Perception
How is aphantasia measured, and is it always the same?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
People who think they have aphantasia might actually have face recognition issues, and those with true aphantasia have diverse sensory deficits.
Key findings
The research revealed that 3.7% of participants met the standardized questionnaire threshold for aphantasia, while 12.1% self-identified as having the condition. This gap appears to be driven by face recognition ability; participants with poor face processing often falsely self-identified as having aphantasia because the self-identification question asked about visualizing a friend's face. Additionally, the study showed that individuals with aphantasia are diverse, with some lacking all forms of sensory imagery and others specifically lacking only visual imagery.
Methodology
The researchers surveyed a large sample of Japanese adults across multiple online investigations to compare different ways of identifying aphantasia. In the first phase of research, they analyzed survey data from 2,871 participants who completed measures of visual imagery, multisensory imagery, and cognitive processing styles. In the second phase, they gathered data from 774 new participants to test whether face recognition difficulties explain why self-identification rates of aphantasia are so much higher than rates measured by standardized visual imagery questionnaires.
Limitations
The study cannot establish a direct causal pathway between poor face recognition and subjective reporting of aphantasia. Because the entire sample consisted of Japanese adults, the findings might not generalize to other global populations with different cultural backgrounds. Lastly, the research relied entirely on subjective self-report questionnaires, meaning that objective laboratory performance tests are needed to confirm these patterns of mental imagery.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.