8 ms·

What frustrates me about things like that, there seem to be no proper tests for that. Shouldn't there be an easy test for Aphantasia, for example, that doesn't

What frustrates me about things like that, there seem to be no proper tests for that. Shouldn't there be an easy test for Aphantasia, for example, that doesn't ask me things like "do you have a mind's eye" (what does that even mean?). Such a test should not ask the test subjects to self-diagnose themselves, but it should objectively test abilities and put them on a scale. Anything else really is not that helpful.

SirRoderic 2y ago
Speaking from experience as an aphantasic person, I think it is definitely possible to test objectively. For instance certain IQ tests will test the subject's ability to identify what a pictured object would look like if it were rotated in a certain way. I have taken just such a test where spatial rotations, IIRC including multi-step ones, were a component, and I scored close to 99th percentile on every section except that one... where I scored 1st percentile. If that's not a strong sign of aphantasia I don't know what is!
- SaidinWoT 2y ago
  This is actually one of the things about aphantasia that has already had a (small) study[0], and the results are actually the opposite! The participants with aphantasia were more likely to both (a) take longer to answer and (b) be _correct_. I personally have aphantasia and have quite good spatial reasoning, including with mentally rotating objects. I think it's fair to assume that visualization and spatial reasoning are mostly (but not entirely) orthogonal spectra, and it's completely possible for people to fall anywhere on either, just based on how their brain developed its internal strategies throughout normal life. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26792259_Loss_of_imagery_phenomenology_with_intact_visuo-spatial_task_performance_A_case_of_'blind_imagination' https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26792259_Loss_of_im...
  - auggierose 2y ago
    Yes, objective tests must somehow take into account the multitude of coping mechanisms that people with the condition have developed. "Spatial reasoning" for example is very close to logical reasoning, and I don't see why people with Aphantasia shouldn't be very good at that, albeit slower in "spatial" mode.
- listenallyall 2y ago
  Can you read text when a book is upside down?
canjobear 2y ago
If you’re looking for objective measures, aphantasia correlates inversely with objective measures of visual memory. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7856239/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7856239/ But you can also imagine tests based on introspection which are better than just straight up asking how vivid your mental imagery is. For example: imagine a triangle. What color is it? For a true aphantasiac, this question is meaningless. It has no color because it’s just an abstract concept. For me it is a white outline on a black background, very vividly.
- auggierose 2y ago
  The article uses the VVIQ test (Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire), taken on the Internet, to select aphantasiac participants. I cannot take research like that seriously. > For example: imagine a triangle. What color is it? > For a true aphantasiac, this question is meaningless. If you are not an aphantasiac, how do you know what meaning this question has for one? I am pretty sure aphantasiacs can "imagine" a triangle with some color in it. It is just that this imagine manifests differently than it does for you, but how can we measure that objectively? To elaborate, even for an aphantasiac, a triangle or a color is not something abstract. You can draw it on a paper, and it is right there. If you close your eyes, you can remember what you have drawn on the paper, aphantasiac or not. So how exactly do you distinguish the quality of memories here? Certainly not with vague internet questionnaires. Research like that makes me really angry.
  - canjobear 2y ago
    If I say "imagine a triangle" and ask you what color it is, why would it have a color if there is no image there? I didn't ask you to imagine a red triangle. Only a triangle. The only way it logically gets a color is if you are visualizing it.
    - auggierose 2y ago
      I understand your reasoning, but it is not very logical. It depends on what you mean by "imagine a triangle". A triangle doesn't have to be filled with a color to be a triangle. Why would you imagine it with any color in it in the first place, not just a wireframe, being transparent inside? So if your triangle doesn't have a color, it might be because you are more accurate in your imagination, not because you have no triangle imagination. So without a proper way of defining things like "imagine" or "mental picture" first, tests like yours or like VVIQ are not well-defined. Now, maybe I don't understand the meaning of VVIQ because I have aphantasia. Or maybe I don't understand the meaning of VVIQ because I am a logician and mathematician, and I am very peculiar about "meaning". Maybe even both. Without a doubt though, VVIQ is not an objective test, because its elements are not properly defined.
asah 2y ago
Describe in single words, only the good things that come into your mind about your mother.
ergonaught 2y ago
