Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

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

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

What This Study Is About

Researchers wanted to know if people with aphantasia—the inability to picture things in their mind—can still influence what they see by using abstract thoughts. They explored whether "thinking" about a direction works differently than "picturing" it.

How They Studied It

The team worked with 89 participants, ranging from those with no mental imagery to those with "HD-quality" mental pictures. They used a classic brain trick called binocular rivalry: they showed a different moving pattern to each eye simultaneously. Usually, the brain can’t handle both, so it flips back and forth between them.
Participants were asked to do two things before looking at the patterns:
1. Visualize: Try to picture one of the patterns in their "mind's eye."
2. Conceptualize: Just think about the direction (like repeating the word "right") without trying to see it.
Instead of relying on what people *said* they saw, researchers used high-tech eye-trackers to watch involuntary eye movements. This provided an objective "window" into the participants' brains.

What They Found

The results showed two very different paths in the brain:
  • The Picture Path: When asked to *picture* a pattern, it didn't help people with aphantasia see it more often. Their brains didn't get the "head start" that people with vivid imagery received.
  • The Thought Path: However, when they just *thought* about the concept (the direction), everyone’s perception was influenced—including those with aphantasia!
This means that even without "mental movies," the aphantasic brain can use abstract ideas to change how it perceives the physical world.

What This Might Mean

This suggests that aphantasia isn't a "broken" visual system. Instead, it’s a different mental simulation style. Think of it like two different computer programs: one processes information using images (like a JPEG), and the other uses text (like code). Both programs can reach the same result; they just use different data.
*Note:* This study mostly involved college-aged women, so we can't be certain yet if these results apply to everyone, but it’s a huge step in understanding how diverse our minds really are!

One Interesting Detail

The researchers suggest we move away from the word "aphantasia" because it sounds like something is missing. Instead, they propose calling it an "abstract simulation style," highlighting that it’s a unique cognitive strength rather than a disadvantage.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain errors. Always refer to the original paper for accuracy.