aphant.org
home / research

Recent Aphantasia Research and Findings (2020–2026)

Compiled 2026-05-06. Scope: papers, preprints, programs, press, and trials from 2020 onward, with emphasis on 2024–2026. Excludes foundational definition/history, basic mechanisms, diagnostic instruments, related conditions, lived experience, and intervention/daily-life implications — those are covered in sibling documents.

The decade since Zeman coined "aphantasia" in 2015 has compressed into an explosion of empirical work. Where the 2015–2019 period was dominated by single labs establishing the phenomenon, 2020–2026 has seen aphantasia move from curiosity to a multidisciplinary research industry with dedicated conferences, contested theoretical frames, ultra-high-field neuroimaging, and serious philosophical engagement with what the condition implies for theories of consciousness. As Zeman summarized in his late-2025 retrospective, aphantasia has "ascended from a niche curiosity to a hot topic across the cognitive sciences."

1. The "Decade of Aphantasia" Mile-Markers

Two synthesis papers anchor the present state of the field:

Zeman, A. (2024). Aphantasia and hyperphantasia: exploring imagery vividness extremes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(5), 467–480. This review synthesized roughly 50 studies and is the closest thing the field has to a current authoritative overview. It frames imagery as a continuum, not a binary, and argues that both extremes (~1% aphantasia; ~3% hyperphantasia by strict criteria; rising to ~5% and ~10% with looser criteria) reflect physiological and neural-connectivity variation rather than pathology. https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(24)00034-2

Zeman, A. (2025). A decade of aphantasia research – and still going! Neuropsychologia, 219, 109278. (Epub Sept 23, 2025; print Dec 15, 2025.) DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2025.109278. PMID: 40992607. A reflective piece that flags the principal open questions: (a) does aphantasia subdivide into discrete subtypes, (b) do aphantasics have unconscious mental imagery, and (c) what does aphantasia teach about typical imagery? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40992607/

A separate systematic review by Monzel, Vetterlein, & Reuter (2024) — "A Systematic Review of Aphantasia: Concept, Measurement, Neural Basis, and Theory Development" (PMC11437436) — provides the field's first formal review of measurement validity and theoretical frameworks. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11437436/

2. The Extreme Imagination Program — University of Exeter (Adam Zeman)

Zeman moved his clinical chair to the University of Exeter Medical School in 2005 and ran the Extreme Imagination program from there before later affiliating with the University of Edinburgh's Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences (his 2025 Neuropsychologia paper lists both affiliations). The program's signature event was the Extreme Imagination conference in April 2019, which brought together ~200 people with aphantasia and hyperphantasia in Exeter alongside a Royal Albert Memorial Museum exhibition titled Extreme Imagination — inside the mind's eye.

Post-2019 the program has evolved into a distributed collaboration. Notable Zeman-affiliated outputs:

3. The Pearson Lab (Future Minds Lab, UNSW Sydney) — Recent Outputs

Joel Pearson's lab has been the most productive single source of mechanistic aphantasia work in the 2020–2026 window. Notable papers since 2020:

Keogh, R., & Pearson, J. (2018, then extended through 2024) — the original binocular-rivalry paradigm work, extended in Keogh, R., & Pearson, J. (2024). Revisiting the blind mind: Still no evidence for sensory visual imagery in individuals with aphantasia. Neuroscience Research. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168010224000129. 55 aphantasics tested; no imagery priming of binocular rivalry, replicating the 2018 finding with a larger and more carefully validated cohort.

Kay, L., Keogh, R., & Pearson, J. (2022). The pupillary light response as a physiological index of aphantasia, sensory and phenomenological imagery strength. eLife, 11:e72484. https://elifesciences.org/articles/72484. Established the now-famous result that pupils constrict in response to imagined bright stimuli in typical imagers — but not in aphantasics — providing the first non-self-report physiological marker.

Chang, S., Zhang, X., Cao, Y., Pearson, J., & Meng, M. (2025). Imageless imagery in aphantasia revealed by early visual cortex decoding. Current Biology, 35(3), 591–599. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2024.12.012. Published online January 10, 2025. This is the most-discussed Pearson paper of 2025: multivariate fMRI decoding shows that "imagery content" can be decoded from primary visual cortex equally well in aphantasics and controls — but the neural signatures in aphantasia are ipsilateral and cannot be cross-decoded against perception. Interpretation: an imagery-related representation exists in V1 of aphantasics, but with less or transformed sensory information. Major fuel for the "unconscious imagery" debate. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39798565/

Monzel, M., Scholz, J., Pearson, J., & Reuter, M. (2025). Why indecisive trials matter: Improving the binocular rivalry imagery priming score for the assessment of aphantasia. Behavior Research Methods. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-025-02780-6. PMID: 40759828. Methodological improvement to the priming score — re-incorporating "indecisive" trials substantially increases predictive validity, particularly for low-imagery participants. Tested on 38 aphantasics + 73 controls. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-025-02780-6

