A cognitive profile of multi-sensory imagery, memory and dreaming in aphantasia

Dawes, Keogh, Andrillon & Pearson — Scientific Reports, 2020

The Quest Researchers already knew aphantasia meant no voluntary visual imagery. What they didn't know was how far that absence extended into other parts of cognition. This study set out to map the full cognitive profile of aphantasia across memory, dreaming, sensory imagery, trauma response, and spatial ability, with 267 aphantasic participants and two independent control groups.

The Discovery Aphantasic participants reported reduced imagery across every sensory domain, not just vision. Sound, touch, taste, smell, and emotional imagery were all quieter compared to controls. But here is the important part: only 26% of aphantasic participants had a complete absence of all non-visual imagery. The other 74% had some inner sensory life. Memory was also significantly affected. Aphantasic participants reported weaker ability to mentally relive past events AND weaker ability to mentally project into future ones. Spatial ability, however, was preserved. Navigation and spatial reasoning came out essentially equal to controls. Dreams were fewer and less sensorially rich, but aphantasic dreamers reported spending more time thinking during dreams.

The Insight Visual imagery appears to be a foundational tool the brain uses to simulate experience in multiple directions: backward into memory and forward into planning. When it is reduced, the effects show up far beyond what most people expect. But the preserved spatial ability tells us the brain is not simply broken. It is differently organized.

The Sticky Note If you remember one thing: aphantasia is not just about missing pictures. It touches how people remember the past, imagine the future, and dream at night.

The Connection The No Picture Needed paper argues that aphantasic individuals are not cognitively limited, just cognitively different. This study supports that directly. Spatial ability is intact. In-dream thinking is elevated. The brain finds other routes. What Dawes et al. confirm is that we are not looking at a deficit. We are looking at a different cognitive architecture, one that schools, parents, and clinicians need to understand on its own terms.

You can read the full paper by clicking here.