Phenomenological Studies of Visual Mental Imagery: A Review and Synthesis of Historical Datasets

MarksOctober 2023

Abstract
What This Study Is About
How They Studied It
What They Found
What This Might Mean
One Interesting Detail
Authors
Cite this paper

Abstract

This article reviews historically significant phenomenological studies of visual mental imagery (VMI), starting with Fechner in 1860 and continuing to the present. This synthesis of diverse VMI phenomenological studies in healthy adults serves as a unique resource for investigators of individual differences, cognitive development and clinical and neurological conditions. The review focuses on two kinds of VMI, “memory imagery” and “eidetic imagery”. Ten primary studies are drawn from three periods of the scholarly literature: early (1860–1929), middle (1930–1999) and recent (2000–2023). It is concluded that memory and eidetic imagery are two forms of constructive imagery, varying along a continuum of intensity or vividness. Vividness is a combination of clarity, colourfulness and liveliness, where clarity is defined by brightness and sharpness, colourfulness by image saturation and liveliness by vivacity, animation, feeling, solidity, projection and metamorphosis. The findings are integrated in a template that specifies, as a tree-like structure, the 16 properties of VMI vividness in healthy adult humans. The template takes into account the weight of evidence drawn from the accounts and reveals an extraordinary degree of consistency in reported VMI characteristics, revealed by specialized studies of healthy adult humans across time, space and culture.

Our summary in plain words

What This Study Is About

This research looks back at over 160 years of history to understand how people experience visual mental imagery—the ability to "see" pictures in the mind. It explores how these inner experiences vary from person to person, ranging from those with aphantasia (no mental imagery) to those with "photographic" or eidetic memory.

How They Studied It

The researcher reviewed ten major historical studies conducted between 1860 and 2023. These studies included detailed personal accounts, questionnaires, and experiments. By comparing the experiences of hundreds of people across different eras and cultures, the researcher identified 16 specific characteristics that define how vivid a mental image feels, such as its brightness, color, and how long it lasts.

What They Found

The study found that mental imagery is not a single "on or off" switch but a constructive process that varies wildly between individuals. Key findings include:

Vividness is complex: It isn't just about how "clear" a picture is; it also involves how much effort it takes to hold the image and whether the image can move or change.

Consistency over time: Despite being from different centuries, people describe their inner worlds using very similar terms, suggesting these differences are a fundamental part of human nature.

The "Photographic" Myth: The research suggests that even "photographic" memory (eidetic imagery) is a creative process of the brain rather than a literal camera-like recording.

What This Might Mean

This suggests that aphantasia and hyperphantasia (extremely vivid imagery) are part of a natural spectrum of human experience. It highlights that our "inner lives" are highly personal; two people can look at the same object but remember it in completely different ways. However, because this study relies on people describing their own thoughts (phenomenology), there is always some uncertainty in how accurately words can capture a private mental experience.

One Interesting Detail

In the 1860s, Gustav Fechner—one of the fathers of psychology—discovered he had very poor mental imagery himself. He found that he could only "see" dim, fleeting images and was surprised to learn that others could see internal pictures as clearly as if their eyes were open.

This summary was written with AI and may contain errors. Check the original paper.

Authors

David F. Marks
3 papers in the library

Cite this paper

Marks, D. F. (2023). Phenomenological studies of visual mental imagery: a review and synthesis of historical datasets. Vision, 7(4), 67. doi:10.3390/vision7040067

Topics

Most-cited researchers

Recruit participants for your study

We can help you reach people across the imagery spectrum, from aphantasia to hyperphantasia.

Partner with us

Image-Free Insights

A short note from our founder, Tom Ebeyer, every other week, plus occasional news and invitations to take part in studies. Change what you get from any email.

Research Vision

Phenomenological Studies of Visual Mental Imagery: A Review and Synthesis of Historical Datasets

MarksOctober 2023

Read the paper

Abstract
What This Study Is About
How They Studied It
What They Found
What This Might Mean
One Interesting Detail
Authors
Cite this paper

Abstract

Our summary in plain words

What This Study Is About

How They Studied It

What They Found

The study found that mental imagery is not a single "on or off" switch but a constructive process that varies wildly between individuals. Key findings include:

Vividness is complex: It isn't just about how "clear" a picture is; it also involves how much effort it takes to hold the image and whether the image can move or change.

Consistency over time: Despite being from different centuries, people describe their inner worlds using very similar terms, suggesting these differences are a fundamental part of human nature.

The "Photographic" Myth: The research suggests that even "photographic" memory (eidetic imagery) is a creative process of the brain rather than a literal camera-like recording.

What This Might Mean

One Interesting Detail

This summary was written with AI and may contain errors. Check the original paper.

Authors

David F. Marks
3 papers in the library

Cite this paper

Marks, D. F. (2023). Phenomenological studies of visual mental imagery: a review and synthesis of historical datasets. Vision, 7(4), 67. doi:10.3390/vision7040067

Topics

Most-cited researchers

Recruit participants for your study

We can help you reach people across the imagery spectrum, from aphantasia to hyperphantasia.

Partner with us

More research

All research

2026

Imagery modulates the pupillary response, but this does not reliably index differences in imagery vividness.

Gardner, Saurels and Arnold · Cortex

Researchers found that while imagining dark versus bright scenes modulates the pupillary response, this physiological change does not correlate with subjective imagery vividness ratings. This suggests pupillometry is not a reliable objective index for individual differences in imagery strength.

2020

Screen‐time influences children's mental imagery performance

Suggate and Martzog · Developmental Science

In 266 German children aged 3 to 9, tested twice about 10 months apart, more daily screen time at the first test predicted slightly lower later accuracy on questions comparing two named objects (which is shinier, a trumpet or a violin?), after allowing for age, vocabulary, working memory and family background. Earlier task scores did not predict later screen time, and screen time did not predict answer speed. Television and interactive screens showed similar links. The authors suggest ready-made screen images give children less practice at making their own, though other factors could explain the link.

2011

Evaluating the Mind’s Eye: The Metacognition of Visual Imagery

Pearson, Rademaker and Tong · Psychological Science

Subjective vividness ratings reliably predict an image's impact on subsequent perception. This suggests that individuals have accurate metacognitive insight into the sensory strength of their mental imagery.

Image-Free Insights

A short note from our founder, Tom Ebeyer, every other week, plus occasional news and invitations to take part in studies. Change what you get from any email.