Cited by 174Visual perception and processing mechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesPhilosophy and Theoretical Science

The prevalence of aphantasia (imagery weakness) in the general population

Open access
Dance, C.J., Ipser, A., Simner, J.·2022·Consciousness and Cognition

Abstract

Visual mental imagery is the ability to create a quasi-perceptual visual picture in the mind's eye. For people with the rare trait of aphantasia, this ability is entirely absent or markedly impaired. Here, we aim to clarify the prevalence of aphantasia in the general population, while overcoming limitations of previous research (e.g., recruitment biases). In Experiment 1, we screened a cohort of undergraduate students (n502) using the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (Marks, 1973) and found that 4.2% had aphantasia. To establish the reliability of our estimate, we then screened a new sample of people (n502) at an online crowdsourcing marketplace, again finding that approximately four percent (3.6%) had aphantasia. Overall, our combined prevalence from over a thousand people of 3.9% - which shows no gender bias - provides a useful index for how commonly aphantasia occurs, based on measures and diagnostic thresholds in line with contemporary aphantasia literature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.concog.2021.103243

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is no apparent gender bias in aphantasia.

    “There is no apparent gender bias in aphantasia”
  • Around 1% of the population experiences profound aphantasia, with the lowest possible VVIQ score (16/80).

    “These studies suggest that ~1% of the population experiences profound aphantasia and have the lowest possible VVIQ score (16/80)”
  • 2-6% of the population experiences imagery that is at best 'vague and dim', with VVIQ scores of 32/80 or less.

    “whereas 2–6% experience imagery that is at best 'vague and dim', and have VVIQ scores of 32/80 or less”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dance, C. J., Ipser, A., & Simner, J.
Affiliations
University of Sussex (GB)
Corresponding author
Dance, C.J.
Venue
Consciousness and Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-01
Volume
97
Pages
103243
ISSN
1053-8100 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200352128
Cited by
167
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 1
FWCI
10.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Consciousness and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007–2013)
  • European Research Council (617678)
  • Leverhulme Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Keywords
aphantasia, visual imagery, prevalence, Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire, undergraduate students, crowdsourcing, gender differences, recruitment bias, general population
MeSH terms
Humans, Imagination, Surveys and Questionnaires, Visual Perception, Reproducibility of Results, Prevalence, Imagery, Psychotherapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review