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

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

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

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