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.
What This Study Is About
Researchers wanted to know if having aphantasia—the inability to see pictures in your mind—changes how people experience reading books. They also wanted to see if the common way of grouping people into "low," "average," and "high" visualizers is supported by statistical evidence.
How They Studied It
The study involved 411 adults who completed several online surveys. Participants used the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) to rate how clearly they could "see" things in their mind’s eye—a process called mental imagery. They also answered questions about their reading habits, such as how much they felt "transported" into a story or how emotionally connected they felt to characters. The researchers used a statistical method to see if people naturally fell into three expected groups: aphantasics (no imagery), phantasics (average imagery), and hyperphantasics (extremely vivid imagery).
What They Found
The statistics confirmed that people do indeed fall into three distinct groups based on their imagery strength. When it came to reading, people with aphantasia reported feeling less "swept away" by stories and felt fewer physical or emotional reactions while reading compared to those with vivid mental imagery. However, despite not "seeing" the story, people with aphantasia still enjoyed reading just as much as everyone else and spent a similar amount of time doing it.
What This Might Mean
This suggests that while mental imagery adds a specific sensory "layer" to reading, it isn't required to enjoy a good book. People with aphantasia likely use different mental tools, such as focusing on the plot, the logic of the world, or the quality of the writing, to engage with a narrative. While the study shows clear differences in how people read, it reminds us that there is no "right" way to experience a story. One limitation is that the study relied on self-reports, which can be influenced by how individuals interpret their own thoughts.
One Interesting Detail
Even though they couldn't picture the scenes, many participants with aphantasia still reported a strong sense of "narrative understanding," proving that you don't need a "movie in your head" to fully grasp a complex plot.