Back to all research

What is the true range of mental imagery?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2023.09.013
Schwarzkopf, D. S. (2024). What is the true range of mental imagery?. Cortex, 170, 21–25. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2023.09.013

Abstract

This research paper highlights the subjectivity of mental imagery, noting that it's challenging to determine if different people experience imagery similarly. While most studies view imagery as a one-dimensional spectrum of vividness, anecdotal evidence suggests a vast diversity in how people experience their mental images. The article introduces the idea of "projectors" and "associators" in the context of mental imagery. Projectors experience mental images directly within their visual field, while associators process mental images separately from their visual input. Interestingly, the diverse descriptions of mental imagery mirror findings about synaesthesia. Some synaesthetes are "projectors" who experience sensations of color, while "associators" internally link colors in their mind without any actual sensation. Unlike synaesthesia, mental imagery is under some voluntary control. The paper suggests that understanding these distinctions is crucial for scientific studies on mental imagery. Current methods, like the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ), are deemed ambiguous. The paper emphasizes the need for improved methodologies to study and quantify the subjective experience of mental imagery. Understanding the neural and cognitive processes of mental imagery can help in addressing various mental health issues.

Authors

  • D. Samuel Schwarzkopf5

Understanding Mental Imagery: A New Perspective

Overview/Introduction

Mental imagery is a fascinating aspect of human cognition, but it's often misunderstood. This research paper explores how people experience mental imagery differently, challenging the traditional view that it's simply a matter of vividness. The study introduces the concepts of "projectors" and "associators" to describe how individuals perceive mental images. This distinction is similar to how synaesthesia is understood, where some people experience sensory overlaps like seeing colors when they hear music.

Methodology

The study critiques current methods for measuring mental imagery, such as the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ). These methods often fail to capture the full range of how people experience mental images. The paper suggests that the current one-dimensional approach, focusing solely on vividness, is insufficient. Instead, it advocates for new methodologies that consider the diverse ways people might experience mental imagery, whether as external projections or internal representations.

Key Findings

  • Diverse Experiences: People experience mental imagery in varied ways. "Projectors" see mental images as part of their visual field, while "associators" perceive them internally.
  • Comparison to Synaesthesia: The diversity in mental imagery is akin to synaesthesia, where some individuals experience sensory overlaps.
  • Current Measurement Limitations: Existing tools like the VVIQ may misclassify individuals, particularly those who don't fit neatly into the vividness spectrum. This could lead to an overestimation of conditions like aphantasia, where individuals report an inability to visualize images.
  • Need for Improved Methods: There's a call for developing better tools to study mental imagery, focusing on the detail and intensity of mental representations.

Implications

Understanding the nuances of mental imagery can have significant implications:
  • Mental Health: Improved insights into mental imagery could aid in addressing mental health issues, as imagery plays a role in conditions like anxiety and PTSD.
  • Cognitive Research: By refining how we study mental imagery, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of cognitive processes and how they relate to memory and perception.
  • Personalized Approaches: Recognizing individual differences in mental imagery can lead to more personalized approaches in education and therapy.

Limitations

While the paper provides valuable insights, it acknowledges the need for further research to validate the concepts of projectors and associators. The study's critique of current methodologies highlights the complexity of measuring subjective experiences, suggesting that more nuanced tools are necessary for accurate assessment.
In conclusion, this research challenges traditional views on mental imagery and calls for a broader understanding of how individuals experience menta...