Back to all research

A Systematic Review of Aphantasia: Concept, Measurement, Neural Basis, and Theory Development

DOI: 10.20944/preprints202407.0680.v1
Jin, F., Hsu, S.-M., & Li, Y. (n.d.). A systematic review of aphantasia: concept, measurement, neural basis, and theory development. doi:10.20944/preprints202407.0680.v1

Abstract

People with aphantasia exhibit the inability to voluntarily generate or form mental imagery in their minds. Since the term “aphantasia” was proposed by Zeman et al. in 2015 to describe this, it has gained increasing attention from psychiatrists, neuroscientists, and clinicians. Previous studies have mainly focused on definition, prevalence, and measurement, its impacts on individuals’ cognitive and emotional processing, and theoretical frameworks synthesizing existing findings, which have contributed greatly to our understanding of aphantasia. However, there are still some debates regarding the conclusions derived from existing research and the theories that were constructed from various sources of evidence. Building upon existing endeavors, the current systematic review emphasizes that future research is much needed to refine definition and diagnosis of aphantasia, strengthen empirical investigations at behavioral and neural levels, and more importantly, develop or update theories. These multiple lines of efforts could lead to a deeper understanding of aphantasia and further guide researchers in future research directions.

Authors

  • Feiyang Jin1
  • Shen-Mou Hsu1
  • Yu Li1

Understanding Aphantasia: A Comprehensive Overview

Overview/Introduction

Aphantasia is a condition where individuals cannot voluntarily create mental images in their minds. First identified in 2015 by Zeman and colleagues, this phenomenon has sparked interest among scientists and clinicians. Aphantasia's impact on cognitive and emotional functions, its neural basis, and its theoretical frameworks have been explored, but there is still much to learn. This review aims to summarize current research and highlight future directions for understanding aphantasia.

Methodology

The review systematically examines existing studies on aphantasia, focusing on its definition, prevalence, measurement methods, and effects on cognition and emotion. It also explores the neural underpinnings and theoretical models associated with aphantasia. The review draws on a wide range of research, including studies that predate the formal introduction of the term "aphantasia."

Key Findings

  • Definition and Measurement: Aphantasia is defined as the absence of mental imagery, primarily assessed using the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ). However, definitions and diagnostic criteria vary, complicating research comparisons.
  • Cognitive Impact: Individuals with aphantasia may have difficulties with memory, imagination, and visual tasks. They often rely on verbal strategies to compensate for their lack of visual imagery.
  • Emotional and Mental Health: Aphantasia can reduce emotional engagement and empathy. Despite these effects, it is not classified as a psychological disorder.
  • Associated Conditions: Aphantasia is linked to conditions like autism and prosopagnosia (difficulty recognizing faces). It may also offer some protection against PTSD due to reduced emotional intensity.
  • Neural Basis: Neuroimaging studies suggest that aphantasia is related to differences in brain activity, particularly in the visual cortex.

Implications

  • Research and Diagnosis: Consistent definitions and diagnostic criteria are crucial for advancing research. Developing new assessment tools beyond self-report questionnaires could improve accuracy.
  • Cognitive and Emotional Understanding: Recognizing aphantasia's impact on cognition and emotion can inform therapeutic approaches and support for affected individuals.
  • Theoretical Development: Refining existing theories and models will enhance our understanding of aphantasia and its neural mechanisms.

Limitations

  • Variability in Definitions: Inconsistent definitions and criteria across studies hinder cross-study comparisons and understanding.
  • Reliance on Self-Report: Current measurement methods rely heavily on self-report, which may not accurately capture the true nature of aphantasia.
  • Limited Empirical Evidence: More empirical research is needed to validate existing theories and explore new ones.
In conclusion, while significant progress has been made in understanding...