In Simple Terms
When people imagine a face or a place, some see a clear picture in their minds, while others see no picture at all. Most people fall somewhere between those extremes. These differences may affect how people remember, feel, and make choices, but not seeing mental pictures does not mean someone lacks creativity.
A Wide Spectrum, Not Two Separate Camps
When someone remembers a friend’s face or imagines a beach they have visited, they may feel as if they are seeing a scene inside their mind. Other people cannot conjure up any picture, no matter how hard they try. This is more than a difference in how people describe things or a sign of poor memory: people really do vary in their ability to form mental images, from almost none at all to vivid scenes that feel almost like actually seeing something.
Researchers use the term aphantasia for the absence of the ability to form mental images. At the other end of the spectrum, they use hyperphantasia to describe exceptionally vivid, clear inner pictures. But these terms do not divide everyone into two distinct groups. Most people fall somewhere in between, and the clarity of their mental images varies from person to person.
One person may be able to imagine an object’s general shape without seeing its finer details, while another may picture its colors and features much more clearly. So a simple answer such as “I can imagine it” does not tell the whole story. Mental imagery is not simply an ability that is either switched on or off; it varies in strength, clarity, and how vividly it enters a person’s awareness.
These differences are a reminder that people do not all think in the same way. Some rely heavily on inner pictures to recall scenes, while others may not use this kind of conscious imagery at all. But having no mental picture is not the same as having no idea. Someone can know what they are thinking about or remember it without seeing a scene in their mind.
What Happens in the Brain?
The images we create in our minds are linked to the visual cortex, a brain region that plays a central role in processing what the eyes see. Research has found a broad inverse relationship between the size of the primary visual cortex and the strength of the “mind’s eye”: differences in the size of this region are associated with differences in how vivid mental images are. The reason for this relationship is not yet clear, however, and the finding alone cannot explain how imagination works.
The way brain cells respond to signals may also matter, not just the size of the visual cortex. Researchers call this responsiveness cortical excitability—in other words, how readily nerve cells react to signals. In experiments conducted by Joel Pearson and colleagues, changing activity in the visual cortex with electrical stimulation could make mental images stronger or weaker. Their study was published in eLife in 2020.
This result goes beyond showing that mental imagery and the brain are associated. After researchers altered activity in the visual region, the strength of people’s imagery changed, suggesting that the region’s responsiveness plays a causal role in the experience. Still, the experiment does not answer every question about differences between people. It also does not explain why some people are born with very little ability to picture things while others have exceptionally vivid imagery.
Why Do People Have Different Mind’s Eyes?
Researchers do not yet have a complete explanation for aphantasia or hyperphantasia. Reports suggest that a head injury can change a person’s ability to form mental images. Some people have also described changes associated with taking psychedelic drugs, but neither kind of observation, by itself, provides conclusive evidence for a particular mechanism. Some researchers have also suggested that imagery may change as people get older, though this possibility needs to be better understood.
Aphantasia sometimes appears in more than one member of the same family, raising the possibility that genes play a partial role. But a family pattern does not, on its own, reveal which genes or biological processes are involved. Nor does it explain why one person may be born without conscious mental images while another has powerful visual imagery. In important ways, the origins of these individual differences remain a mystery.
There is another open question: do people with aphantasia have no inner images at all, or might some images occur without the person recognizing them as conscious pictures? This is difficult to determine because scientists cannot ask the brain directly what a person is experiencing. Instead, they rely on people’s own descriptions and on tests that measure different aspects of the experience.
Hyperphantasia, the other end of the spectrum, has received less study. Pearson describes people who say they can replay a movie in their minds as if they were watching it again. But finding people with this ability and bringing them into laboratory studies is not easy. The shortage of participants makes it challenging to build a complete scientific picture of the most vivid end of the spectrum.
How Can Scientists Measure a Picture Only You Can See?
Differences in visual imagery have been documented since at least the 19th century. In the 1880s, the English scientist Francis Galton asked 100 men to imagine something familiar, such as a breakfast table, and then describe features of the image that came to mind, including how clear and distinct it was. He reported that some participants could not form this kind of mental picture.
Measurement tools have advanced since then, but the basic challenge remains: the experience is subjective, and people may understand a question differently or describe what happens in their minds in different ways. Researchers therefore do not rely on a single method. They test a range of approaches that combine people’s answers with signals that can be measured in the body.
One approach takes advantage of a phenomenon called binocular rivalry. When different patterns are shown to each eye, the two scenes compete for dominance in perception. In the test, a person first imagines one of the patterns before the two are presented. The pattern they focused on in their imagination is then more likely to become the one they end up perceiving. This allows researchers to estimate the effect of an imagined image by looking at what the person sees afterward, rather than relying only on their description.
Other tests track bodily responses associated with what a person imagines. A person’s pupils may change size when they think about something bright, or their skin’s electrical conductance may shift when they picture a frightening situation, such as a shark’s fin circling in the water nearby. These responses do not reveal the exact content of a thought, but they can help researchers test whether a mental image triggers a physical response and how strong that response is.
Researchers have also begun using functional magnetic resonance imaging and computer algorithms to try to infer what is happening in a person’s mind. An algorithm can be trained on patterns of brain activity recorded while someone looks at a symbol or letter, then tested to see whether it can recognize the pattern when the person imagines that symbol without seeing it. This method offers an estimate based on patterns; it is not an unrestricted window into someone’s thoughts.
No single tool can deliver a final verdict on a person’s ability to imagine. A questionnaire about the vividness of visual imagery can help someone explore their own experience, but it is not a definitive diagnosis. Measurement is more informative when different methods are compared, though self-reports, physical responses, and brain activity should be understood as related aspects of the experience, not interchangeable ones.
Imagination Is Not a Requirement for Creativity
It might seem that someone who cannot see pictures in their mind would be held back in art or innovation. But a lack of visual imagery does not necessarily mean a lack of creativity. Prominent artists and animators have said that they do not think in pictures, including Ed Catmull, a co-founder of Pixar, and Glen Keane, who worked in animation at Disney. Their examples show that creating visual work does not require experiencing images in the same way as everyone else.
More broadly, visual imagery may shape how someone makes a decision without determining what they decide. A person imagining a bungee jump from a great height might picture the expected sensation, which could affect their desire to try it or their assessment of the risks. Someone who does not form an inner visual scene may approach the question differently. That does not mean one person will always make the wiser choice; it means the mental route to a decision may differ.
Vivid imagery can also have a noticeable emotional effect. When someone imagines an upsetting situation in detail, their body and emotions may respond as though the event were closer to them than it really is. One explanation is that mental imagery can activate brain responses also involved when a scene is happening in front of a person, even though the imagined scene is not present in the surrounding environment.
At the same time, vivid mental imagery is associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder after a distressing event. This should be understood as an observed relationship, not proof that vivid imagination alone causes these conditions or that everyone with clear mental images will develop them. The finding does, however, draw attention to how an ability that makes inner scenes feel more present may also intensify the impact of troubling memories or worries about what might happen.
The Bottom Line
The ability to form mental images spans a wide range, from almost no imagery for some people to exceptionally vivid inner scenes for others, with most people falling between those extremes. This ability is linked to the visual cortex and the way it responds, but the reasons people differ are not fully understood. Measuring such a private experience also takes more than one question or test.
A person’s style of imagination does not determine their worth or their capacity to innovate. Aphantasia does not necessarily prevent creativity, while vivid imagery may influence emotions and risk judgments without dictating a particular outcome. Anyone curious about their own experience can try a questionnaire about the vividness of mental images, while remembering that its result is not a final judgment. People can think in strikingly different ways, even when they are trying to imagine the same thing.