Training Visual Imagery: Improvements of Metacognition, but not Imagery Strength

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00224

Tags:

Rademaker, R. L., & Pearson, J. (n.d.). Training visual imagery: improvements of metacognition, but not imagery strength. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00224

Abstract

Visual imagery has been closely linked to brain mechanisms involved in perception. Can visual imagery, like visual perception, improve by means of training? Previous research has demonstrated that people can reliably evaluate the vividness of single episodes of imagination - might the metacognition of imagery also improve over the course of training? We had participants imagine colored Gabor patterns for an hour a day, over the course of five consecutive days, and again 2 weeks after training. Participants rated the subjective vividness and effort of their mental imagery on each trial. The influence of imagery on subsequent binocular rivalry dominance was taken as our measure of imagery strength. We found no overall effect of training on imagery strength. Training did, however, improve participant's metacognition of imagery. Trial-by-trial ratings of vividness gained predictive power on subsequent rivalry dominance as a function of training. These data suggest that, while imagery strength might be immune to training in the current context, people's metacognitive understanding of mental imagery can improve with practice.

Authors

Rosanne L. Rademaker2
Joel Pearson35

What This Study Is About

Researchers investigated whether practicing mental imagery (the ability to picture things in the mind) for one hour a day could make a person’s mental images stronger or improve their "metacognition"—their ability to accurately judge how vivid their own thoughts are.

How They Studied It

Nine participants took part in a five-day training program. Each day, they spent an hour practicing imagining specific colored patterns. To measure the actual strength of their imagery, the researchers used a test called "binocular rivalry," where different images are shown to each eye simultaneously; usually, the brain "picks" the image that was just being imagined. Participants also rated how vivid and how much effort each mental image required. The researchers tested them again two weeks after the training ended to see if any changes lasted.

What They Found

The study found that five days of practice did not make mental imagery any stronger; participants were not more likely to influence the vision test after training than they were at the start. However, their metacognition improved significantly. By the end of the week, participants were much better at predicting which of their mental images were strong enough to influence their vision. This improved self-awareness remained even during the follow-up two weeks later.

What This Might Mean

These results suggest that while the "raw power" of our mental imagery might be a stable trait that is difficult to change with short-term practice, we can become much better at observing and understanding our own internal thoughts. It shows a clear split between the ability to perform a mental task and the ability to accurately judge how well we are doing it. Because the study only lasted five days and had a small number of participants, it is possible that much longer training might be needed to see changes in imagery strength itself.

One Interesting Detail

While participants got better at judging the "vividness" of their mental images, their ratings of how much "effort" they put in did not predict their actual imagery strength at all, suggesting that trying harder doesn't necessarily lead to a clearer mental picture.

Training Visual Imagery: Improvements of Metacognition, but not Imagery Strength

Abstract

Authors

Training Visual Imagery: Improvements of Metacognition, but not Imagery Strength

Abstract

Authors

Training Visual Imagery: Improvements of Metacognition, but not Imagery Strength

Abstract

Authors

Training Visual Imagery: Improvements of Metacognition, but not Imagery Strength

Abstract

Authors

What This Study Is About

How They Studied It

What They Found

What This Might Mean

One Interesting Detail

What This Study Is About

How They Studied It

What They Found

What This Might Mean

One Interesting Detail

Joel Pearson

Merlin Monzel

Adam Zeman

Rebecca Keogh

Martin Reuter

Juha Silvanto

Paolo Bartolomeo

Carla Dance

Jianghao Liu

Fraser Milton