Don't think of a pink elephant: Individual differences in visualisation predict involuntary imagery and its neural correlates

There are substantial differences in the capacity of people to have imagined visual experiences, ranging from a lifelong inability (Congenital Aphantasia) to people who report having imagined experiences that are as vivid as actually seeing (Hyper-Phantasia). While Congenital Aphantasia has typically been framed as a cognitive deficit, it is possible that a weak or absent ability to have imagined visual sensations is balanced by a heightened resistance to intrusive thoughts - which are experienced as an imagined sensation. Here, we report on a direct test of that proposition. We asked people to either imagine, or to try not to imagine having a range of audio and visual experiences while we recorded their brain activity with electroencephalography (EEG). Ratings describing the subjective vividness of different people's voluntary visualisations predicted if they would also report having involuntary visualisations - such as an imagined experience of seeing a pink elephant when they were asked not to. Both the prevalence of different people's involuntary visualisations and the typical vividness of their visualisations could be predicted by neural correlates of disinhibition, working memory, and neural feedback. Our data suggest that the propensity of people to have involuntary visual experiences can scale with the subjective intensity of their typical experiences of visualisation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cortex
Published
2024-11-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2024.10.020
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.40

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Don't think of a pink elephant: Individual differences in visualisation predict involuntary imagery and its neural correlates

Elizabeth Pellicano, Mark R. Hutchinson, D. Samuel Schwarzkopf, Derek H. Arnold et al.
7 citations
Cortex
Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
2.40
article

Don't think of a pink elephant: Individual differences in visualisation predict involuntary imagery and its neural correlates

Elizabeth Pellicano, Mark R. Hutchinson, D. Samuel Schwarzkopf, Derek H. Arnold, Blake W. Saurels, Loren Bouyer
article en
7 citations

Abstract

There are substantial differences in the capacity of people to have imagined visual experiences, ranging from a lifelong inability (Congenital Aphantasia) to people who report having imagined experiences that are as vivid as actually seeing (Hyper-Phantasia). While Congenital Aphantasia has typically been framed as a cognitive deficit, it is possible that a weak or absent ability to have imagined visual sensations is balanced by a heightened resistance to intrusive thoughts - which are experienced as an imagined sensation. Here, we report on a direct test of that proposition. We asked people to either imagine, or to try not to imagine having a range of audio and visual experiences while we recorded their brain activity with electroencephalography (EEG). Ratings describing the subjective vividness of different people's voluntary visualisations predicted if they would also report having involuntary visualisations - such as an imagined experience of seeing a pink elephant when they were asked not to. Both the prevalence of different people's involuntary visualisations and the typical vividness of their visualisations could be predicted by neural correlates of disinhibition, working memory, and neural feedback. Our data suggest that the propensity of people to have involuntary visual experiences can scale with the subjective intensity of their typical experiences of visualisation.

CortexVol. 183
University of Auckland (NZ), The University of Queensland (AU), University College London (GB)
Australian Research Council
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
2.40
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.