Back to all research

How People Estimate the Prevalence of Aphantasia and Hyperphantasia in the Population

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5178641
Blazhenkova, O., Kotov, A., & Kotova, T. (n.d.). How people estimate the prevalence of aphantasia and hyperphantasia in the population. doi:10.2139/ssrn.5178641

Abstract

We examined how people estimate the prevalence of aphantasia (extreme lack of visual imagery) and hyperphantasia (extreme abundance of visual imagery) in the population and how their own imagery and verbal skills predict these estimations. Participants read extreme imagery descriptions and evaluated the percentage of individuals within a population to whom they apply. Participants also completed questionnaires assessing their own object and spatial imagery and verbal skills, and imagery vividness. Participants estimated the prevalence of hyperphantasia as about 53%, notably higher than the estimated prevalence of 32% for aphantasia. These estimates were considerably higher than the actual rates reported in the literature (approximately 3% for hyperphantasia and 1% for aphantasia). At the same time, participants’ own vividness ratings indicated low rates of extreme imagery, consistent with other studies. Higher self-reported object imagery (but not spatial imagery or verbal skills) predicted greater overestimation of hyperphantasia, but only for self-estimated object imagery skills, not for vividness ratings. Additionally, females overestimated the frequency of imagery extremes more than males, particularly for aphantasia. Our work contributes to understanding of public perceptions of visual-spatial cognitive diversity and suggests that one's own cognitive skills may influence perceptions of the prevalence of rare cognitive traits in others. We discuss the potential role of cognitive biases in perception of imagery variability in population and in self-evaluated abilities. Additionally, by considering spatial imagery vividness, which is often overlooked in aphantasia research, our work opens the door for future studies on spatial aphantasia and its potential prevalence.

Authors

  • Olesya Blazhenkova1
  • Alexey Alexandrovich Kotov1
  • Tatyana Kotova1

Understanding Public Perceptions of Visual Imagery Extremes

Overview/Introduction

This study explores how people perceive the prevalence of two extremes of visual imagery: aphantasia, the inability to form mental images, and hyperphantasia, the ability to create vivid mental images. The research investigates how individuals' own cognitive skills, particularly in visual imagery, influence their estimates of how common these conditions are in the general population.

Methodology

  • Participants: 185 university students participated, with a majority being female.
  • Procedure: Participants read descriptions of aphantasia and hyperphantasia and estimated the percentage of the population that might experience these extremes. They also completed questionnaires assessing their own visual imagery and verbal skills.
  • Tools: The study used the Vividness of Object and Spatial Imagery Questionnaire (VOSI-2) and the Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ) to measure imagery vividness and skills.

Key Findings

  • Participants estimated that 53% of the population experiences hyperphantasia, while 32% experience aphantasia. These estimates are significantly higher than actual reported rates of approximately 3% for hyperphantasia and 1% for aphantasia.
  • Individuals with higher self-reported object imagery skills tended to overestimate the prevalence of hyperphantasia.
  • Females generally estimated higher frequencies of both imagery extremes compared to males.
  • The study found a positive correlation between the perceived prevalence of aphantasia and hyperphantasia, suggesting shared cognitive biases in estimating these extremes.

Implications

  • The findings highlight a potential cognitive bias where individuals project their own cognitive abilities onto the population, leading to overestimations of rare cognitive traits.
  • Understanding these biases can improve awareness of cognitive diversity and inform educational and support systems for individuals with unique mental imagery abilities.
  • The study suggests the need for more objective measures to accurately assess the prevalence of aphantasia and hyperphantasia.

Limitations

  • The study's sample was limited to university students, which may not represent the general population.
  • The reliance on self-reported data could introduce biases, as individuals may overestimate their abilities due to social desirability.
  • The study highlights the need for more refined measurement tools to ensure reliability and validity in assessing cognitive extremes.
In conclusion, while people tend to overestimate the prevalence of extreme visual imagery abilities, this research sheds light on the cognitive biases influencing these perceptions and underscores the importance of developing objective assessment tools. Understanding these biases can enhance our approach to cognitive diversity and support for individuals with unique mental imagery capabilities.