Aphantasia Logo
Back to all research
Aphantasia Logo

Building awareness and understanding of aphantasia through research, education, and community support.

About

  • What is Aphantasia?
  • What is Hyperphantasia?
  • Take Assessment
  • Getting Started
  • Newsletter
  • About Us
  • Contact

Community

  • Premium Membership
  • Find support
  • Discussions
  • Events
  • Visualize

For Professionals

  • Overview
  • Free Introduction
  • Counselor Training
  • Educator Training
  • List Your Practice
  • Pricing & Bundles

Resources

  • Articles & Stories
  • Videos & Interviews
  • Aphantasia Course
  • FAQs

Research

  • Research Library
  • Participate in Studies
  • Recruitment Services

© 2026 Aphantasia Network. All rights reserved.

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
Aphantasia Logo
Back to all research
Aphantasia Logo

Building awareness and understanding of aphantasia through research, education, and community support.

About

  • What is Aphantasia?
  • What is Hyperphantasia?
  • Take Assessment
  • Getting Started
  • Newsletter
  • About Us
  • Contact

Community

  • Premium Membership
  • Find support
  • Discussions
  • Events
  • Visualize

For Professionals

  • Overview
  • Free Introduction
  • Counselor Training
  • Educator Training
  • List Your Practice
  • Pricing & Bundles

Resources

  • Articles & Stories
  • Videos & Interviews
  • Aphantasia Course
  • FAQs

Research

  • Research Library
  • Participate in Studies
  • Recruitment Services

© 2026 Aphantasia Network. All rights reserved.

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
Ask AI About This Paper
Ask AI About This Paper

Physics versus graphics as an organizing dichotomy in cognition

DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2025.05.003
Tags:
Theory & DefinitionsSpatial ImageryPhantasia
Balaban, H., & Ullman, T. D. (2025). Physics versus graphics as an organizing dichotomy in cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 29(11), 985–996. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2025.05.003

Abstract

People build world models that simulate the dynamics of the real world. They do so in engineered systems for the purposes of scientific understanding or recreation, as well as in intuitive reasoning to predict and explain the environment. On the basis of a major split in the simulation of real-time dynamics in engineered systems, we argue that people's intuitive mental simulation includes a basic split between physical simulation and graphical rendering. We first show how the separation between physics and graphics relies on a natural division of labor in any cognitive system. We then use the physics/graphics distinction to tie together and explain a range of classic and recent findings across different domains in cognitive science and neuroscience, including aphantasia and imagery, different visual streams, and object tracking.

Authors

  • Halely Balaban2
  • Tomer D. Ullman2

Physics versus graphics as an organizing dichotomy in cognition

DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2025.05.003
Tags:
Theory & DefinitionsSpatial ImageryPhantasia
Balaban, H., & Ullman, T. D. (2025). Physics versus graphics as an organizing dichotomy in cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 29(11), 985–996. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2025.05.003

Abstract

People build world models that simulate the dynamics of the real world. They do so in engineered systems for the purposes of scientific understanding or recreation, as well as in intuitive reasoning to predict and explain the environment. On the basis of a major split in the simulation of real-time dynamics in engineered systems, we argue that people's intuitive mental simulation includes a basic split between physical simulation and graphical rendering. We first show how the separation between physics and graphics relies on a natural division of labor in any cognitive system. We then use the physics/graphics distinction to tie together and explain a range of classic and recent findings across different domains in cognitive science and neuroscience, including aphantasia and imagery, different visual streams, and object tracking.

Authors

  • Halely Balaban2
  • Tomer D. Ullman2
Aphantasia Logo

What This Study Is About

This research explores why people with aphantasia—the inability to visualize images in the mind—can often perform the same mental tasks as people who can visualize. The authors propose that the brain works like a video game engine, separating "physics" (how objects move and relate in space) from "graphics" (the actual picture we see).

How They Studied It

This paper is a theoretical review rather than a new experiment. The researchers analyzed existing data from many previous studies involving hundreds of participants. They compared how people with aphantasia and "typical" visualizers perform on tasks like mental rotation (turning an object in your mind) and spatial memory. They also looked at brain scan data to see which neural pathways are active during these tasks.

What They Found

The researchers found that most "mental imagery" tasks are actually solved using spatial "physics" rather than visual "graphics." People with aphantasia perform almost identically to visualizers on tasks involving object location and movement. The key difference is that while typical visualizers "render" a picture of the scene (like a computer screen), people with aphantasia only use the underlying "code" or geometric map. This suggests that the visual picture in our minds might be an extra "add-on" that isn't actually necessary for solving most problems.

What This Might Mean

This suggests that aphantasia is a "broken rendering" process rather than a total lack of mental representation. It implies that everyone—regardless of whether they can see pictures in their head—uses the same underlying spatial system to navigate the world. While this theory helps explain why aphantasics are so high-functioning, it is still a proposal that needs more direct testing to prove exactly where the "rendering" fails in the brain.

One Interesting Detail

The study suggests that for most people, the vivid "movie" playing in their head is actually "epiphenomenal"—a scientific term meaning it’s a byproduct that doesn't actually help do the work, much like the steam coming off a boiling pot doesn't help cook the pasta.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain errors. Always refer to the original paper for accuracy.
Most-Cited Researchers
Top 10 researchers by number of papers published in Aphantasia
1

Joel Pearson

35
2

Merlin Monzel

30
3

Adam Zeman

20
4

Rebecca Keogh

17
5

Martin Reuter

16
6

Juha Silvanto

14
7

Paolo Bartolomeo

11
8

Carla Dance

10
9

Jianghao Liu

9
10

Fraser Milton

9
Recruit the largest aphantasia cohort on earth

97.8K+ users & subscribers across the imagery spectrum, plus 1.5M+ survey responses in our dataset. Skip the recruitment bottleneck and run your study with the community we've built for a decade.

Partner with us