Back to all research

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
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. Bouyer3
  • D. Samuel Schwarzkopf5
  • Blake W. Saurels3
  • Derek H. Arnold3

Understanding Visual Imagery: A Study on Imagination and Perception

Overview/Introduction

Visual imagery, or the ability to visualize images in the mind, varies greatly among individuals. Some people, known as aphantasics, cannot visualize at all, while others, called hyper-phantasics, experience vivid mental images almost as real as seeing. This study explores whether a method called binocular rivalry (BR) can objectively measure the vividness of these mental images. The goal was to determine if imagining a visual input before experiencing BR could predict how vividly different people visualize.

Methodology

  • Participants: 77 individuals participated, with a final sample of 58 after exclusions.
  • Tools: Participants used anaglyph glasses and a special monitor to view images. They also completed the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ2) to self-report their imagery vividness.
  • Procedure: Participants imagined specific visual patterns (Gabors) and then viewed rivalrous images. They reported which image dominated their perception and rated the vividness of their imagination.
  • Analysis: The study analyzed whether imagining a Gabor influenced the detection of probes (small changes in the image) and if this correlated with self-reported imagery vividness.

Key Findings

  • Imagery Priming: Imagining an image before viewing rivalrous images did enhance the detection of probes, but this effect did not correlate with individual differences in self-reported imagery vividness.
  • Within-Participant Effects: Participants were more sensitive to probes when they reported their imagery as more vivid than usual, indicating a within-participant effect.
  • No Between-Participant Correlation: There was no strong evidence that the BR method could predict differences in imagery vividness across different individuals.

Implications

  • Practical Use: While the study found some effects of imagery on perception, it did not identify a reliable objective measure for predicting individual differences in imagery vividness. This limits its current practical application in fields like psychology and sports, where visual imagery is used to enhance performance and mental health.
  • Future Research: More research is needed to find an objective method to measure and predict the vividness of visual imagery, which could improve personalized interventions in therapy and performance enhancement.

Limitations

  • Study Design: The balanced number of non-rivalrous trials might have influenced participants' engagement with the imagery task, potentially affecting results.
  • Eye Dominance: The study did not account for eye dominance, which might have influenced perception during BR trials.
In conclusion, while the study advanced our understanding of how imagined images can influence perception, it highlighted the need for further research to develop objective measures of visual imagery vividness.