Aphantasia Logo
Back to all research
Aphantasia Logo

Building awareness and understanding of aphantasia through research, education, and community support.

About

  • What is Aphantasia?
  • What is Hyperphantasia?
  • Take Assessment
  • Getting Started
  • Newsletter
  • About Us
  • Contact

Community

  • Premium Membership
  • Find support
  • Discussions
  • Events
  • Visualize

For Professionals

  • Overview
  • Free Introduction
  • Counselor Training
  • Educator Training
  • List Your Practice
  • Pricing & Bundles

Resources

  • Articles & Stories
  • Videos & Interviews
  • Aphantasia Course
  • FAQs

Research

  • Research Library
  • Participate in Studies
  • Recruitment Services

© 2026 Aphantasia Network. All rights reserved.

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
Aphantasia Logo
Back to all research
Aphantasia Logo

Building awareness and understanding of aphantasia through research, education, and community support.

About

  • What is Aphantasia?
  • What is Hyperphantasia?
  • Take Assessment
  • Getting Started
  • Newsletter
  • About Us
  • Contact

Community

  • Premium Membership
  • Find support
  • Discussions
  • Events
  • Visualize

For Professionals

  • Overview
  • Free Introduction
  • Counselor Training
  • Educator Training
  • List Your Practice
  • Pricing & Bundles

Resources

  • Articles & Stories
  • Videos & Interviews
  • Aphantasia Course
  • FAQs

Research

  • Research Library
  • Participate in Studies
  • Recruitment Services

© 2026 Aphantasia Network. All rights reserved.

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
Ask AI About This Paper
Ask AI About This Paper

Evaluating the Mind’s Eye: The Metacognition of Visual Imagery

DOI: 10.1177/0956797611417134
Tags:
Measurement & AssessmentVisualizationHyperphantasia
Pearson, J., Rademaker, R. L., & Tong, F. (2011). Evaluating the mind’s eye. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1535–1542. doi:DOI: 10.1177/0956797611417134

Abstract

Can people evaluate phenomenal qualities of internally generated experiences, such as whether a mental image is vivid or detailed? This question exemplifies a problem of metacognition: How well do people know their own thoughts? In the study reported here, participants were instructed to imagine a specific visual pattern and rate its vividness, after which they were presented with an ambiguous rivalry display that consisted of the previously imagined pattern plus an orthogonal pattern. On individual trials, higher ratings of vividness predicted a greater likelihood that the imagined pattern would appear dominant when the participant was subsequently presented with the binocular rivalry display. Off-line self-report questionnaires measuring imagery vividness also predicted individual differences in the strength of imagery bias over the entire study. Perceptual bias due to mental imagery could not be attributed to demand characteristics, as no bias was observed on catch-trial presentations of mock rivalry displays. Our findings provide novel evidence that people have a good metacognitive understanding of their own mental imagery and can reliably evaluate the vividness of single episodes of imagination.

Authors

  • Joel Pearson35
  • Rosanne L. Rademaker2
  • Frank Tong2

Evaluating the Mind’s Eye: The Metacognition of Visual Imagery

DOI: 10.1177/0956797611417134
Tags:
Measurement & AssessmentVisualizationHyperphantasia
Pearson, J., Rademaker, R. L., & Tong, F. (2011). Evaluating the mind’s eye. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1535–1542. doi:DOI: 10.1177/0956797611417134

Abstract

Can people evaluate phenomenal qualities of internally generated experiences, such as whether a mental image is vivid or detailed? This question exemplifies a problem of metacognition: How well do people know their own thoughts? In the study reported here, participants were instructed to imagine a specific visual pattern and rate its vividness, after which they were presented with an ambiguous rivalry display that consisted of the previously imagined pattern plus an orthogonal pattern. On individual trials, higher ratings of vividness predicted a greater likelihood that the imagined pattern would appear dominant when the participant was subsequently presented with the binocular rivalry display. Off-line self-report questionnaires measuring imagery vividness also predicted individual differences in the strength of imagery bias over the entire study. Perceptual bias due to mental imagery could not be attributed to demand characteristics, as no bias was observed on catch-trial presentations of mock rivalry displays. Our findings provide novel evidence that people have a good metacognitive understanding of their own mental imagery and can reliably evaluate the vividness of single episodes of imagination.

Authors

  • Joel Pearson35
  • Rosanne L. Rademaker2
  • Frank Tong2
Aphantasia Logo

What This Study Is About

Researchers wanted to know if people can accurately judge the strength of their own mental imagery—the ability to picture things in the mind. They tested whether a person’s self-reported "vividness" rating actually matches how much that mental image influences their real-world vision.

How They Studied It

The study involved 20 participants who performed a series of "binocular rivalry" tests. In these tests, different images are shown to each eye (for example, green vertical stripes to one eye and red horizontal stripes to the other), forcing the brain to pick one to see. Before seeing the real images, participants were asked to imagine one of them as vividly as possible. They then rated how vivid their mental image was and how much effort they used. Finally, they reported which real image they actually saw.

What They Found

The researchers discovered that when people rated their mental image as more vivid, that image was significantly more likely to "win" the visual competition and be seen in real life. Interestingly, the amount of effort a person felt they put in did not predict what they saw; only the vividness of the image mattered. This suggests that people have good "metacognition" for imagery—meaning they have a reliable internal sense of how strong their mental pictures really are.

What This Might Mean

This study suggests that subjective ratings of mental imagery are not just "make-believe" or guesses; they reflect real, measurable brain activity. For those with aphantasia (the inability to visualize), this supports the idea that their lack of internal imagery is a genuine physiological difference rather than a failure of self-awareness. However, because the study used a small group of typical visualizers, more research is needed to see if these patterns hold true across the entire spectrum of imagery vividness.

One Interesting Detail

The researchers found that a person's general score on a standard imagery questionnaire (the VVIQ) could predict how much their imagination would bias their actual vision, proving that these simple "how vivid is your mind's eye" surveys are scientifically valid tools.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain errors. Always refer to the original paper for accuracy.
Most-Cited Researchers
Top 10 researchers by number of papers published in Aphantasia
1

Joel Pearson

35
2

Merlin Monzel

30
3

Adam Zeman

20
4

Rebecca Keogh

17
5

Martin Reuter

16
6

Juha Silvanto

14
7

Paolo Bartolomeo

11
8

Carla Dance

10
9

Jianghao Liu

9
10

Fraser Milton

9
Recruit the largest aphantasia cohort on earth

97.4K+ users & subscribers across the imagery spectrum, plus 1.5M+ survey responses in our dataset. Skip the recruitment bottleneck and run your study with the community we've built for a decade.

Partner with us