Back to all research

Aphantasia reimagined

DOI: 10.1111/nous.12551
Phillips, I. (2025). Aphantasia reimagined. Noûs. doi:10.1111/nous.12551

Abstract

How is it that individuals who deny experiencing visual imagery nonetheless perform normally on tasks which seem to require it? This puzzle of aphantasia has perplexed philosophers and scientists since the late nineteenth century. Contemporary responses include: (i) idiosyncratic reporting, (ii) faulty introspection, (iii) unconscious imagery, and (iv) complete lack of imagery combined with the use of alternative strategies. None offers a satisfying explanation of the full range of first‐person, behavioural and physiological data. Here, I diagnose the puzzle of aphantasia as arising from the mistaken assumption that variation in imagery is well‐captured by a single ‘vividness’ scale. Breaking with this assumption, I defend an alternative account which elegantly accommodates all the data. Crucial to this account is a fundamental distinction between visual‐object and spatial imagery. Armed with this distinction, I argue that subjective reports and objective measures only testify to the absence of visual‐object imagery, whereas imagery task performance is explained by preserved spatial imagery which goes unreported on standard ‘vividness’ questionnaires. More generally, I propose that aphantasia be thought of on analogy with agnosia, as a generic label for a range of imagery deficits with corresponding sparing.

Authors

  • Ian Phillips1

Understanding Aphantasia: A New Perspective

Overview/Introduction

Aphantasia is a condition where individuals report an inability to visualize images in their "mind's eye." Despite this, many people with aphantasia perform normally on tasks that seem to require visual imagery. This paradox has puzzled scientists and philosophers for over a century. Traditional explanations have included ideas like faulty introspection or unconscious imagery, but these have not fully explained the phenomenon. This paper proposes a new understanding by distinguishing between two types of imagery: visual-object imagery and spatial imagery.

Methodology

The research challenges the common assumption that imagery can be measured on a single "vividness" scale. Instead, it suggests that aphantasia involves a lack of visual-object imagery but preserved spatial imagery. This distinction was explored through a combination of subjective reports, objective tests, and analysis of existing literature on imagery and cognition.

Key Findings

  • Visual-Object vs. Spatial Imagery: The study identifies a crucial difference between visual-object imagery (detailed and vivid images of objects) and spatial imagery (abstract representations of spatial relationships).
  • Performance on Imagery Tasks: Individuals with aphantasia often perform well on tasks requiring spatial imagery, despite reporting a lack of visual-object imagery.
  • Limitations of Current Diagnostic Tools: The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) focuses too narrowly on visual-object imagery, missing other forms of imagery that aphantasics may possess.

Implications

  • Rethinking Aphantasia: The paper suggests that aphantasia should be viewed similarly to agnosia, as a range of imagery deficits rather than a single condition.
  • Broader Understanding of Imagery: Recognizing the distinction between visual-object and spatial imagery can lead to better diagnostic tools and a deeper understanding of how different types of imagery contribute to cognitive tasks.
  • Educational and Cognitive Strategies: This new perspective could inform strategies for education and cognitive training, particularly for individuals with aphantasia.

Limitations

  • Need for Further Research: While the study provides a new framework, further research is needed to explore the various subcomponents of visual-object and spatial imagery and how they interact in different forms of aphantasia.
In conclusion, by acknowledging the complexity of imagery and moving beyond a single vividness scale, this research offers a more nuanced understanding of aphantasia. It highlights the importance of recognizing individual differences in imagery and the potential for preserved spatial imagery to explain the capabilities of those with aphantasia.