fMRI can probably spot it for people like myself who are fully aphantasic. But: 1. "Imagine a table. There is a ball on the table. The ball rolls off the table onto the floor." 2. "From memory, what color was the ball? The table? The floor? What did you see under the table?" Neither I nor any other, uh, aphants, that I have known have answers to those questions. Imagination still works, and answers to those questions can be produced interactively if handled appropriately, but, ex: we weren't imagining colors and we didn't see anything at all much less "under the table". Alternative: 1. "What do you think people do, specifically, when they "count sheep" to go to sleep?" Our answers to that should just be hilarious for you. Hi-larious. Understand that we thought you folks "visualizing in your minds eye" were speaking metaphorically. Entirely metaphorically.
- listenallyall 2y ago
  "mind's eye" is a metaphor. You, like everyone else, have two eyes, in the front of your face. There isn't an extra one embedded in anyone's brain.
  - UncleSlacky 2y ago
    The pineal gland in the brain has sometimes been termed the "third eye": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland#Society_and_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland#Society_and_cultu...
  - ergonaught 2y ago
    I'm not sure what you think you've gained or stated with this remark. "Mind's eye" and "visualization" refer to actual experiences. Those of us with aphantasia (no exceptions that I've encountered so far) did not realize these words referred to actual experiences.
    - listenallyall 2y ago
      Define "actual experiences". Normal people can not imagine an object like a red apple and actually see it, same as if one existed right in front of them. They can "visualize" it (just like you, it sounds), as in they can think of what it looks like, they would recognize one, they can even imagine broader scenes involving this apple (like an entire grocery aisle) but there is no "actual experience." You couldn't walk straight otherwise, you'd constantly be dodging imaginary objects that you'd be seeing.
Jordan-117 2y ago
I feel similarly, though less about the lack of objective testing and more about the inability to even be sure we're talking about the same thing. Like I can visualize stuff fine, but not literally see it like some Hololens overlay -- it's in a sort of abstract internal space separate from what you see with your eyes. Sometimes I wonder whether some self-diagnosed aphantasiacs only think they are because they overestimate how potent "normal" visualization should be. (Or maybe these visual hallucinations are normal and I'm underdiagnosing myself!) One method to possibly tell the difference is visual analogizing. Like, "picture" the Sydney Opera House, and then (without thinking in words) name some other objects it resembles. Someone with visual imagination should be able to rattle off stuff like sailboats or seashells or folded napkins, while a true aphantasiac should be lost without being able to look at a picture or derive an answer from a mental list of attributes.
- snaeker58 2y ago
  I disagree. Asking someone to name shapes that resemble for example the Sydney Opera house seems to me just a test of creativity, not ability to “visualize” something in your head. I don’t think we’ll ever get a test, because the entire concept of visualization and imagination is so unquantifiable and abstract. We’re all black boxes in a way to each other, with no real way of describing or showing each other how our version of this “visualization” or “image” or … looks or even feels.
  - Jordan-117 2y ago
    It is a creativity test, but doesn't how you get there matter? From what I understand, aphantasiacs think in words, verbalized concepts, remembered facts, relationships, etc. So I'd expect that to make a visual analogy they'd have to first think through the properties of the thing -- "OK, I know this building is white, triangular, curved, near the water..." -- and then come up with other things those attributes describe. But I can just "see" the shape and color of the building in my mind's eye, and mentally make it be something similar, without any internal monologue at all. Actually, if you just gave me a written description of these traits, I'd have a harder time coming up with examples because they're just abstract properties without any specific image to anchor them to -- I could do it, but I'd have to think about it some. But doing the same exercise with a mental image feels much easier.
koliber 2y ago
There’s a recent episode of the Radiolab podcast about aphantasia. They specifically talk about a test for the condition. It’s worth the 30 minute listen.
driggs 2y ago
The second paragraph of this Guardian article mentions, and links to, but doesn't expound on the biophysical pupillary response to mental visual imagery. https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbq8w/how-pupil-size-can-reveal-what-isor-isnthappening-in-your-mind https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbq8w/how-pupil-size-can-re... If someone with normal mental visualization ability pictures a "bright" scene, the pupils contract just as they would in response to a bright visual stimulation. Aphants' pupils show no physical response to this test. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9018072/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9018072/

