Our research

The Eye’s Mind study is the first study of our research group. It was launched in January 2015 and was funded by an Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Innovation Award. The project united researchers and disciplines in order to study our distinctively human ability to imagine, highlight links between our experience, brain science and art, and throw light on the wide variation in our capacity to ‘visualise’. You can read more about this study in our "Origin story" page.

The VIA study is an online questionnaire that records the visual imagery skills, lived experiences, and sensory, cognitive, and neurodivergent profiles of aphantasic and hyperphantasic people. The study has been running since October 2020, and will close in the autumn of 2025.

You can still join the study at the link below. Depending on how much you would like to tell us, completing the study usually takes 10 to 20 minutes. 

In this article, we propose a broader framework for defining aphantasia. It expands the definition beyond visual imagery to include other sensory modalities (auditory, tactile, etc.) and includes both complete absence and near-absence of imagery. It also distinguishes between imagery generated deliberately and spontaneous imagery (e.g., while reading), and between congenital and acquired cases. Variants include modality-specific forms (e.g., visual or auditory) and global aphantasia affecting all senses.

This article examines the wide variation in mental imagery, ranging from no imagery (aphantasia) to extraordinarily vivid imagery (hyperphantasia). It emphasises that despite profound differences in subjective experience, daily functioning is only subtly affected, and neither extreme is a disorder. We suggest that differences in neural connectivity, particularly between brain regions involved in vision and higher-level control, may explain imagery vividness extremes

In this article, we explore how these mental imagery differences shape artistic creativity. Based on interviews with artists, we challenge the assumption that internal visualisation is universal, urging us to reconsider art-making models that ignore cognitive diversity.

In this commentary (that responds to previous commentaries by Dance et al. (2021) and Hinwar and Lambert (2021)), we argue that introducing new terms like “dysikonesia” (absence of imagery across multiple senses) and “anauralia” (lack of auditory imagery) unnecessarily complicates our research field. Instead, we advocate retaining “aphantasia” as a flexible and widely recognised umbrella term. It can be easily modified for clarity (e.g., “visual aphantasia” or “auditory aphantasia) promoting clearer communication in research and public discourse.

This handbook chapter explains how visual imagery varies dramatically across individuals, from the complete absence (aphantasia) to vivid perception-like experiences (hyperphantasia). It highlights how this imagery spectrum shapes cognitive functions like autobiographical memory and working memory, and why it matters in neurology and mental health. The brain networks involved include frontal, parietal, temporal, and visual regions. Understanding imagery extremes sheds light on both normal and disordered cognition.

In this study, we compared aphantasic people, hyperphantasic people, and typical visualisers using imaging and memory tests. While standard memory was similar across groups, hyperphantasics excelled at autobiographical recall and imagination, followed by controls and then aphantasics. Aphantasic individuals also reported more face recognition struggles and autistic-like traits. Personality testing showed lower extraversion in aphantasia and higher openness in hyperphantasia.

This study explores how aphantasia relates to synaesthesia (heightened sensory blending) and autistic traits. Our results show that synaesthesia can occur even without imagery, though aphantasic synaesthetes more often experience “associator” rather than “projector” types. Additionally, individuals with aphantasia report more autistic-like traits, notably challenges with imagination and social skills.

This preliminary report was presented at the British Neuropsychiatry Annual Meeting Webinar 2021 Datablitz. We describe 88 cases of acquired aphantasia (sudden loss of mental imagery) identified amongst ~14,000 people who reached out after media attention on aphantasia. Participants completed several questionnaires, showing what can cause aphantasia later in life. These rare cases may offer key insights into how visual imagery is generated and maintained in the brain.

The paper Phantasia – The psychological significance of lifelong visual imagery vividness extremes is in press with the journal Cortex. With findings based on data from 2400 participants, the paper is the first major scientific output made possible by the wide public interest in imagery extremes.

Key findings:

We compared the brain activity of high and low imagers while they were looking at building and famous faces. We found that those with less vivid imagery engaged a broader network of brain regions. Conversely, areas like the fusiform gyrus, posterior cingulate, and parahippocampal gyri were more active in people with vivid imagery. The findings suggest that vividness involves both the extent and type of brain activation.

Using a meta-analysis across 40 neuroimaging studies, we identified consistent brain areas involved in visual imagery. Key regions include the left superior parietal lobule, inferior premotor areas, and inferior frontal sulcus. We also found bilateral activation in eye-movement-related fields (supplementary, cingulate, and frontal eye fields). This supports the idea that both top-down control and embodied processes are crucial for mental imagery.

This editorial introduces The Eye’s Mind special issue, emphasizing a multidisciplinary approach to studying visual imagination. It highlights three research strands: a historical-philosophical review of imagery theories, a neuroimaging meta-analysis, and studies of individuals at the extremes of imagery vividness, from aphantasia to hyperphantasia. The article highlights the importance of blending neuroscience, humanities, and art in understanding how we imagine.

This paper traces how recent findings reveal the brain regions involved in forming mental images, and how they show that these insights based on data become more meaningful when viewed alongside centuries of philosophical reflection. We compare neuroimaging findings with historical views from Aristotle to Hume, highlighting how older theories both inform and challenge scientific models. 

Here we reflect on our earlier work describing congenital aphantasia

This commentary is a response to an earlier commentary that suggests a psychological (“psychogenic”) cause of lifelong aphantasia. Instead, we argue that whether the cause is structural or functional, it remains rooted in the brain. We advocate combining psychological and neurological approaches to further understand this intriguing phenomenon.

This short article presents our first findings from the Eye's Mind study.

We built a short questionnaire that was completed by 21 people with congenital aphantasia, to better understand their experiences. Despite not having a “mind’s eye,” these individuals reported stable, lifelong imagery absence and seemed to function normally across memory, creativity, and daily tasks. We introduced “aphantasia” to label this underrecognized phenomenon.