Cited by 30Memory Processes and InfluencesSpatial Cognition and NavigationVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Assessing aphantasia prevalence and the relation of self-reported imagery abilities and memory task performance

Beran, Michael J., James, Brielle T., French, Kristin, Haseltine, Elizabeth L., Kleider-Offutt, Heather M.·2023·Consciousness and Cognition

Abstract

Aphantasia is the experience of having little to no visual imagery. We assessed the prevalence rate of aphantasia in 5,010 people from the general population of adults in the United States through self-report and responses to two visual imagery scales. The self-reported prevalence rate of aphantasia was 8.9% in this sample. However, not all participants who reported themselves as aphantasic showed low-imagery profiles on the questionnaire scales, and scale prevalence was much lower (1.5%). Self-reported aphantasic individuals reported lower dream frequencies and self-talk and showed poorer memory performance compared to individuals who reported average and high mental imagery. Self-reported aphantasic individuals showed a greater preference for written instruction compared to video instruction for learning a hypothetical new task although there were differences for men and women in this regard. Categorizing aphantasia using a scale measure and relying on self-identification may provide a more consistent picture of who lacks visual imagery.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.concog.2023.103548

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • 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”
  • 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)”
  • Subsequent reports have borne out that people with aphantasia dream visually.

    “This observation has been borne out by subsequent reports [3”
  • Of 5010 participants recruited online, 5.9% scored 75-80/80 on the VVIQ.

    “Of 5010 participants recruited online, 5.9% scored 75–80/80”
  • On standard experimental measures of memory, people with aphantasia perform normally or show at most mild to moderate impairment.

    “On a range of standard experimental measures of memory (short- and long-term, verbal and visual), people with aphantasia perform normally or show, at most, mild to moderate impairment”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beran, M. J., James, B. T., French, K., Haseltine, E. L., & Kleider-Offutt, H. M.
Affiliations
Georgia State University (US)
Corresponding author
Beran, Michael J.
Venue
Consciousness and Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-08
Volume
113
Pages
103548
ISSN
1053-8100 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4384103894
Cited by
30
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1
FWCI
4.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Consciousness and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Georgia State University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
aphantasia, visual imagery, prevalence, memory performance, dream frequency, self-talk, sex differences, general adult population
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition, Female, Humans, Imagination, Male, Task Performance and Analysis, Visual Perception, Prevalence, Self Report

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