Back to all research

Phantasia, aphantasia, and hyperphantasia: Empirical data and conceptual considerations

DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105819
Larner, A., Leff, A., & Nachev, P. (2024). Phantasia, aphantasia, and hyperphantasia: empirical data and conceptual considerations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 164, 105819. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105819

Abstract

This study explores the concept of "phantasia," which refers to a person's ability to create visual mental images in their mind. The researchers examine the extremes of this ability, known as "aphantasia" (little to no mental imagery) and "hyperphantasia" (exceptionally vivid mental imagery). The study primarily involved analyzing existing research and literature on the topic, rather than conducting new experiments with participants. The authors highlight some key issues in the field, including: Confusion between actual visual perceptions and mental images, which are fundamentally different. Reliance on unvalidated questionnaires, like the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ), to assess a person's mental imagery abilities. Lack of clear definitions and conceptual framework for studying phantasia, aphantasia, and hyperphantasia. The researchers argue that these conceptual confusions may hinder scientific progress in understanding how mental imagery works in the brain. They suggest that future studies should focus on developing a more precise conceptual framework before conducting further experiments. Key insights include the recognition that mental imagery is a complex topic that has long puzzled scientists and philosophers. The authors emphasize the need for clearer definitions and more robust methods to study this internal experience, as current approaches may be based on flawed assumptions about the nature of mental images.

Authors

  • AJ Larner1
  • Alex P. Leff2
  • PC Nachev1

Understanding Mental Imagery: Phantasia, Aphantasia, and Hyperphantasia

Overview/Introduction

The study delves into the fascinating world of mental imagery, focusing on "phantasia," a term used to describe the human ability to create visual images in the mind. It highlights two extremes: aphantasia, where individuals have little to no mental imagery, and hyperphantasia, where mental images are exceptionally vivid. The researchers aim to clarify the conceptual confusions surrounding these phenomena and suggest ways to improve scientific understanding.

Methodology

Instead of conducting new experiments, the researchers analyzed existing literature and studies on mental imagery. They critically examined the tools and methods used in previous research, such as the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ), and explored the differences between actual visual perceptions and mental images.

Key Findings

  • Conceptual Confusion: There is a significant misunderstanding between actual visual perceptions and mental images. These are fundamentally different, yet often conflated in research.
  • Questionnaire Limitations: Many studies rely on unvalidated questionnaires like the VVIQ, which may not accurately assess mental imagery abilities.
  • Need for Clear Definitions: The lack of clear definitions and a conceptual framework for phantasia, aphantasia, and hyperphantasia hinders scientific progress.
  • Complexity of Mental Imagery: Mental imagery is a complex topic that has puzzled scientists and philosophers for years. Current approaches may be based on flawed assumptions about the nature of mental images.

Implications

  • Improved Research Methods: The study suggests that future research should focus on developing a precise conceptual framework to better understand mental imagery.
  • Practical Applications: Understanding the nuances of mental imagery could have implications for fields like psychology, neuroscience, and even education, where visualization plays a crucial role in learning and memory.
  • Enhanced Diagnostic Tools: By refining the tools used to assess mental imagery, researchers can develop more accurate diagnostic criteria for conditions like aphantasia and hyperphantasia.

Limitations

  • Reliance on Existing Literature: The study primarily relies on existing research, which means it is limited by the quality and scope of previous studies.
  • Subjectivity in Self-Reports: The use of self-reported questionnaires introduces subjectivity, making it challenging to validate findings across different individuals.
In conclusion, this study highlights the need for a clearer understanding of mental imagery and its extremes. By addressing conceptual confusions and improving research methodologies, scientists can make significant strides in unraveling the mysteries of the mind's eye.