SirRoderic 2y ago

Speaking from experience as an aphantasic person, I think it is definitely possible to test objectively. For instance certain IQ tests will test the subject's ability to identify what a pictured object would look like if it were rotated in a certain way. I have taken just such a test where spatial rotations, IIRC including multi-step ones, were a component, and I scored close to 99th percentile on every section except that one... where I scored 1st percentile. If that's not a strong sign of aphantasia I don't know what is!

SaidinWoT 2y ago
This is actually one of the things about aphantasia that has already had a (small) study[0], and the results are actually the opposite! The participants with aphantasia were more likely to both (a) take longer to answer and (b) be _correct_. I personally have aphantasia and have quite good spatial reasoning, including with mentally rotating objects. I think it's fair to assume that visualization and spatial reasoning are mostly (but not entirely) orthogonal spectra, and it's completely possible for people to fall anywhere on either, just based on how their brain developed its internal strategies throughout normal life. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26792259_Loss_of_imagery_phenomenology_with_intact_visuo-spatial_task_performance_A_case_of_'blind_imagination' https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26792259_Loss_of_im...
- auggierose 2y ago
  Yes, objective tests must somehow take into account the multitude of coping mechanisms that people with the condition have developed. "Spatial reasoning" for example is very close to logical reasoning, and I don't see why people with Aphantasia shouldn't be very good at that, albeit slower in "spatial" mode.
listenallyall 2y ago
Can you read text when a book is upside down?

canjobear 2y ago

If you’re looking for objective measures, aphantasia correlates inversely with objective measures of visual memory. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7856239/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7856239/ But you can also imagine tests based on introspection which are better than just straight up asking how vivid your mental imagery is. For example: imagine a triangle. What color is it? For a true aphantasiac, this question is meaningless. It has no color because it’s just an abstract concept. For me it is a white outline on a black background, very vividly.

auggierose 2y ago
The article uses the VVIQ test (Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire), taken on the Internet, to select aphantasiac participants. I cannot take research like that seriously. > For example: imagine a triangle. What color is it? > For a true aphantasiac, this question is meaningless. If you are not an aphantasiac, how do you know what meaning this question has for one? I am pretty sure aphantasiacs can "imagine" a triangle with some color in it. It is just that this imagine manifests differently than it does for you, but how can we measure that objectively? To elaborate, even for an aphantasiac, a triangle or a color is not something abstract. You can draw it on a paper, and it is right there. If you close your eyes, you can remember what you have drawn on the paper, aphantasiac or not. So how exactly do you distinguish the quality of memories here? Certainly not with vague internet questionnaires. Research like that makes me really angry.
- canjobear 2y ago
  If I say "imagine a triangle" and ask you what color it is, why would it have a color if there is no image there? I didn't ask you to imagine a red triangle. Only a triangle. The only way it logically gets a color is if you are visualizing it.
  - auggierose 2y ago
    I understand your reasoning, but it is not very logical. It depends on what you mean by "imagine a triangle". A triangle doesn't have to be filled with a color to be a triangle. Why would you imagine it with any color in it in the first place, not just a wireframe, being transparent inside? So if your triangle doesn't have a color, it might be because you are more accurate in your imagination, not because you have no triangle imagination. So without a proper way of defining things like "imagine" or "mental picture" first, tests like yours or like VVIQ are not well-defined. Now, maybe I don't understand the meaning of VVIQ because I have aphantasia. Or maybe I don't understand the meaning of VVIQ because I am a logician and mathematician, and I am very peculiar about "meaning". Maybe even both. Without a doubt though, VVIQ is not an objective test, because its elements are not properly defined.

asah 2y ago

Describe in single words, only the good things that come into your mind about your mother.

