A decade of aphantasia research – and still going!
Zeman, A. (2025). A decade of aphantasia research – and still going!. Neuropsychologia, 219, 109278. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2025.109278
Abstract
Aphantasia, a term coined in 2015, refers to the lack of wakeful visual imagery. Research since then has clarified the nature of this intriguing variation in human experience. I review several unanswered questions which are currently under investigation. First, it appears unlikely that aphantasia is a single entity. If not, what are its subtypes? I consider 5 dimensions of variation that may be relevant. Second, given that people with aphantasia manage so well in everyday life, is it possible that they benefit from ‘unconscious imagery’? Third, what light does aphantasia shed on the functions of imagery? Finally, I emphasise the need to keep an open mind in this young area of research and point to its relevance to the debate surrounding introspection.
Authors
- Adam Zeman15
Understanding Aphantasia: A World Without Mental Imagery
Overview/Introduction
First identified in 2015, aphantasia has intrigued researchers and sparked numerous studies to understand its nature and implications. This summary explores the latest findings on aphantasia, its potential subtypes, and how it might affect daily life and cognitive functions.
Key Findings:
1. Aphantasia Has Multiple Subtypes
The condition is heterogeneous, with at least five important dimensions of variation:
- Object vs. spatial imagery: Many people with aphantasia lack object imagery but retain spatial reasoning abilities
- Severity: Ranges from complete absence to faint imagery
- Sensory scope: Can affect all senses (global) or just specific modalities (single-sensory)
- Voluntary vs. involuntary: While voluntary imagery is absent, involuntary imagery (like dreams) may be preserved
- Associated traits: Sometimes linked with face recognition difficulties, autobiographical memory differences, or autistic traits
2. The "Unconscious Imagery" Question
Despite lacking conscious visual imagery, people with aphantasia function remarkably well in daily life. Two explanations are being explored:
- They use different cognitive strategies (e.g., verbal approaches)
- They may rely on unconscious perceptual representations
Brain imaging suggests their brains engage similar regions during imagery tasks but in subtly different, less "perception-like" ways.
3. Functions of Imagery
Research shows conscious imagery isn't strictly necessary for memory, creativity, or other cognitive functions, though it may influence them. The most notable impact appears in episodic autobiographical memory - vivid imagers tend to have richer, more experiential personal memories, while those with aphantasia favor more abstract, semantic cognition.
4. The Field Remains Dynamic and Evolving
The author emphasizes that aphantasia research is still a young science where definitions, measurement techniques, and theoretical frameworks remain provisional and constantly evolving. Research approaches are bidirectional: some studies use aphantasia to understand other cognitive phenomena (like mental simulation), while others use established psychological constructs (like binocular rivalry) to investigate aphantasia itself. The author stresses maintaining intellectual humility and openness, cautioning against premature conclusions as the field continues to develop.
5. Aphantasia Validates the Reliability of Introspection
The study of imagery extremes provides important evidence for the validity of introspection in psychology. While psychologists have historically been skeptical of self-reported mental experiences, the past decade of aphantasia research demonstrates that introspective reports correspond to measurable psychological and neurological differences. If no differences existed between people reporting aphantasia versus hyperphantasia, it would undermine introspection's credibility. However, the research confirms that people can accurately report meaningful variations in their inner experiences, though triangulation with behavioral and brain imaging data remains important.
Implications
The author proposes that vivid imagery and aphantasia represent two complementary and equally valuable cognitive styles rather than superior versus deficient states. Vivid imagery appears linked to rich experiential memory and emotionally-engaged cognition (valuable in fields like creative writing and therapy), while aphantasia correlates with more abstract, systematic, semantic processing (valuable in scientific and analytical work). Both represent legitimate variations in how humans experience and process the world.