Keogh, R., Kay, L., Meagher, B., & Pearson, J. (2025). Do you see what I see? Linking involuntary nonretinal (phantom) vision and mental imagery in aphantasia. Journal of Vision, 25(14):10, 1–11. Tested seven visual illusions (Hermann grid, Ponzo, Kanizsa, Ebbinghaus, watercolor, neon color-spreading, rotating snakes); only neon color-spreading was significantly reduced in aphantasics, suggesting some involuntary "phantom vision" relies on the same generative machinery as voluntary imagery. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/03a7/ccafee805daeb2be9dc4a94123b38dcfa005.pdf

Pearson et al. (2025). The potential risks of opening the mind's eye with psychedelic therapies. Cortex. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2025... A position piece responding to growing anecdotal and case-study reports that ayahuasca and psilocybin can "switch on" imagery in aphantasics. Pearson and colleagues warn that strong imagery correlates with increased intrusive thoughts, cravings, maladaptive daydreaming, and PTSD flashback risk — therefore consent for psychedelic therapy in aphantasia should explicitly cover the possibility of acquiring imagery, with all attendant trade-offs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945225002163

4. Keogh & Pearson Binocular Rivalry — The Continuing Debate

The binocular rivalry priming task is the single most influential objective measure in the field. Its 2025 status:

The takeaway: rivalry remains a strong group-level discriminator but should be interpreted cautiously as an individual-difference measure of vividness within the typical-imager range.

5. Prevalence Revisions (2024–2025)

The historical "1% of population" figure is being progressively refined:

The Nature 2026 feature (below) cites a working figure of "~4% of people with weak or absent mental imagery" — reflecting a looser, expanded-criteria estimate increasingly favored in the field.

6. Neuroimaging — The Current Biology / Cortex / eLife Trio

Three neuroimaging programs are currently driving the mechanistic story:

Liu, J., et al. (2025). Visual mental imagery in typical imagers and in aphantasia: A millimeter-scale 7-T fMRI study. Cortex, April 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2025.01.013. PMID: 40031090. Sorbonne Université / Paris Brain Institute / NeuroSpin team. Ten typical imagers and ten aphantasics performed imagery and perception tasks across five domains (object shape, color, written words, faces, spatial relations). Imagery activated similar visual areas in both groups, but aphantasics showed reduced functional connectivity between the Fusiform Imagery Node and frontoparietal areas. Strongly supports a "functional disconnection" account. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945225000474

Monzel & colleagues (2024, eLife). Hippocampal-occipital connectivity reflects autobiographical memory deficits in aphantasia. Aphantasics show reduced hippocampal activation during autobiographical recall, plus negative hippocampal–visual-cortex connectivity (versus positive in controls). Connectivity strength tracks self-reported visualization ability. https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/94916v2

Boere, Krempel, Walsh, et al. (2025). Task evoked EEG reveals neural processing differences in aphantasia. Scientific Reports. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27735-x. First group-level EEG study of aphantasia. 62 aphantasics vs. 59 controls. P300 amplitude is reduced in aphantasics during oddball tasks, indexing differences in attentional allocation and working-memory updating.

7. 2025–2026 Preprints (bioRxiv, PsyArXiv)

8. The "Unconscious Imagery" Controversy

The single biggest theoretical debate of 2024–2026 concerns whether aphantasics have unconscious mental imagery — i.e., whether the relevant neural activity occurs without conscious experience. Live positions:

The April 2025 Brains Blog synthesis (Phillips et al.) — "Unconscious imagery in aphantasia? Spoiler: we still don't know" — captures the field's honest current state. https://philosophyofbrains.com/2025/04/01/unconscious-imagery-in-aphantasia-spoiler-we-still-dont-know.aspx

9. Subtypes — Refinements Being Proposed

The "is aphantasia one thing?" question has crystallized in 2024–2025. Proposed dimensions of subtyping:

A useful synthesis is (2025/2026). The aphantasia-hyperphantasia spectrum (PMC12706143). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12706143/

10. Cross-Cultural Studies

Beyond the Qatar-based Lukacs et al. (2025) work cited above, the Zeman et al. (2024) international prevalence paper (N=3,049) is the broadest cross-continental study to date and explicitly tested for nationality effects (none found within Asia/NA/Europe/Australasia). This is the first solid evidence that imagery extremes are not a Western-cultural artifact.

11. Genetics and Twin Findings

Bainbridge & Li (Bainbridge Lab, University of Chicago) are the most active group on the genetic side, quoted in the 2026 Nature feature reporting that aphantasia likelihood increases ~10× if a sibling has weak/absent imagery — by far the strongest familial-aggregation estimate published.

Milton et al. (2024). The Neural Underpinnings of Aphantasia: A Case Study of Identical Twins. bioRxiv, posted 2024; published 2025. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11463508/. Discordant MZ-twin pair (one aphantasic, one typical imager) — same genome, different imagery phenotype. Important negative evidence: aphantasia is not fully genetically determined; environmental or stochastic developmental factors matter. PMID: 40698973.