ergonaught 2y ago

fMRI can probably spot it for people like myself who are fully aphantasic. But: 1. "Imagine a table. There is a ball on the table. The ball rolls off the table onto the floor." 2. "From memory, what color was the ball? The table? The floor? What did you see under the table?" Neither I nor any other, uh, aphants, that I have known have answers to those questions. Imagination still works, and answers to those questions can be produced interactively if handled appropriately, but, ex: we weren't imagining colors and we didn't see anything at all much less "under the table". Alternative: 1. "What do you think people do, specifically, when they "count sheep" to go to sleep?" Our answers to that should just be hilarious for you. Hi-larious. Understand that we thought you folks "visualizing in your minds eye" were speaking metaphorically. Entirely metaphorically.

listenallyall 2y ago
"mind's eye" is a metaphor. You, like everyone else, have two eyes, in the front of your face. There isn't an extra one embedded in anyone's brain.
- UncleSlacky 2y ago
  The pineal gland in the brain has sometimes been termed the "third eye": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland#Society_and_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland#Society_and_cultu...
- ergonaught 2y ago
  I'm not sure what you think you've gained or stated with this remark. "Mind's eye" and "visualization" refer to actual experiences. Those of us with aphantasia (no exceptions that I've encountered so far) did not realize these words referred to actual experiences.
  - listenallyall 2y ago
    Define "actual experiences". Normal people can not imagine an object like a red apple and actually see it, same as if one existed right in front of them. They can "visualize" it (just like you, it sounds), as in they can think of what it looks like, they would recognize one, they can even imagine broader scenes involving this apple (like an entire grocery aisle) but there is no "actual experience." You couldn't walk straight otherwise, you'd constantly be dodging imaginary objects that you'd be seeing.

Jordan-117 2y ago

I feel similarly, though less about the lack of objective testing and more about the inability to even be sure we're talking about the same thing. Like I can visualize stuff fine, but not literally see it like some Hololens overlay -- it's in a sort of abstract internal space separate from what you see with your eyes. Sometimes I wonder whether some self-diagnosed aphantasiacs only think they are because they overestimate how potent "normal" visualization should be. (Or maybe these visual hallucinations are normal and I'm underdiagnosing myself!) One method to possibly tell the difference is visual analogizing. Like, "picture" the Sydney Opera House, and then (without thinking in words) name some other objects it resembles. Someone with visual imagination should be able to rattle off stuff like sailboats or seashells or folded napkins, while a true aphantasiac should be lost without being able to look at a picture or derive an answer from a mental list of attributes.

snaeker58 2y ago
I disagree. Asking someone to name shapes that resemble for example the Sydney Opera house seems to me just a test of creativity, not ability to “visualize” something in your head. I don’t think we’ll ever get a test, because the entire concept of visualization and imagination is so unquantifiable and abstract. We’re all black boxes in a way to each other, with no real way of describing or showing each other how our version of this “visualization” or “image” or … looks or even feels.
- Jordan-117 2y ago
  It is a creativity test, but doesn't how you get there matter? From what I understand, aphantasiacs think in words, verbalized concepts, remembered facts, relationships, etc. So I'd expect that to make a visual analogy they'd have to first think through the properties of the thing -- "OK, I know this building is white, triangular, curved, near the water..." -- and then come up with other things those attributes describe. But I can just "see" the shape and color of the building in my mind's eye, and mentally make it be something similar, without any internal monologue at all. Actually, if you just gave me a written description of these traits, I'd have a harder time coming up with examples because they're just abstract properties without any specific image to anchor them to -- I could do it, but I'd have to think about it some. But doing the same exercise with a mental image feels much easier.

koliber 2y ago

There’s a recent episode of the Radiolab podcast about aphantasia. They specifically talk about a test for the condition. It’s worth the 30 minute listen.

driggs 2y ago

The second paragraph of this Guardian article mentions, and links to, but doesn't expound on the biophysical pupillary response to mental visual imagery. https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbq8w/how-pupil-size-can-reveal-what-isor-isnthappening-in-your-mind https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbq8w/how-pupil-size-can-re... If someone with normal mental visualization ability pictures a "bright" scene, the pupils contract just as they would in response to a bright visual stimulation. Aphants' pupils show no physical response to this test. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9018072/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9018072/