Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Back to all research
Ask AI About This Paper

Utilizing Aphantasia to Examine Embodied Cognition in the Visual Modality

DOI: 10.33011/cuhj20264961
Moskoff, T. (2026). Utilizing aphantasia to examine embodied cognition in the visual modality. University of Colorado Honors Journal. doi:10.33011/cuhj20264961

Abstract

This study investigated the role of mental visual imagery in language processing. Specifically, data was collected on participants with and without aphantasia – a condition wherein no mental visual imagery occurs – and their reaction times were compared in a property verification task. In the study, 39 participants (12 with aphantasia, 27 with mental visual imagery) answered a series of true/false questions focused on visual or motor modalities. Sentences were paired, with the Match condition being a visually-embedded sentence (e.g., coins can be metallic) followed by another visually-embedded sentence (e.g., grapes can be purple), and the Mismatch condition being a visually-embedded sentence (e.g., coins can be metallic) followed by a motor-embedded sentence (e.g., tires can be slashed). In the Mismatch condition, participants with intact mental visual imagery were expected to answer the second, motor-embedded sentence slower than the first, visually-embedded sentence (i.e. experience a switching cost). In the Match condition, participants were expected to answer with an equal or faster speed to the second, visually-embedded sentence. Both of these results would’ve been in accordance with past research in the field of linguistic embodied cognition (Pecher et al., 2003). On the other hand, participants with aphantasia were not expected to experience a switching cost in the Mismatch condition, nor a priming effect in the Match condition. Findings showed, however, that no switching costs or priming effects were observed for either group. That being said, a statistically significant reaction time difference overall was found between the Aphantastia and Visual Imagery groups, with the Aphantasia group responding faster than the Visual Imagery group in both conditions. Implications for differences in language processing between these two groups therefore merits further investigation, in order to better understand differences in how language is processed across the population.

Authors

  • Tessa Moskoff1

What This Study Is About

Researchers wanted to know if you need to "see" pictures in your head to understand the words you read. They compared people with aphantasia—the inability to create mental imagery (a "blind mind’s eye")—to people who can visualize easily to see who processes language faster.

How They Studied It

The study included 39 participants: 12 with aphantasia and 27 who could visualize. Participants took a "true or false" test where they read pairs of sentences.
Some sentences were visual (describing how things look, like "Grapes can be purple") and others were motor-based (describing actions, like "Tires can be slashed"). The researchers looked for a "switching cost"—a split-second brain lag that usually happens when you jump from thinking about a "look" to thinking about a "move."

What They Found

Surprisingly, the "switching cost" didn't show up for either group. However, the researchers found something even more interesting: The group with aphantasia was significantly faster at answering the questions overall.
While the people who could visualize were busy "drawing" the sentences in their minds, the aphantasic participants were able to process the meaning of the words and hit the "true" button much quicker.

What This Might Mean

This suggests that mental imagery isn't actually necessary for understanding language. In fact, for some tasks, having a "visualizer" brain might be like running too many apps at once—it creates a bit of "visual noise" that slows you down.
However, we have to be careful: this was a small study with only 39 people, and the participants were recruited from online communities like Reddit, which might not represent everyone. It doesn't *prove* aphantasics are faster thinkers, but it *suggests* their brains use a more direct, non-visual route to get to the meaning of a sentence.

One Interesting Detail

The aphantasia group responded so much faster that the researcher compared it to a "shortcut" in the brain. Because they aren't using the brain's visual pathways to "see" the sentence, those pathways are free to focus entirely on the facts!
This summary was generated by AI and may contain errors. Always refer to the original paper for accuracy.