Abstract Research on mental visual imagery typically relies on vividness ratings. However, vividness is ill defined as it lacks an objective reference. Here, we present survey results that suggest vividness is nevertheless a robust measure. It explains individual differences of a broad range of subjective experiences, from the detail of mental imagery, the propensity to report having other internally generated visual experiences and the vividness of visual dreams. Critically, simple vividness ratings can replace the protracted questionnaires commonly used for this purpose and reduce methodological issues with these instruments. We further find that vividness is closely linked with the experience of ‘seeing’ mental images or projecting them into the external world. People who report seeing mental images with their eyes shut are also more likely to experience externally projected imagery. Nevertheless, many people report having mental depictions but without seeing. Overall, our results indicate we should redefine visual aphantasia to distinguish individuals with faint or unseen visual images from those completely lacking a pictorial representation.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
D. Samuel Schwarzkopf
Xinran Amelia Yu
Ecem Altan
University of Auckland
Royal Society Open Science
University College London
The University of Queensland
University of Auckland
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Schwarzkopf et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/69c4ccebfdc3bde448918a3f — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.251887
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: