Aphantasia: Tests and Diagnosis
This file compares claims from /research/04_tests_and_diagnosis.md against r/Aphantasia accounts retrieved via hybrid search (k=25 per claim).
Claim 1: "VVIQ ≤ 32 (Zeman et al. 2015; Keogh & Pearson 2018; Wicken et al. 2021; Dance et al. 2021) — the most widely cited threshold."
Source: research file's "Aphantasia Thresholds on the VVIQ" section.
Supporting accounts
"Check out aphantasia.com. Take the VVIQ. Researchers consider <32 to be aphantasia. Around 32 is hypophantasia. 16 is minimum." 2022 · t1_iwc37sr ↗
"The VVIQ test disagrees. You can have a score of up to 32 you can be considered having aphantasia but up to 16 is total aphantasia." 2024 · t1_lbned59 ↗
"The first paper used <32 as aphantasia. Some early papers refer to 16 as \"complete\" aphantasia. Other papers have used <25 and <28. Hypophantasia tends to be between the aphantasia number and 32." 2024 · t1_laosul7 ↗
"Most estimates are around 3% for VVIQ scores low enough for aphantasia but results differ partially because there is no set threshold. Some studies considered 16-32 aphantasia while other 16-23 etc. Complete lack of visual imagery (16 on VVIQ) is about 1%." 2024 · t1_l34x8uv ↗
Contradicting / qualifying accounts
"I think the cutoff is 18, there are 16 questions meaning that the lowest possible score is 16. A score of 18 or below is to allow leeway." 2021 · t1_gjvoqsc ↗
"Aphantasia is not a spectrum. “Aphantasia” means the total lack of voluntary visual imagination." 2024 · t1_lbned59 ↗
Extending observations
"Interesting, I scored 27. So if the scores on this test go from 16 to 80 then a score of 16 would be 100% aphant and a score of 80 would be 0%. With 64 possible scores above 16 each point is 1.5625% less that 100%, so I'm \~82.8% Aphant" 2022 · t1_iwcr6yd ↗
Users translate VVIQ scores into intuitive percentages and battle within the community over whether scoring 22 or 27 — anything above the floor of 16 — counts as "real" aphantasia.
Claim 2: "Studies (Dance et al. 2021; Monzel et al.) using the PSIQ have shown that self-identified aphantasics typically score very low across all seven modalities, suggesting many cases are multi-sensory rather than vision-specific."
Source: research file's "Relevance to aphantasia" subsection on the PSIQ.
Supporting accounts
"There are a couple of standard multisensory assessments. The Questionnaire upon Mental Imagery (QMI) is one. The Plymouth Sensory Imagery Questionnaire is another (PSY-Q). Both include the 5 senses and add some sort of bodily and emotional sensations. This study used the QMI and found about a quarter of aphants are missing all 7 senses while about 30% were missing only visuals." 2025 · t1_m7tfx8b ↗
"'Aphantasia' has traditionally only referred to the inability to create visual images in your mind. Like visualization, most people can create sensations for other senses in their mind as well. Sounds, tastes, smells, touches. 'Total' or 'multisensory' aphantasia describes those folks (including myself) that cannot imagine any of the senses." 2024 · t1_kk4dljj ↗
"I cannot visualize, hear, smell or taste in my mind. I can visualize and hear in my dreams, but do not recollect smells or taste in a dream." 2020 · t1_fiqslv1 ↗
Contradicting / qualifying accounts
"I have multisensory aphantasia. However, if I see an image in front of me of an apple, for example, I can taste the apple, I can smell the apple." 2023 · t1_k6kk4yv ↗
"For me, my mental smell and taste senses are strong, then the audio, that's about it though. I can't visualise memories, but I rely on smell and taste to trigger recall." 2022 · t1_i3prvl2 ↗
"I can recall sounds, that's about it. When I smell something, I'll usually get lots of vivid imagery or memories, but I can't imagine/recall scents when I'm not actually smelling them." 2024 · t1_lty2onw ↗
Extending observations
"Pretty much anything you can experience IRL many can experience in their imagination. It sounds like you have Gustatory Hyperphantsia. How is you Olfactory Phantasia as smells are often part of taste?" 2025 · t1_m7tfx8b ↗
The dissociation pattern the PSIQ was designed to detect is exactly what users describe: visual-only aphants, smell+taste aphants, sound-preserved aphants, and "total" aphants in roughly the proportions the QMI/PSIQ literature suggests.
