Invisible variations: Associations and subtypes of visual imagery vividness extremes

Summary

Visual imagery—the ability to see things in the mind's eye—ranges from extremely vivid (hyperphantasia) to absent (aphantasia). Analyzing data from 6436 online respondents, researchers largely replicated earlier differences between these extreme groups. Using latent class analysis on 3883 respondents who completed key measures, three subtypes of aphantasia emerged: 'global aphantasia' with extreme sensory features across most modalities; 'Aphantasia +' combining sensory and cognitive difficulties in autobiographical memory, face recognition, and spatial navigation; and 'non-global aphantasia' with milder uni- or multisensory features. These subtypes vary along three dimensions: the number and type of sensory modalities affected, the intensity of imagery loss, and the presence of additional cognitive difficulties. The findings call for new theoretical and methodological approaches to studying aphantasia.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Visual imagery, the ability to experience the visual features of absent items in our mind’s eye, exists on a continuum ranging from extremely vivid (hyperphantasia) to weak/absent imagery (aphantasia). Existing evidence suggests that these extreme groups are heterogeneous. After re-examining and largely replicating previously reported differences between people with aphantasia and hyperphantasia in 6436 online respondents, we investigate whether the variable features of aphantasia cluster in distinct subtypes. We conducted a latent class analysis with a subset of 3883 respondents who completed key measures of imagery (Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire) and self-reported cognitive experiences (sensory imagery, autobiographical memory, face recognition, spatial navigation). 3 subtypes of aphantasia emerge: 1) a ‘global aphantasia’ subtype with extreme sensory features in most to all sensory modalities; 2) an ‘Aphantasia +’ subtype with both sensory and cognitive features in the domains listed above; and 3) a ‘non-global aphantasia’ subtype with milder uni- or multisensory features. Our findings confirm the heterogeneous nature of aphantasia, with subtypes varying alongside 3 dimensions: number (and type) of sensory modalities experiencing low imagery, the intensity of aphantasia in the concerned sensory modalities (total lack of versus poor imagery), and the presence or absence of additional cognitive difficulties outwith sensory imagery. Together, these findings call for a shift in the theoretical and methodological approaches to aphantasia and imagery research.

Tags