A speculative line implicates the Zic2 gene (linked elsewhere to visual-system development), but no GWAS-scale aphantasia genetics study has yet been published as of May 2026.

12. Active Clinical Trials and Research Recruitment

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06140940 — "Motor Imagery in Aphantasia" (OLIPHANT). Recruiting 20 aphantasics + 20 typical imagers. Crossover, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled HD-tDCS (4 mA, 15 min, 4×1 montage with anode over C4) targeting primary motor cortex. Mental training via sequential finger-tapping in kinesthetic modality. Primary aim: characterize and modulate motor imagery in aphantasia. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06140940

Aphantasia.com / Aphantasia Network research recruitment platform now connects researchers with >50,000 registered participants across the imagery spectrum and serves as the de facto recruitment hub for the field. https://aphantasia.com/research/recruitment

13. 2025 Empirical Papers Worth Knowing

14. Press Coverage of Major 2024–2026 Findings

Nature (February 2026). "Many people have no mental imagery. What's going on in their brains?" by Elizabeth Quill, Nature 650(8100). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00311-7. Audio version at https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00626-5. Quotes Mac Shine (Sydney), Giulia Cabbai (UCL), Adam Zeman (Edinburgh/Exeter), Joel Pearson (UNSW), Jianghao Liu (Paris Brain Institute), Wilma Bainbridge and Xiaonan Li (Chicago). Frames aphantasia as "a window into consciousness." Working figure: ~4% prevalence under expanded criteria. The 10× familial-aggregation figure for siblings comes from this article.

Scientific American (February 25, 2026). "Many people don't see mental images. The reason offers clues to consciousness." Republication / cross-promotion of the Nature feature. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-people-dont-see-mental-images-the-reason-offers-clues-to-consciousness/

The New Yorker (November 3, 2025). "Some People Can't See Mental Images. The Consequences Are Profound," by Larissa MacFarquhar. The most extensively reported long-form general-audience piece on aphantasia and hyperphantasia in years. Covers identity, memory, trauma, and the emergence of online aphantasia communities. (Original at newyorker.com; widely cited and re-shared since.)

ScienceDaily (March 2024). "A decade of aphantasia research: what we've learned about people who can't visualize." Summarizing the Zeman TICS review. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240327124610.htm

Paris Brain Institute press release (2025). "Aphantasia Might Be Linked to Alterations in Brain Connectivity." https://parisbraininstitute.org/news/aphantasia-might-be-linked-alterations-brain-connectivity — promoting the Liu et al. 7T fMRI paper.

MedicalXpress (August 2025). "Psychedelic therapy may trigger visual imagery in people with aphantasia." https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-08-psychedelic-therapy-trigger-visual-imagery.html — coverage of the Pearson et al. Cortex 2025 piece.

KERA Think podcast (December 12, 2025). "Why some people can't picture stuff in their heads." https://think.kera.org/2025/12/12/why-some-people-cant-picture-stuff-in-their-heads/ — radio synthesis of the year's findings.

15. Convening: IRCA 2026

The Interdisciplinary Research Conference on Aphantasia (IRCA 2026), hosted at the University of Glasgow and announced March 14, 2026 on The Junkyard of the Mind, is the field's first dedicated international conference since the 2019 Exeter event. The announcement notes aphantasia's expansion into discussions of dreaming, episodic memory, attention, and interoception — a useful map of where the field's energy now lives. https://junkyardofthemind.com/blog/2026/3/14/aphantasia-and-mental-imagery-a-call-for-interdisciplinary-collaboration-irca-2026-announcement

What's Genuinely New (2024–2026 Take-Aways)

  1. Aphantasia is no longer a single phenomenon in the literature — at minimum, core aphantasia and hypophantasia are now treated as distinct, with different mental-health correlates.
  2. The unconscious-imagery debate is the field's organizing controversy and will likely remain unsettled through 2026.
  3. 7T fMRI evidence (Liu 2025) has shifted the dominant mechanistic story toward functional disconnection between the Fusiform Imagery Node and frontoparietal networks, rather than absence of visual-cortex activity.
  4. The 10× sibling aggregation figure (Bainbridge lab, via 2026 Nature feature) is the strongest familial-clustering statistic to date, but the Milton et al. discordant-twin case report blocks any "purely genetic" account.
  5. Cross-cultural data (Zeman 2024, Lukacs 2025) refute earlier worries that aphantasia might be a WEIRD-population artifact — though the Qatar sample's higher rate (5.0%) hints at real cross-population variation worth pursuing.
  6. Psychedelics as an intervention target — both the case-report literature and Pearson's Cortex warning piece are turning what was anecdote into a research program with ethical guard-rails.
  7. The binocular rivalry paradigm survives as a group-level discriminator but has been chastened on within-individual-difference reliability.

Sources