Back to all research

Evaluating the Mind’s Eye

DOI: 10.1177/0956797611417134
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 Pearson30
  • Rosanne L. Rademaker1
  • Frank Tong2

Understanding the Mind's Eye: How We Judge Our Own Mental Imagery

Overview/Introduction

Have you ever wondered how well you can evaluate the vividness of your own mental images? This study explores a fascinating aspect of human cognition called metacognition, which is essentially how well we know our own thoughts. The research investigates whether people can accurately judge the vividness of their mental images and how these judgments affect their perception of visual stimuli.

Methodology

  • Participants: The study involved 20 undergraduate students with normal or corrected-to-normal vision.
  • Procedure: Participants were asked to imagine a specific visual pattern and rate its vividness. Following this, they were shown a visual display containing the imagined pattern and an additional pattern. They then reported which pattern appeared more dominant.
  • Tools Used: A mirror stereoscope was used to present different patterns to each eye, and a questionnaire measured individual differences in imagery vividness.

Key Findings

  • Vividness and Perception: Participants who rated their mental images as more vivid were more likely to perceive the imagined pattern as dominant in the visual display.
  • Imagery Bias: The vividness ratings predicted individual differences in the strength of imagery bias, meaning that people with more vivid mental imagery experienced stronger perceptual effects.
  • Demand Characteristics: The study controlled for potential biases by including mock trials, which showed no significant bias, confirming that the observed effects were genuine.

Implications

  • Metacognitive Awareness: The findings suggest that people have a good understanding of their own mental imagery, which can influence how they perceive the world around them.
  • Practical Applications: This research could have implications for fields like psychology and neuroscience, offering insights into how mental imagery and perception are interconnected. It might also be useful in developing techniques for enhancing visualization skills in education and therapy.

Limitations

  • Sample Size: The study involved a relatively small sample size, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
  • Subjective Measures: The reliance on self-reported measures of vividness and effort could introduce variability in the data.
In summary, this study sheds light on the intriguing relationship between mental imagery and perception, highlighting our ability to introspectively evaluate the vividness of our own mental images and the impact this has on our sensory experiences.