Claim 3: "Developed by Pearson, Clifford & Tong (2008) and adapted by Keogh & Pearson (2018) as the first objective behavioral measure of imagery in aphantasia."
Source: research file's section on Binocular Rivalry — The Keogh & Pearson Objective Test.
Supporting accounts
"Binocular rivalry is the first test to show a distinct difference in how we respond relative to neurotypical people." 2021 · t1_glz2nom ↗
"Aphants score differently on the binocular rivalry test than neurotypicals, making it a potential diagnostic to prove (to others) that we do not visualize." 2021 · t1_glz2as3 ↗
"So they mentioned the binocular rivalry test, I thus did this test and also got a colleague to do it too and the image that they were not thinking of disappeared but for me it didn't. I could still see both images though they were superimposed." 2018 · t1_e8wvgjf ↗
"Alternatively you could try a binocular rivalry test with priming which you can technically do in your own home." 2019 · t1_ee722us ↗
Contradicting / qualifying accounts
"Ahh, I guess the binocular rivalry test is different than I thought. There are other more complicated tests based on it at least with different types of pictures. Apparently the content matters so I'm not sure how effective an 'at home test' will actually be." 2021 · t1_hdung8g ↗
Extending observations
"Just remember to keep randomly swapping the eye seeing the red and the eye seeing the green or you’ll bias the results with your dominant eye (try rolling a dice, odd means right eye gets the green, even means left eye)." 2019 · t1_ee744o3 ↗
"But the VVIQ actually correlates well with the 3 objective tests of visualization Joel Pearson came up with. He found that priming in binocular rivalry tracked the vividness reported." 2024 · t1_lbe8sav ↗
A handful of users have actually attempted the at-home binocular rivalry rig with red/green glasses, and they report exactly the qualitative outcome the literature predicts: the imagined color does not bias which percept dominates.
Claim 4: "The Bainbridge \"drawing-from-memory\" study and Dance et al.'s OSIQ work show that aphantasics often retain spatial imagery while losing object imagery — they can still navigate, mentally rotate shapes, and reason about layouts, but cannot generate the colored, textured \"picture\" of an object."
Source: research file's "Relevance to aphantasia" subsection on the OSIQ.
Supporting accounts
"Spatial imagery (specifically object rotation tasks, as seen here) and visual mental imagery are not necessarily directly linked in the way you’re asking about. Most studies on this have found that aphantasics don’t exhibit statistically significant impairments compared to non-aphants on spatial imagery tasks, including mental object rotation—for example, Bainbridge et al. (2021); Pounder et al. (2022); Knight, Milton, & Zeman (2022)." 2025 · t1_mdcyf37 ↗
"In my case, I have full aphantasia but I can rotate objects in my head. Not visually, but spatially, which for me seems to be an independent skill." 2024 · t1_lj7h8tn ↗
"The problem with this is that I'm a total aphant, but I still have good \"virtual\" spatial awareness. The one thing I can do is arrange the objects I can't see in space relative to each other." 2019 · t1_f316ai4 ↗
"This makes sense, I’m pretty sure I’m total aphant but this and these kind of puzzles aren’t difficult for me. I’m actually pretty good at visual/spatial puzzles." 2025 · t1_mdfqtmz ↗
Contradicting / qualifying accounts
"I genuinely have no clue how people are able to mentally rotate objects (maybe I could do it with effort for a simple object, but there’s no chance for a complex one). I think I have a lesser known type of aphantasia (spatial aphantasia). I think the spatial part is probably more debilitating than the visual part." 2025 · t1_myp7104 ↗
Extending observations
"Spatial rotation tasks do not rely on images. I imagine myself to be the object to be rotated, then I rotate myself. No visual memory needed, at all." 2025 · t1_myp2xl4 ↗
"My impression is that people who visualize rotate the whole object mentally through a series of small rotations till they get a match. Aphants will tend to break up an object into smaller pieces that can be quickly rotated mentally and pattern match those to the results, or build up a series of relationships that let the final thing be reproduced." 2021 · t1_gqaewyb ↗
The OSIQ's object/spatial dissociation is one of the most consistently confirmed claims in the lived-experience corpus — but the corpus also documents a "spatial aphantasia" subtype (a small minority) that the OSIQ literature treats as outliers.
