extreme mental imagery

When Dr. Sam Schwarzkopf first encountered research on mental imagery, something didn't add up. As a visual neuroscientist who considered his own imagery quite vivid and detailed, he expected to relate to descriptions of hyperphantasia or "extreme" visualization ability.

Instead, he found himself puzzled by accounts that seemed to describe an entirely different phenomenon. When hyperphantasic individuals described seeing mental images "right in front of them" like augmented reality overlays, his reaction was immediate: "That seems totally alien to me."

This disconnect would lead Schwarzkopf to propose a new hypothesis: what we currently label as vivid imagery might actually encompass two fundamentally different types of mental imagery that have been mistakenly lumped together.

The Hyperphantasia Misconception

Current research typically treats "extreme" mental imagery as a characteristic of people who score highest on mental imagery questionnaires. But Schwarzkopf's investigation suggests this approach misses a crucial distinction between how people actually experience mental imagery.

"I would describe my imagery as vivid. I would say it's intense. It has a lot of detail to it too, but I just don't see it in front of me," Schwarzkopf explains, highlighting a paradox that challenges conventional thinking about mental imagery strength.

His research proposes that individuals currently classified as having hyperphantasia actually fall into two distinct categories, experiencing fundamentally different phenomena:

Projectors - These individuals experience mental images as if projected in front of them, sometimes overlaying their visual field like augmented reality. They might see images with their eyes closed that feel almost photographic, or even project imagery onto screens and surfaces while awake.

Associators - This group experiences extremely rich, detailed, and multisensory mental imagery, but it exists as internal representations rather than projected visual experiences. Their imagery may be more vivid and complex than that of typical visualizers, but it doesn't appear in their visual field.

When "Extreme" Imagery Isn't What It Seems

The distinction becomes apparent when examining how these two groups describe their experiences. Projectors often emphasize the visual-spatial aspects of their imagery - how images appear "in front of them" or overlay their perception. But they frequently describe these projections as somewhat blurry or lacking fine detail.

"When I've talked to some people who seem to be projectors they always describe it as you know it's sort of a fuzzy or blurry or you know it's that's sort of lacking detail in it and I would never say that my imagery lacks detail," Schwarzkopf notes.

Meanwhile, associators like Schwarzkopf report imagery with extraordinary richness and precision, but emphasize the internal, multisensory nature of the experience rather than its visual projection properties.

"My imagery has a standby pattern which is when sort of I'm just drawing back I see these glorious mountain scenes right," he describes. "The Glorious Mountain scene isn't necessarily really large it's like looking through a small lens so it's it's limited in the aspect that it's I'm only seeing it in a kind of spotlight but inside that spotlight it's very detailed."

The Multisensory Complexity

What makes researching mental imagery particularly intriguing is its naturally multisensory nature. Unlike projectors who seem to focus primarily on visual projection, associators report rich integration across multiple sensory domains.

Schwarzkopf describes his olfactory imagery as "extremely strong" and "probably the strongest, most intense of my imagery of all of them," though also noting it tends to be involuntary and often involves unpleasant smells. His auditory imagery includes not just sounds but complete soundscapes that accompany visual scenes.

This multisensory integration appears to be a defining characteristic that distinguishes associators from projectors.

Rethinking Measurement and Classification

The implications for how we understand and measure mental imagery are significant. Current assessment tools like the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) may be missing crucial distinctions between how people actually experience mental imagery.

"If you tell them that some people literally picture something in front of them, they would be much more likely to choose the middle or bottom of the scale," Schwarzkopf points out, noting how questionnaire framing can dramatically alter how people rate their own experiences.

More concerning, some associators might actually be misclassified as having weaker imagery or even aphantasia if their experiences don't align with projector-focused descriptions often used in research instruments (i.e. comparing your inner experience with what it's like ‘seeing with your eyes’).

The Consciousness Puzzle

The distinction between projectors and associators raises fundamental questions about consciousness and subjective experience. How can two people both have extremely vivid mental imagery yet experience it in completely different ways?

