Latent Profiles of Visual Imagery: Aphantasics, Mid-Range Imagers, and Hyperphantasics Experience Reading Differently
Williams, R., & Suggate, S. P. (2024). Latent profiles of visual imagery: aphantasics, mid-range imagers, and hyperphantasics experience reading differently. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 44(2), 168–194. doi:10.1177/02762366241279404
Abstract
Mental imagery differs markedly between people, with research tentatively identifying three categories, namely aphantasia, mid-range imagery, and hyperphantasia. Further, aphantasia poses interesting questions as to how people with low imagery experience reading. Accordingly, we used Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) on a sample of adults (n = 287) to see what distinct imagery profiles exist empirically. Second, we tested different imagery profiles for associations with different reading enjoyment and absorption experiences. The online correlational study asked participants to complete measures including the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ-2), the Story World Absorption Scale, and a measure of reading enjoyment. LPAs were run to identify imagery profiles and correlations were run with reading enjoyment and absorption. Results of the LPA validate the existence of three profiles. All groups reported moderate to high enjoyment and absorption, however, significant group differences existed between the lowest and highest imagers. Future research needs to better understand what these experiential differences are and how they may or may not affect reading ability.
Authors
- Rosina Williams1
- Sebastian Paul Suggate2
The Hidden Spectrum of Imagination: Why Some People Can't Visualize and What It Means for Reading
Have you ever closed your eyes and vividly imagined a beach—the golden sand, azure waves, salty breeze? Most of us can. But roughly 4% of the population can't. They have a condition called aphantasia, meaning they experience no visual imagery in their mind's eye whatsoever. Until recently, researchers barely knew this group existed, let alone wondered whether it affected how they read, learn, or experience the world. A new study by Williams and Suggate offers surprising insights into this hidden spectrum of human imagination and its unexpected connection to how we engage with stories.
The researchers wanted to answer a fundamental question: does the vividness of our mental imagery actually change how we experience reading? To find out, they recruited 287 people across the full spectrum of visual imagination—from those with aphantasia to those with extraordinarily vivid imagery (called hyperphantasia)—and asked them detailed questions about their reading experiences. This might sound straightforward, but here's where it gets interesting: previous researchers had used different cutoff scores to classify people into imagery groups, making it hard to compare studies. So the team also aimed to figure out where the real boundaries actually lie between low, medium, and high imagers.
The study used an online questionnaire administered in summer 2022, deliberately recruiting heavily from aphantasia communities to ensure they captured enough people with no mental imagery for meaningful analysis. Participants rated their mental imagery on a standardized scale and answered questions about how absorbed they became in fiction—whether they felt transported into the story world, whether they visualized scenes, and how much they emotionally engaged with what they read. The team required participants to have university-level education and be fluent English speakers, partly to ensure literacy wasn't confounding the results, but also because they relied on people accurately describing their internal mental experiences.
What they discovered challenges some comfortable assumptions. The researchers identified three distinct groups: aphantasics and low imagers at one end, mid-range imagers in the middle, and hyperphantasics at the other. But here's the kicker—the hyperphantasics were surprisingly overrepresented in their sample at 22%, compared to only about 2.5% expected in the general population. Even accounting for their recruitment strategy, this suggests that highly visual people might be more attracted to studies about imagery. More intriguingly, hyperphantasic participants showed something unique: unlike other groups, their mental imagery was equally vivid whether their eyes were open or closed. Researchers speculate this might mean their internal imagery is so powerful it doesn't get disrupted by incoming visual information from the world around them.
The real significance, however, lies in what this means for how different people experience reading. If you're a hyperphantasic, you might genuinely feel like you're living inside a book, transported into the story world. If you have aphantasia, you simply don't have that visual experience—yet the research suggests this doesn't seem to wreck your reading enjoyment or comprehension in adulthood. But here's what remains unknown and might matter enormously: what about children? When kids are just learning to read and building reading comprehension skills, does being unable to visualize make reading harder? Could aphantasic children be mistakenly diagnosed with reading disabilities when they simply process text differently? The researchers note that some reading instruction methods deliberately encourage students to visualize scenes and imagine settings. Would these approaches help some children more than others?
The study's findings also hint that we've been drawing the lines between imagery groups in slightly wrong places. The empirically derived cutoff scores suggest we likely underidentify both people with genuine aphantasia and those with extreme hyperphantasia. This matters for future research, education, and potentially for how we design reading interventions or screen for learning difficulties.
Looking forward, the researchers identify several rich areas for investigation: examining whether imagery abilities affect children's reading development differently than adults', testing whether certain reading instruction methods work better for particular imagery profiles, and exploring whether aphantasic children are overrepresented in reading disability diagnoses. They also note that imagery extends beyond the visual—people also have auditory, tactile, taste, and smell imagery in their minds. Early evidence suggests aphantasics may lack these too, but more research is needed. And intriguingly, some preliminary work suggests that screen media usage might affect how our imagery abilities develop, a question that hasn't yet been examined across different imagery profiles.
This research opens a window onto human diversity we've barely begun to understand. For decades, we assumed everyone experienced imagination the same way. Now we're discovering that's not true—and that recognizing these differences might be key to supporting all learners effectively, from the most vividly imaginative to those navigating the world without mental imagery at all. The next chapter in this story, particularly in understanding how these differences play out as children develop, promises to be equally revealing.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain errors. Always refer to the original paper for accuracy.