Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Back to all research

Mapping the imageless mind: Towards a taxonomy of aphantasia

DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2025.109276
Tags:
Congenital AphantasiaAcquired AphantasiaMental Health
Bartolomeo, P. (2025). Mapping the imageless mind: towards a taxonomy of aphantasia. Neuropsychologia, 219, 109276. doi:/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2025.109276

Authors

  • Paolo Bartolomeo5

Summary: A Taxonomy of Aphantasia

This article proposes that aphantasia is not a single condition but rather encompasses at least three distinct forms, each with different causes and mechanisms.

The Three Types of Aphantasia

1. Neurological Aphantasia

Results from brain damage, particularly to temporal lobe regions. Key findings:
  • Left-hemisphere temporal lesions typically cause domain-general aphantasia or selective impairments (objects, colors, letters)
  • Right-hemisphere or bilateral lesions may affect face imagery specifically
  • The Fusiform Imagery Node (FIN) in the left fusiform gyrus appears critical—recent research shows it's either directly damaged or functionally disconnected in all neurological aphantasia cases
  • Can be highly selective, affecting only specific categories (e.g., losing letter imagery while retaining object imagery)
  • Imaginal neglect is a special lateralized form where patients can't describe one side of mental images, typically following right-hemisphere damage

2. Psychogenic Aphantasia

Associated with psychiatric conditions and emotional disturbances:
  • Linked to anxiety, depression, depersonalization, and derealization
  • May involve impairments in interoceptive processing (body-emotion-cognition integration)
  • Historical case of "Monsieur X" may represent a mixed type with both neurological and psychiatric features
Least studied form and requires more systematic investigation

3. Congenital Aphantasia

Lifelong absence of voluntary mental imagery in otherwise healthy individuals:
  • Affects 1-4% of the population
  • Individuals have intact memory, reasoning, and creativity—suggesting successful compensatory strategies
  • Exists on a spectrum from complete absence to faint impressions

The Central Paradox of Congenital Aphantasia

People with congenital aphantasia can accurately recall visual properties (e.g., knowing cherries are darker than strawberries) despite having no visual imagery. When asked how they know, they simply say "I just know."
Explanation: The issue isn't an inability to represent visual information (as in neurological aphantasia), but rather difficulty accessing it in a perception-like manner. They retrieve visual knowledge through alternative routes like semantic memory and non-sensory forms of imagination.
Brain evidence: Ultra-high-field fMRI shows that:
  • The FIN and visual areas do activate during imagery attempts
  • However, functional coupling between the FIN and prefrontal regions is markedly weaker than in typical imagers
  • This functional disconnection may explain the absence of vivid phenomenological experience despite intact visual knowledge

Key Implications

1. Diagnostic and Clinical Implications

  • Different forms require different approaches: neurological cases need medical evaluation, psychogenic cases may benefit from psychiatric treatment, congenital cases may not require intervention
  • Recognizing the distinction helps avoid conflating unrelated phenomena

2. Theoretical Implications

  • Challenges the assumption that visual knowledge necessarily requires visual imagery
  • Demonstrates a dissociation between content (visual information) and attitude (how that information is experienced)
  • Supports distinguishing between perceptual-like imagination and alternative, non-perceptual ways of accessing absent objects

3. Neuroscientific Implications

  • Highlights the importance of functional connectivity, not just regional activation
  • Suggests imagery requires coordinated network activity, particularly between prefrontal and posterior visual regions
  • Points toward more dynamic, network-based models of mental imagery rather than static, localized accounts

4. Methodological Implications

  • Future research should specify which type of aphantasia is being studied
  • The heterogeneity explains why previous studies produced contradictory findings
  • A proper taxonomy is essential for organizing research and enabling meaningful comparisons
The authors acknowledge this tripartite framework is preliminary and will need refinement as the field advances, but it provides a crucial starting point for organizing a confusing and contradictory literature.