Schwarzkopf's work suggests the answer lies in recognizing that the same cognitive abilities can manifest through different neural pathways, leading to vastly different conscious experiences while potentially achieving similar functional outcomes.

"This is the most subjective of things that we can study in perception," Schwarzkopf acknowledges. "We're always limited by what David Chalmers called the hard problem of consciousness. How we we can't actually know what somebody else is feeling and thinking and experiencing."

The Voluntary vs. Involuntary Dimension

Another crucial distinction that may separate different types of vivid imagers involves the controllability of imagery experiences. Schwarzkopf describes a mix of voluntary and involuntary imagery, with some of his most intense experiences being spontaneous.

"When I experience involuntary imagery, it just appears, often like a flash. It's there for a bit and then may still be lingering, but it slowly fades away again," he explains.

This suggests that “extreme” mental imagery experiences might vary not just in type (projector vs. associator) but also in the degree of conscious control individuals have over their mental imagery experiences.

Research Blind Spots

Current research may be missing crucial aspects of “extreme” mental imagery experiences by focusing primarily on visual projection phenomena. Many studies ask participants to imagine objects on screens or use mental imagery to influence visual perception - tasks that make intuitive sense for projectors but may seem irrelevant to associators.

"All of these tasks don't seem to align with how I imagine things," Schwarzkopf notes about standard experimental paradigms.

This suggests that much of what we think we know about vivid imagery may actually only apply to the projector subtype, while the potentially more common associator experiences remain largely unstudied.

Implications for Understanding Extreme Imagery

If Schwarzkopf's hypothesis is correct, it would fundamentally reshape our understanding of mental imagery. Rather than representing a single phenomenon of "extreme vividness," vivid imagery might encompass:

Projector: Characterized by visual projection abilities, even if the projected images may be somewhat indistinct

Associator: Characterized by extremely rich, detailed, internal representations, often multisensory, that don't appear in the visual field

This distinction could explain why hyperphantasic individuals sometimes report seemingly contradictory experiences - some emphasizing the quasi-hallucinatory nature of their projections, others focusing on the incredible richness and detail of their internal imagery.

The Need for New Research Approaches

Schwarzkopf advocates for research approaches that can capture the full diversity of vivid imagery experiences rather than assuming all extreme mental imagery experiences follow the same pattern.

"We need to have everybody's perspective in this because they will obviously design experiments in a different way to sort of probe the experience that people have," he emphasizes.

This might involve developing new assessment tools that separately measure projection abilities and internal imagery richness, as well as experimental paradigms designed to detect associative imagery strengths that current methods miss.

Redefining Extreme Mental Imagery

The research suggests we may need to fundamentally reconsider what makes mental imagery "extreme." Rather than focusing solely on vividness or intensity ratings, we might need to examine:

Projection vs. association: Where imagery appears to be experienced

Multisensory integration: How many senses are involved simultaneously

Detail and complexity: The richness of internal representations

Duration and control: How long can imagery be sustained and manipulated

A Personal Journey of Discovery

Schwarzkopf's research path exemplifies how scientific breakthroughs can emerge from researchers questioning their own experiences. His years of wondering whether his imagery was "normal" led him to recognize that the hyperphantasic community might include distinct subtypes with fundamentally different experiences.

"I think a large number of people probably imagine their world exactly how I do it right," Schwarzkopf concludes. "I do think there are people who have this sort of projective ability that where they see it right in front of them, but I think a very large proportion of people have this more inner experience."

The Future of Extreme Imagery Research

This new framework opens up numerous research questions: Are projector and associator types equally represented in the hyperphantasic population? Do they show different patterns of brain activation? Are there advantages and disadvantages to each type?

Perhaps most intriguingly, the distinction might help explain why some people with extreme mental imagery excel in certain domains while struggling in others - their specific type of vivid imagery may be better suited to different kinds of cognitive tasks.

The mind's eye, it turns out, might not just see more vividly in some people - it might see in entirely different ways.

Rethinking Hyperphantasia: Why "Extreme" Mental Imagery Might Be Two Different Phenomena