No increased prevalence of prosopagnosia in aphantasia: Visual recognition deficits are small and not restricted to faces
Abstract
Aphantasia and prosopagnosia are both rare conditions with impairments in visual cognition. While prosopagnosia refers to a face recognition deficit, aphantasics exhibit a lack of mental imagery. Current object recognition theories propose an interplay of perception and mental representations, making an association between recognition performance and visual imagery plausible. While the literature assumes a link between aphantasia and prosopagnosia, other impairments in aphantasia have been shown to be rather global. Therefore, we assumed that aphantasics do not solely exhibit impairments in face recognition but rather in general visual recognition performance, probably moderated by stimulus complexity. To test this hypothesis, 65 aphantasics were compared to 55 controls in a face recognition task, the Cambridge Face Memory Test, and a corresponding object recognition task, the Cambridge Car Memory Test. In both tasks, aphantasics performed worse than controls, indicating mild recognition deficits without face-specificity. Additional correlations between imagery vividness and performance in both tasks were found, suggesting that visual imagery influences visual recognition not only in imagery extremes. Stimulus complexity produced the expected moderation effect but only for the whole imagery-spectrum and only with face stimuli. Overall, the results imply that aphantasia is linked to a general but mild deficit in visual recognition.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Both studies using the Cambridge face memory test detected an impairment in face recognition among people with aphantasia.
“Both detected an impairment in face recognition among people with aphantasia.”
From Aphantasia and hyperphantasia: exploring imagery vividness extremes (2024) · cites this paper as [62]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 57 · Cited by 27
- Authors
- Monzel, M., Vetterlein, A., Hogeterp, S. A., & Reuter, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Bonn (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Monzel, Merlin
- Venue
- Perception
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-06-15
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 629-644
- ISSN
- 0301-0066 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4233
- OpenAlex
- W4380738461
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 4.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Perception (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- aphantasia, prosopagnosia, mental imagery, face recognition (cognition), object recognition, stimulus complexity, imagery vividness, Cambridge Face Memory Test
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Humans, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Visual Perception, Prevalence, Prosopagnosia, Recognition, Psychology
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