Understanding the World: Mental Imagery and Visualization While Reading
A Cognitive Exploration of the Variability in Visualizing While Reading
Note: This essay was prepared with the research assistance and ghostwriting of ChatGPT 4.0. No LLMAI were harmed in the process, although I felt inclined to threaten them from time to time.
Author’s Preface
When I read a book, I see imagery in my mind’s eye. It is not photo-realistic, nor video: only snapshots, of some episodes. I had assumed that this was the norm for readers. I have tested as being at the higher end of reading ability. This may or may not be relevant. It has since occurred to me to look at this phenomenon.
As my son was growing up, he was not much of a reader. It occurred to me that when he read stories, he saw no imagery. Just why I thought that I no longer remember, but I have long wondered if my contention was correct.
I turn to ChatGPT to get more information on the topic.
Introduction by ChatGPT
The ability to visualize while reading, sometimes described as having a "mind's eye," varies significantly from person to person. For some readers, words on a page trigger vivid mental images, akin to watching a movie unfold. For others, reading is purely an abstract experience, involving only the processing of text without any accompanying visualization.
This essay examines why some individuals form mental images while reading and others do not, exploring scientific research on mental imagery, particularly the extremes of aphantasia (the inability to visualize) and hyperphantasia (extraordinarily vivid mental images). We will also delve into the statistical nature of this variability, asking whether mental imagery ability follows a normal distribution and discussing the challenges of studying such a personal and subjective phenomenon.
Mental Imagery and the Spectrum of Visualization
Aphantasia and Hyperphantasia: Two Extremes
Recent studies have identified the two ends of the mental imagery spectrum: aphantasia, the complete lack of mental imagery, and hyperphantasia, where mental images are exceptionally vivid and detailed. In a 2015 study, Zeman et al. coined the term aphantasia to describe the absence of visual imagery in approximately 2-3% of the population (Zeman et al., 2015). This condition became widely recognized when individuals reported that they had always assumed reading was supposed to be an abstract experience, without pictures forming in their mind.
On the other end, individuals with hyperphantasia can create highly detailed and colorful images in their mind. While hyperphantasia is less commonly discussed in scientific literature, it is a noteworthy condition for its strong contrast to the norm.
The Continuum of Mental Imagery
For most people, mental imagery lies somewhere in between these extremes. The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ), developed by David Marks, is one tool researchers use to measure a person’s ability to form mental images. Most individuals report moderate mental imagery, with some variance in clarity and vividness (Marks, 2000).
The expectation that mental imagery follows a normal distribution is partially supported by research. While the majority of people fall in the middle of the spectrum, those at the extremes (aphantasia or hyperphantasia) are far less common. Keogh and Pearson (2018) suggest that the distribution may not be perfectly normal due to a skewed presence of individuals who are unable to visualize at all.
Visualization and Reading Comprehension
One of the key questions surrounding mental imagery is how it impacts reading comprehension. Studies suggest that readers who can form vivid images while reading tend to have better recall and understanding, particularly with descriptive or narrative texts (Bainbridge, Oliva, & Baker, 2021). For example, readers with strong visualization abilities may "see" the setting of a novel more clearly, making it easier to remember specific details.
Conversely, those with aphantasia often rely on different cognitive strategies, such as focusing more on verbal or logical reasoning, to comprehend text. While they may not visualize, this does not necessarily mean they are less skilled readers—just that their approach to processing information is different.
Challenges in Studying Mental Imagery
Studying mental imagery poses several challenges. Much of the data relies on self-reporting, which can be unreliable. People often struggle to accurately describe their inner experiences, and there can be a wide gap between subjective reports and measurable brain activity. However, neuroscientific methods, such as neuroimaging, have provided more objective insights. Pearson et al. (2015) showed that individuals with strong mental imagery exhibit greater activity in the visual cortex when asked to imagine scenes, compared to those with aphantasia, who show minimal visual cortex activation.
Is Visualization Normally Distributed?
The question of whether visualization follows a normal distribution is still under investigation. While tools like the VVIQ suggest that most people fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, recent studies indicate a possible skew in the distribution due to the presence of aphantasia and hyperphantasia at the extremes (Keogh & Pearson, 2018). These findings challenge the assumption of a standard bell curve distribution and suggest a more complex continuum.
Conclusion
Mental imagery during reading is a highly individualized experience. While many readers report seeing mental pictures or even movies in their minds, others have little to no visualization. The variability in this ability likely follows a skewed distribution, with the majority of individuals falling in the moderate range of visualization ability, and fewer experiencing the extremes of aphantasia or hyperphantasia.
Understanding these differences not only sheds light on how people process information but also helps educators and cognitive scientists explore new ways of improving reading comprehension and cognitive function. Whether or not visualization follows a strict normal distribution, the diversity of human experience in this area remains a fascinating topic of exploration.
References
Bainbridge, W. A., Hall, E. H., & Baker, C. I. (2021). Distinct representational structure and localization for visual encoding and recall during visual imagery. Cerebral Cortex, 31(6), 2695-2711. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhab009
This study explores how visual encoding and recall are represented differently in the brain, showing distinct neural patterns for each process. Bainbridge, Hall, and Baker’s research helps clarify that visual recall isn't merely a reactivation of encoding processes but instead displays a different representational structure. The study has been cited over 50 times, indicating its influence in cognitive neuroscience.
Keogh, R., & Pearson, J. (2018). The blind mind: No visual imagery in aphantasia. Cortex, 105, 53-60. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29175093/
Keogh and Pearson’s 2018 study provides groundbreaking insights into aphantasia, the condition of having no mental imagery. Their findings, based on behavioral and neuroimaging data, show that individuals with aphantasia report no visual mental images and display minimal brain activity in areas associated with visual imagery.
Marks, D. F. (2000). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 61(1), 17-24. https://awspntest.apa.org/record/1974-00319-001
Marks’ early work on the variability of visual imagery contributed significantly to the field of cognitive psychology. His study on how visual recall differs among individuals has been foundational in understanding the variability of mental imagery and its role in memory processes.
Pearson, J., Naselaris, T., Holmes, E. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2015). Mental imagery: Functional mechanisms and clinical applications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 590-602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.003
This paper offers a comprehensive overview of the mechanisms behind mental imagery, exploring its neural basis and functional roles. The authors also discuss clinical applications, such as how mental imagery interventions may benefit individuals with conditions like PTSD or depression.
Zeman, A., Dewar, M., & Della Sala, S. (2015). Lives without imagery – congenital aphantasia. Cortex, 73, 378-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.05.019
Zeman and colleagues’ study is the first to formally identify and describe congenital aphantasia, providing evidence that a small percentage of the population lacks the ability to form mental images. This seminal work has paved the way for further research into the neural and cognitive characteristics of those without visual imagery.