Aphantasia Logo
Back to all research
Aphantasia Logo

Building awareness and understanding of aphantasia through research, education, and community support.

About

  • What is Aphantasia?
  • What is Hyperphantasia?
  • Take Assessment
  • Getting Started
  • Newsletter
  • About Us
  • Contact

Community

  • Premium Membership
  • Find support
  • Discussions
  • Events
  • Visualize

For Professionals

  • Overview
  • Free Introduction
  • Counselor Training
  • Educator Training
  • List Your Practice
  • Pricing & Bundles

Resources

  • Articles & Stories
  • Videos & Interviews
  • Aphantasia Course
  • FAQs

Research

  • Research Library
  • Participate in Studies
  • Recruitment Services

© 2026 Aphantasia Network. All rights reserved.

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
Aphantasia Logo
Back to all research
Aphantasia Logo

Building awareness and understanding of aphantasia through research, education, and community support.

About

  • What is Aphantasia?
  • What is Hyperphantasia?
  • Take Assessment
  • Getting Started
  • Newsletter
  • About Us
  • Contact

Community

  • Premium Membership
  • Find support
  • Discussions
  • Events
  • Visualize

For Professionals

  • Overview
  • Free Introduction
  • Counselor Training
  • Educator Training
  • List Your Practice
  • Pricing & Bundles

Resources

  • Articles & Stories
  • Videos & Interviews
  • Aphantasia Course
  • FAQs

Research

  • Research Library
  • Participate in Studies
  • Recruitment Services

© 2026 Aphantasia Network. All rights reserved.

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
Ask AI About This Paper
Ask AI About This Paper

Why indecisive trials matter: Improving the binocular rivalry imagery priming score for the assessment of aphantasia

DOI: 10.3758/s13428-025-02780-6
Tags:
Object ImagerySpatial ImageryMeasurement & Assessment
Monzel, M., Scholz, C. O., Pearson, J., & Reuter, M. (2025). Why indecisive trials matter: improving the binocular rivalry imagery priming score for the assessment of aphantasia. Behavior Research Methods, 57(9). doi:10.3758/s13428-025-02780-6

Abstract

Since mental imagery cannot be observed from the outside, it is all the more important to make it measurable. Yet, many so-called mental imagery tasks confuse object and spatial imagery or can be solved entirely without mental imagery, making them inappropriate for the assessment of mental imagery strength. One promising measurement method is the binocular rivalry task by Pearson et al. (Current Biology 18(13):982–986, 2008), which uses mental imagery priming to quantify mental imagery strength. Here, we propose an improved equation for the binocular rivalry priming score to significantly increase its predictive validity. In a sample of 38 aphantasics and 73 controls, we demonstrate that the binocular rivalry priming score calculated by the new equation explains more variance in the self-reported mental imagery capacity than the original equation. The improved binocular rivalry priming score is particularly beneficial when only a few trials are recorded (e.g., due to time or attention constraints) or when people with low mental imagery (i.e., aphantasics) have to be identified. The improved binocular rivalry priming score is advantageous in many situations, making it the preferred measure for future research.

Authors

  • Merlin Monzel30
  • Christian O. Scholz4
  • Joel Pearson35
  • Martin Reuter16

Why indecisive trials matter: Improving the binocular rivalry imagery priming score for the assessment of aphantasia

DOI: 10.3758/s13428-025-02780-6
Tags:
Object ImagerySpatial ImageryMeasurement & Assessment
Monzel, M., Scholz, C. O., Pearson, J., & Reuter, M. (2025). Why indecisive trials matter: improving the binocular rivalry imagery priming score for the assessment of aphantasia. Behavior Research Methods, 57(9). doi:10.3758/s13428-025-02780-6

Abstract

Since mental imagery cannot be observed from the outside, it is all the more important to make it measurable. Yet, many so-called mental imagery tasks confuse object and spatial imagery or can be solved entirely without mental imagery, making them inappropriate for the assessment of mental imagery strength. One promising measurement method is the binocular rivalry task by Pearson et al. (Current Biology 18(13):982–986, 2008), which uses mental imagery priming to quantify mental imagery strength. Here, we propose an improved equation for the binocular rivalry priming score to significantly increase its predictive validity. In a sample of 38 aphantasics and 73 controls, we demonstrate that the binocular rivalry priming score calculated by the new equation explains more variance in the self-reported mental imagery capacity than the original equation. The improved binocular rivalry priming score is particularly beneficial when only a few trials are recorded (e.g., due to time or attention constraints) or when people with low mental imagery (i.e., aphantasics) have to be identified. The improved binocular rivalry priming score is advantageous in many situations, making it the preferred measure for future research.

Authors

  • Merlin Monzel30
  • Christian O. Scholz4
  • Joel Pearson35
  • Martin Reuter16
Aphantasia Logo

What This Study Is About

Researchers looked for a better way to measure the strength of a person's "mind's eye" using a lab test called binocular rivalry. They specifically wanted to improve how this test identifies people with aphantasia—the inability to create voluntary mental images.

How They Studied It

The researchers analyzed data from 111 participants, including 38 people with aphantasia and 73 people with typical imagery. Participants performed a "binocular rivalry" task: they were asked to imagine a specific color or pattern (like red vertical lines) and then shown two different images simultaneously—one to each eye. Usually, the brain "picks" one image to see. If a person has strong mental imagery, they are more likely to see the image they were just imagining. The researchers tested a new mathematical formula that includes "indecisive" trials—times when a participant saw a mix of both images—to see if it more accurately reflected the participants' self-reported imagery scores.

What They Found

The new formula was significantly better at measuring imagery strength than the old version. By including the "mixed" or indecisive results instead of throwing them away, the test became much more sensitive. For people with aphantasia, who often have very low scores on these tests, this new method provided a clearer, more reliable "objective" signature of their lack of visual imagery.

What This Might Mean

This suggests that "indecisive" moments in lab tests aren't just noise; they contain valuable information about how the brain processes imagined versus real sights. While this doesn't "prove" someone has aphantasia on its own, it provides a much more accurate tool for scientists to study the condition without relying solely on what people say about their own experiences.

One Interesting Detail

In the past, researchers often threw out data from participants who had too many "mixed" trials (seeing both images at once), sometimes excluding up to 20% of people from studies. This new method allows those people to be included, making the research more inclusive and accurate.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain errors. Always refer to the original paper for accuracy.
Most-Cited Researchers
Top 10 researchers by number of papers published in Aphantasia
1

Joel Pearson

35
2

Merlin Monzel

30
3

Adam Zeman

20
4

Rebecca Keogh

17
5

Martin Reuter

16
6

Juha Silvanto

14
7

Paolo Bartolomeo

11
8

Carla Dance

10
9

Jianghao Liu

9
10

Fraser Milton

9
Recruit the largest aphantasia cohort on earth

97.4K+ users & subscribers across the imagery spectrum, plus 1.5M+ survey responses in our dataset. Skip the recruitment bottleneck and run your study with the community we've built for a decade.

Partner with us