Individual variability in mental imagery vividness does not predict perceptual interference with imagery: A replication study of Cui et al. (2007).

Tags:

Azañón, E., Pounder, Z., Figueroa, A., & Reeder, R. R. (2025). Individual variability in mental imagery vividness does not predict perceptual interference with imagery: a replication study of cui et al. (2007).. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 154(7), 2043–2057. doi:10.1037/xge0001756

Abstract

Vivid visual mental imagery is thought to influence perceptual processing, but much of the current knowledge on this comes from one highly cited, though underpowered (N = 8) study from 2007, which found that more vivid imagery increases interference between imagined and perceptual content. However, that study has not been repeated since. We therefore conducted a conceptual (Experiment 1) and direct (Experiment 2) replication study. In Experiment 1, we recruited 185 online participants across the mental imagery spectrum, including individuals with self-reported aphantasia (impoverished or absent mental imagery) and hyperphantasia (extremely vivid imagery). In Experiment 2, we recruited 56 participants, 28 with self-reported aphantasia and 28 gender- and age-matched typical imagers. Consistent with the original 2007 study's interpretation, we predicted that those with more vivid imagery would exhibit stronger imagery-perception interference, as measured by decreased performance in a priming task when a color and word were congruent (e.g., red prime, word "RED") compared to incongruent (e.g., blue prime, word "RED"). We were unable to replicate this effect in either experiment. Instead, we observed performance benefits for color-word congruency across the mental imagery spectrum, with no difference in the magnitude of this effect across imagery ability or vividness, even among those with extreme imagery variations (aphantasia, hyperphantasia). Interestingly, we observed a relationship between a measure of mental imagery externalism and the congruency effect, suggesting that individuals with the ability to project their mental images into the external environment (i.e., prophantasia) may exhibit stronger congruency effects. The results of this study challenge our current understanding of the role of mental imagery in perception. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Authors

Elena Azañón3
Zoë Pounder7
Alec Figueroa2
Reshanne R. Reeder7

What This Study Is About

Researchers investigated whether the "vividness" of a person's mental imagery—the clarity of pictures in the mind's eye—actually affects how they process real-world visual information. Specifically, they looked at whether people with aphantasia (the inability to visualize) perform differently on tasks where mental images usually interfere with seeing.

How They Studied It

The study involved 185 participants categorized into four groups based on their imagery strength: complete aphantasia, hypophantasia (weak imagery), typical imagery, and hyperphantasia (extremely vivid imagery). Participants completed a "word-color interference task" where they had to identify the color of a word shown on a screen. In some cases, the word itself named a different color (for example, the word "RED" written in blue ink), which typically slows people down. The researchers also tested "prophantasia"—the specific ability to project a mental image into the physical space in front of you.

What They Found

Surprisingly, the "vividness" of a person's internal mind's eye (measured by the VVIQ questionnaire) had almost no impact on their performance. People with aphantasia were just as affected by the color-word interference as those with typical imagery. However, the researchers found that "prophantasia"—the ability to project images externally—did seem to play a role. People who could project images into the world showed a stronger interference effect, suggesting that projecting an image uses the same "hardware" as actual seeing, whereas internal visualization might not.

What This Might Mean

This suggests that having a "vivid" mind's eye doesn't necessarily change how your brain handles everyday visual tasks. It challenges the idea that aphantasia is a general "visual" deficit. Instead, the study suggests we should distinguish between internal visualization and the ability to project images into the world, as only the latter seems to directly compete with our real-world vision.

One Interesting Detail

The researchers found that even though people with hyperphantasia report having "as vivid as real" mental images, they weren't significantly more distracted by the color-word task than people with average imagery, suggesting there may be a "ceiling" to how much mental imagery can interfere with our sight.

Individual variability in mental imagery vividness does not predict perceptual interference with imagery: A replication study of Cui et al. (2007).

Abstract

Authors

Individual variability in mental imagery vividness does not predict perceptual interference with imagery: A replication study of Cui et al. (2007).

Abstract

Authors

Individual variability in mental imagery vividness does not predict perceptual interference with imagery: A replication study of Cui et al. (2007).

Abstract

Authors

Individual variability in mental imagery vividness does not predict perceptual interference with imagery: A replication study of Cui et al. (2007).

Abstract

Authors

What This Study Is About

How They Studied It

What They Found

What This Might Mean

One Interesting Detail

What This Study Is About

How They Studied It

What They Found

What This Might Mean

One Interesting Detail

Joel Pearson

Merlin Monzel

Adam Zeman

Rebecca Keogh

Martin Reuter

Juha Silvanto

Paolo Bartolomeo

Carla Dance

Jianghao Liu

Fraser Milton