Claim 5: "Pupils constrict normally for perceived bright/dark stimuli (so the autonomic system works fine), but show no significant luminance effect during imagery. Bayesian analysis confirms evidence for the null effect."
Source: research file's section on Pupillometry — The Pupillary Light Response (PLR) Test (Kay, Keogh, Andrillon, & Pearson, 2022).
Supporting accounts
"Researchers discover the first physiological evidence of aphantasia in the eye’s pupil." 2022 · t1_ixdzrbp ↗
"Pupils reveal ‘aphantasia’ – the absence of visual imagination. Scientists have found that the pupils of people with aphantasia did not respond when asked to imagine dark and light objects, while those without aphantasia did." 2024 · t1_lhqb2t1 ↗
"this study looked at that process in Aphants, and found that while the Aphants retained the pupillary light reflex in response to external stimuli, but showed no pupillary response when asked to 'imagine' bright or dark objects." 2022 · t3_vzv1zp ↗
"you can measure pupil restriction and dilation in a visualizer who is asked to imagine something like the light reflecting off of a lake on a clear and sunny day or (in contrast) a dark and gloomy room. Aphants will generally not have their pupils shift consistently with the imagined scene." 2025 · t1_mst647k ↗
Contradicting / qualifying accounts
(none surfaced in top-25)
Extending observations
"You can try this at home with your friends. Record their eyes while you ask them to imagine a bright sunny day at the beach, or a dreary storm with the power out. Then get them to record yours and, if you're aphantasic, you shouldn't see much change!" 2022 · t3_vzv1zp ↗
The PLR finding is the rare result the community accepts essentially without qualification — possibly because it externalises an internal phenomenon and possibly because users are themselves trying to convince skeptics that aphantasia is "real."
Claim 6: "Imagery skepticism (the Galton problem): A long philosophical tradition — from Galton (1880) onward — questions whether imagery vividness reports correspond to anything real. Critics argue the VVIQ is \"too subjective\" and that any single sum score conflates several distinct processes."
Source: research file's "Self-Report Limitations and 'Imagery Skepticism'" section.
Supporting accounts
"The test is immediately flawed because it uses subjective self reported answers to come to a result." 2024 · t1_l22anh3 ↗
"All the tests rely on the subject qualifying their own experiences. It is entirely subjective." 2025 · t1_mbnaonm ↗
"Two people who are right in the middle of the aphantasia - hyperphantasia spectrum might score two entirely different results on the VVIQ due to their subjective interpretation of what is 'moderately vivid'. I think the VVIQ works better for identifying the people on both extremes of the spectrum." 2021 · t1_hn6d1c3 ↗
"that vviq test in my honest opinion is completely bunk most test that are structured in that manner imo are and the way self identifying aphants are often \"proved\" not to be as such definitely strengthens my hypothesis" 2024 · t1_lbe8sav ↗
Contradicting / qualifying accounts
"But the VVIQ actually correlates well with the 3 objective tests of visualization Joel Pearson came up with." 2024 · t1_lbe8sav ↗
Extending observations
"I think I would have answered the VVIQ with much higher scores if I had no prior knowledge of aphantasia as a concept, since I would have interpreted the wording of the questions more metaphorically." 2021 · t1_hn6d1c3 ↗
"Someone with aphantasia who doesn't know what aphantasia is would probably assume that \"visualize\" means something like \"think about.\" Someone who can visualize and doesn't know that aphantasia exists would never guess that someone would interpret \"visualize\" as anything other than an image. It's really hard, and perhaps impossible, to describe internal experiences in a way that everyone will interpret the same way." 2025 · t1_nume3ws ↗
"And the questions in the VVIQ test were way better than just 'think of an apple'." 2022 · t1_iu2863b ↗
The "Galton problem" surfaces in the corpus as a recurring meta-complaint: users argue that whether one rates a 2 or a 4 on the VVIQ depends on whether they read "as vivid as real seeing" literally or metaphorically, and that pre-existing knowledge of aphantasia changes the answer.
