Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Back to all research
Ask AI About This Paper

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

What This Study Is About

Researchers wanted to know if we are good at guessing how many people have a "blind mind's eye" (aphantasia) or "HD-quality" mental pictures (hyperphantasia). They also looked at whether our own imagination style changes how we see the rest of the world.

How They Studied It

The team conducted two studies with over 300 university students. Participants took surveys to rate their own mental imagery—the ability to picture things in your mind. They were then asked to guess what percentage of the general population lives with aphantasia (no mental images) or hyperphantasia (extremely vivid images). In the second study, they also looked at sensory sensitivity—how much people notice small details or get overwhelmed by loud noises.

What They Found

The biggest surprise? We are terrible guessers! While previous research suggests only about 1% of people have aphantasia, participants guessed it was closer to 30%. They also thought hyperphantasia was way more common than it actually is.
The study also found that your own brain "style" matters. If you are great at picturing colorful objects, you’re more likely to think everyone else has a vivid imagination too. It’s like assuming everyone loves spicy food just because you do! This is called a "false consensus" bias.

What This Might Mean

This suggests that our own internal experiences act like a filter for how we view society. If we have a vivid mind, we assume others do too. However, we have to be careful: this was a "preprint" (a study not yet fully reviewed by other scientists) and it only looked at college students. This means the results *suggest* a pattern, but they don't *prove* that everyone in the world thinks this way. We need more diverse groups to be certain.

One Interesting Detail

The researchers found a "sensitivity link." People with very vivid mental images were often more sensitive to the physical world—meaning they were more likely to be bothered by things like itchy fabrics, loud noises, or bright lights!
This summary was generated by AI and may contain errors. Always refer to the original paper for accuracy.