Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Back to all research

Neurodiversity in mental simulation: conceptual but not visual imagery priming modulates perception across the imagery vividness spectrum

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-05100-2
Tags:
Objective MeasuresVisual Aphantasia
Welker, Á., Pető-Plaszkó, O., Verebélyi, L., Gombos, F., Winkler, I., & Kovács, I. (2025). Neurodiversity in mental simulation: conceptual but not visual imagery priming modulates perception across the imagery vividness spectrum. Scientific Reports, 15(1). doi:10.1038/s41598-025-05100-2

Abstract

Mental simulation—the ability to internally model sensory, conceptual, or future events—may include mental imagery as a component, with considerable individual variability in its vividness and dependence on sensory detail. While self-reports have been widely used to assess imagery, they are subjective and prone to bias. Among more objective methods, imagery priming in binocular rivalry has been employed to investigate the influence of mental imagery on perception, but findings have been ambiguous. Here, we introduce a no-report version of the task, using eye-tracking-based optokinetic nystagmus assessment to provide a more reliable measure of perceptual shifts. In addition to visual imagery priming, we introduce conceptual priming, which does not rely on sensory imagery but engages abstract representations. In visual imagery priming, perceptual modulation correlated with self-reported vividness, and participants with low vividness did not show modulatory effects. However, in conceptual priming, effects were observed across the entire vividness spectrum, demonstrating that both concrete sensory-based and abstract conceptual representations can influence perception. These findings challenge purely sensory accounts of mental imagery. We propose avoiding deficit-based terms such as “aphantasia” and advocate for a neuroaffirmative perspective on mental simulation diversity.

Authors

  • Ágnes Welker1
  • Orsolya Pető-Plaszkó1
  • Luca Verebélyi1
  • Ferenc Gombos2
  • István Winkler1
  • Ilona Kovács2

Mental Imagery Isn't One-Size-Fits-All: New Research on How We Visualize

Study Overview

Mental imagery varies widely among individuals, from absent to extremely vivid. This study found that while visual imagery priming only works for those who can visualize, conceptual priming—thinking about movement without forming mental pictures—successfully influences perception across the entire imagery spectrum. These findings challenge the view that visual imagery is essential for internal mental simulation, suggesting people use diverse cognitive strategies that are equally valid rather than deficient.
What They Did: Researchers tested 119 people across the visualization spectrum using a clever eye-tracking experiment. Instead of relying on participants to report what they saw (which can be biased), they monitored automatic eye movements to objectively measure perception.
Participants looked at conflicting images through each eye (called "binocular rivalry"), which causes the brain to flip back and forth between what each eye sees. Before this, researchers asked people to either:
  • Visually imagine a moving pattern, or
  • Think conceptually about movement direction without forming a picture

Key Findings

  • Visual imagery works—but only if you have it: People who reported vivid mental imagery could use visualization to influence what they perceived. Those who couldn't visualize showed no effect from visual imagery instructions.
  • Everyone can use conceptual thinking: When asked to think about movement direction without visualizing it, everyone—including people with no visual imagery—could influence their perception. This worked equally well across the board.
  • Different brains, different strategies: This suggests that people without visual imagery aren't "broken"—they simply use alternative, more abstract mental strategies that work just as well.

Why It Matters

The researchers argue we should stop using deficit-based terms like "aphantasia" (absence of mental imagery) and instead recognize different "mental simulation styles"—abstract, low-sensory, and high-sensory—as equally valid ways of thinking. It's neurodiversity, not disability.
The Bottom Line: Your brain can influence what you see using either concrete mental pictures or abstract thinking. Both routes work—just differently for different people.