as realistic as seeing (hyper-phantasics). The vividness of imagery is most often measured via subjective self-report. Chang and Pearson (2018), however, have suggested that a binocular rivalry (BR) protocol can be used as an objective measure. They found that pre-imagining a moving input could enhance performance on an objective probe detection task when probes are embedded in imagery consistent inputs, as opposed to imagery inconsistent inputs. To date, nobody has assessed if this type of objective imagery priming can be used to predict the vividness of different people's visualisations. Here, we report that imagery priming of objective sensitivity to probes within static BR inputs does not correlate with the ratings people use to describe the vividness of their visualisations (a between participants effect). However, objective priming of sensitivity to probes embedded in BR inputs was greater on trials when participants reported that their pre-imagined experience had been more vivid than average (a within participants effect). Overall, our data suggest that while imagery can prime objective sensitivity to probes during BR, there is currently no strong evidence that this effect can be used as a reliable objective method to predict the subjective vividness of different people's visualisations.

Authors

Loren N. Bouyer5
D. Samuel Schwarzkopf6
Blake W. Saurels5
Derek H. Arnold6

What This Study Is About

Researchers wanted to find a reliable, objective way to measure how vivid a person's mental imagery (the ability to picture things in the mind) really is. They tested whether a specific brain phenomenon called "binocular rivalry" could accurately predict the scores people give themselves on imagery questionnaires.

How They Studied It

The study involved 77 participants who completed the VVIQ2, a standard questionnaire where people rate the vividness of their mental images. Participants then performed a "binocular rivalry" task: they wore 3D-style glasses that showed a different image to each eye (for example, green horizontal lines to one eye and red vertical lines to the other). Usually, the brain flips between these two images. Participants were asked to imagine one of the patterns before looking; if their imagery was strong, it should "prime" the brain to see that specific pattern first. The researchers also added a "probe" (a tiny dot) to see if imagining a pattern made people more physically sensitive to seeing things hidden within it.

What They Found

The researchers found that while imagining a pattern did influence what people saw during the rivalry task, this effect did not match up with their questionnaire scores. In other words, a person who reported having very vivid, life-like mental imagery was no more likely to "prime" their vision than someone with weak imagery. The objective test of "probe sensitivity"—seeing a tiny dot better because of imagination—also failed to predict an individual's self-reported imagery strength.

What This Might Mean

This suggests that current objective tests using binocular rivalry might not be the "gold standard" for measuring individual differences in aphantasia (the absence of a mind's eye) or hyperphantasia (highly vivid imagery). While these tests show that imagination can affect vision, they don't seem to capture the personal, subjective intensity that people describe in surveys. It highlights the difficulty of finding a single "brain thermometer" for the mind's eye.

One Interesting Detail

The study found that people were better at spotting the tiny probe on trials where they felt their imagery was more vivid than usual, but this "success" didn't translate to a general difference between people. Your own "strong" imagery days might help you perform better, but your "strong" might still look different from someone else's "strong."

Objective priming from pre-imagining inputs before binocular rivalry presentations does not predict individual differences in the subjective intensity of imagined experiences

Abstract

Authors

Objective priming from pre-imagining inputs before binocular rivalry presentations does not predict individual differences in the subjective intensity of imagined experiences

Abstract

Authors

Objective priming from pre-imagining inputs before binocular rivalry presentations does not predict individual differences in the subjective intensity of imagined experiences

Abstract

Authors

Objective priming from pre-imagining inputs before binocular rivalry presentations does not predict individual differences in the subjective intensity of imagined experiences

Abstract

Authors

What This Study Is About

How They Studied It

What They Found

What This Might Mean

One Interesting Detail

What This Study Is About

How They Studied It

What They Found

What This Might Mean

One Interesting Detail

Joel Pearson

Merlin Monzel

Adam Zeman

Rebecca Keogh

Martin Reuter

Juha Silvanto

Paolo Bartolomeo

Carla Dance

Jianghao Liu

Fraser Milton