Beran · Consciousness and cognition 2023 · cross-sectional survey and cognitive performance study · n=5,010

Assessing aphantasia prevalence and the relation of self-reported imagery abilities and memory task performance.

Cited 30 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional observational survey and task performance evaluation (non-clinical design analogy).

PubMed 37451040 · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2023.103548 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

A cross-sectional study of 5,010 adults from the United States general population assessed the prevalence of aphantasia using direct self-identification and two visual imagery questionnaires. Researchers also examined how self-reported imagery ability related to dream frequency, internal self-talk, memory task performance, and learning preferences (written versus video instruction) for a hypothetical task.

What was found

The self-reported prevalence of aphantasia was 8.9%, whereas prevalence determined by visual imagery scales was 1.5%. Self-identified aphantasic participants reported lower dream frequencies, reduced self-talk, and demonstrated poorer memory task performance compared to those with average or high imagery. Aphantasic participants also preferred written instructions over video instructions, with reported differences between men and women. The abstract does not provide exact effect sizes, scores, or test statistics for the memory task or dream frequency outcomes.

Why it matters

This study demonstrates a major discrepancy between subjective self-identification and standardized scale classification of aphantasia, while linking visual imagery deficits to distinct differences in memory performance and learning preferences.

Limits

The study is cross-sectional and relies predominantly on self-report instruments. Generalizability may be limited to US adults, and objective physiological or neuroimaging validation of visual imagery capacity was not included. Quantitative metrics for memory performance and demographic subgroups are omitted from the abstract.

Cited by