Claim 7: "the apple test was a bit simple" — the popular consumer "apple" test is widely understood to be inferior to the VVIQ but more recognisable.
Source: research file does not contain the literal word "apple test" but discusses the popular VVIQ-style consumer screeners and notes that the VVIQ uses richer scenes; the corpus contains many references to the "apple test".
Supporting accounts
"Many of you might be familiar with the apple-test: picturing an apple, closing your eyes and trying to see how vivid the image is from scale 1-5 (no image - accurate image). The apple test was a bit simple, and I thought it might be a nice idea to do another test with friends." 2024 · t3_1bmiqgy ↗
"Basically if you can literally picture something in your mind, like your mother’s face, with your eyes open or closed, you do not have Aphantasia. If you cannot picture it at all, you might have it. The test asks about an apple because most people know what that looks like." 2025 · t1_mevq6px ↗
Contradicting / qualifying accounts
"The 'mind eye' is not a literal image you see with your eyes closed. Most visualizers need their eyes open to visualize properly, or it at least aids them. That test with the 'imagine an apple' with your eyes closed bit is not a visualization test." 2021 · t1_h1gag5i ↗
"But why do most of these so-called \"tests\" start with: \"Close your eyes and think of an apple. What do you see\"... this is misleading. The request to close your eyes implies that you should see a picture of an apple instead of what you see in real life, not the black color. People with hyperphantasia can imagine an apple with their eyes open, you don't have to close your eyes for that." 2023 · t1_js3nnhw ↗
Extending observations
"I just did the test and I realized I can visualize pretty average. It was other people saying 'I can see an apple and rotate and play with it in my head when I close my eyes' and was like wtf? I see black if I close my eyes, but with my eyes open it is easier for me. And the questions in the VVIQ test were way better than just 'think of an apple'." 2022 · t1_iu2863b ↗
"Not necessarily! Because of the apple test being most common, many people believe it is just “inability to visualize (see) with their eyes closed”" 2026 · t1_o2nedkm ↗
The corpus shows the apple test functioning more as a viral on-ramp than as a diagnostic — repeatedly users pivot from "I tried the apple test" to "I then took the VVIQ and it was much better."
Synthesis
The lived-experience record corresponds closely to the academic instruments. The VVIQ ≤ 32 cutoff is widely known and quoted by users back at one another, often with the same caveat the literature gives — that no single threshold is canonical and Zeman's later work uses ≤ 23. The PSIQ's multi-modality structure matches the way users spontaneously decompose their own deficits ("I can hear in my mind but not smell or see"), and the OSIQ's object/spatial dissociation is repeatedly replicated by aphants describing strong navigation and rotation skills. The binocular-rivalry and pupillometry findings are accepted by the community essentially without resistance — they are the rare academic claims that surface as ammunition in disputes with skeptics rather than as objects of skepticism themselves.
Where lived experience diverges from the literature is mostly in the meta-debate: users disagree more sharply than researchers about whether the VVIQ "really" measures anything, whether 27 vs. 32 is a meaningful threshold, and whether the apple-test version of the questionnaire is even a test at all. The corpus also documents a "spatial aphantasia" subtype that the OSIQ literature largely treats as a minority outlier but that some users describe as more debilitating than the visual deficit. The single richest extension in the corpus is the linguistic / metacognitive one: users repeatedly note that whether they answer the VVIQ literally or metaphorically depends on whether they already know aphantasia exists — exactly the methodological worry Allbutt et al. (2011) raised about social desirability and demand characteristics, but framed as a problem of self-knowledge rather than self-presentation.