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

Different Mechanisms for Supporting Mental Imagery and Perceptual Representations: Modulation Versus Excitation

DOI: 10.1177/09567976231198435
Tags:
Measurement & Assessment
Pace, T., Koenig-Robert, R., & Pearson, J. (2023). Different mechanisms for supporting mental imagery and perceptual representations: modulation versus excitation. Psychological Science, 34(11), 1229–1243. doi:10.1177/09567976231198435

Abstract

Recent research suggests imagery is functionally equivalent to a weak form of visual perception. Here we report evidence across five independent experiments on adults that perception and imagery are supported by fundamentally different mechanisms: Whereas perceptual representations are largely formed via increases in excitatory activity, imagery representations are largely supported by modulating nonimagined content. We developed two behavioral techniques that allowed us to first put the visual system into a state of adaptation and then probe the additivity of perception and imagery. If imagery drives similar excitatory visual activity to perception, pairing imagery with perceptual adapters should increase the state of adaptation. Whereas pairing weak perception with adapters increased measures of adaptation, pairing imagery reversed their effects. Further experiments demonstrated that these nonadditive effects were due to imagery weakening representations of nonimagined content. Together these data provide empirical evidence that the brain uses categorically different mechanisms to represent imagery and perception.

Authors

  • Thomas Pace2
  • Roger Koenig-Robert4
  • Joel Pearson35

Different Mechanisms for Supporting Mental Imagery and Perceptual Representations: Modulation Versus Excitation

DOI: 10.1177/09567976231198435
Tags:
Measurement & Assessment
Pace, T., Koenig-Robert, R., & Pearson, J. (2023). Different mechanisms for supporting mental imagery and perceptual representations: modulation versus excitation. Psychological Science, 34(11), 1229–1243. doi:10.1177/09567976231198435

Abstract

Recent research suggests imagery is functionally equivalent to a weak form of visual perception. Here we report evidence across five independent experiments on adults that perception and imagery are supported by fundamentally different mechanisms: Whereas perceptual representations are largely formed via increases in excitatory activity, imagery representations are largely supported by modulating nonimagined content. We developed two behavioral techniques that allowed us to first put the visual system into a state of adaptation and then probe the additivity of perception and imagery. If imagery drives similar excitatory visual activity to perception, pairing imagery with perceptual adapters should increase the state of adaptation. Whereas pairing weak perception with adapters increased measures of adaptation, pairing imagery reversed their effects. Further experiments demonstrated that these nonadditive effects were due to imagery weakening representations of nonimagined content. Together these data provide empirical evidence that the brain uses categorically different mechanisms to represent imagery and perception.

Authors

  • Thomas Pace2
  • Roger Koenig-Robert4
  • Joel Pearson35
Aphantasia Logo

What This Study Is About

Researchers investigated whether mental imagery—the ability to picture things in your mind—is simply a "weak" version of actual seeing, or if the brain uses a different process to create these internal images. Specifically, they looked at whether the brain creates mental images by activating specific visual areas or by suppressing distracting information.

How They Studied It

The researchers conducted several experiments using "binocular rivalry" and visual discrimination tasks. In these tests, participants (typically around 17–20 people per experiment) looked at patterns of lines called "gratings."
Participants were asked to either look at a real image or imagine one as vividly as possible. The researchers then measured how these mental images affected the participants' ability to see subsequent patterns. They compared "weak perception" (seeing a faint real image) with "mental imagery" (picturing the image) to see if the brain treated them the same way.

What They Found

The study found that mental imagery works differently than actual seeing. While seeing a real image makes the brain more sensitive to that specific pattern, imagining an image actually reversed certain "fatigue" effects in the brain.
Crucially, the more vividly a person could imagine the pattern, the stronger this effect was. The data showed that mental imagery doesn't just "turn on" the parts of the brain that see; instead, it seems to work by "turning down" or inhibiting the parts of the brain that would process distracting, non-imagined information.

What This Might Mean

This suggests that mental imagery is not just a faint copy of vision. Instead, it may be a unique process where the brain "clears the deck" by suppressing noise to let the mental image stand out.
For people with aphantasia (the inability to visualize), this could mean their brains process internal information differently, perhaps lacking this specific inhibitory mechanism. However, because this study focused on people who can visualize, more research is needed to see how these mechanisms differ in those who cannot.

One Interesting Detail

The researchers found that when people imagined a specific pattern, their brains actually became worse at seeing different, non-imagined patterns. This supports the idea that the brain "mutes" everything else to help the mind's eye focus on a mental picture.
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