aphant.org
home / research

Aphantasia: Tests and Diagnosis

A comprehensive guide to the assessment instruments, behavioral paradigms, and physiological measures used to identify and study aphantasia. Aphantasia is not a clinical disorder in the DSM and there is no formal medical "diagnosis." Instead, researchers and self-identifiers rely on a small toolkit of self-report questionnaires, supplemented in laboratory settings by objective behavioral and physiological tasks.

1. The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ)

The VVIQ, developed by British psychologist David F. Marks in 1973, is the most widely used and most heavily cited instrument in mental imagery research, appearing in roughly 2,000 published studies. It remains the de facto gold standard for identifying aphantasia.

Structure

The VVIQ consists of 16 items arranged in four thematic blocks of four items, each describing a scene the respondent is asked to picture:

  1. A relative or friend (often seen) — items 1–4: face/head/shoulders/body contours; characteristic poses; walking gait/stride; colors of familiar clothing.
  2. A rising sun — items 5–8: the sun rising above the horizon; sky clearing into blueness; storm clouds with lightning; a rainbow appearing.
  3. A familiar shop — items 9–12: shop's overall appearance from across the street; window display with colors and details; door (color, shape); entering the shop and a transaction at the counter.
  4. A country lake landscape — items 13–16: landscape contours; tree color and shape; lake color and shape; wind effects on trees and waves on the water.

Each block contains at least one item describing motion (gait, lightning flashing, entering the shop, wind), so the questionnaire mixes static and dynamic imagery probes.

Scoring

Respondents rate each of the 16 images on a 5-point scale:

Rating Meaning
1 Perfectly clear and as vivid as normal vision
2 Clear and reasonably vivid
3 Moderately clear and vivid
4 Vague and dim
5 No image at all, you only "know" that you are thinking of an object

Critically, the original VVIQ is administered twice — once with eyes open and once with eyes closed — yielding two summed scores. In modern aphantasia research, the eyes-closed score (or sometimes a single combined administration) is typically used. Summed score range: 16 to 80, with lower scores indicating weaker imagery.

Aphantasia Thresholds on the VVIQ

There is no single agreed-upon cutoff, but commonly used ranges include:

Approximate descriptive bands (commonly cited interpretive ranges):

These bands are conventional rather than canonical — the boundary between aphantasia and "low normal" is genuinely fuzzy and continues to be debated (see Zeman 2024, "Defining and 'diagnosing' aphantasia").

Where to take the VVIQ online

Caveat (Marks, "Buyer Beware"): Marks himself has publicly criticized the Aphantasia Network's online "VVIQ" as a variant that has never been psychometrically compared to the original. Wording, instructions, and presentation differ from the validated 1973 instrument, so absolute scores from aphantasia.com should not be assumed comparable to the published research literature. For self-screening, this is fine; for citing your own score against published cutoffs, use a faithful implementation of the original.

2. The VVIQ-2 (Marks, 1995)

In 1995 Marks published an expanded version, the VVIQ-2, addressing two main concerns with the original: (a) limited item pool and (b) the counter-intuitive direction of the original scale (where lower numbers meant better imagery).

What changed

Psychometrics

Jankowska and Karwowski's Polish validation (5 studies, n > 3,600) reported "excellent" test–retest reliability and Cronbach's α between .91 and .95. Confirmatory factor analysis supports a unidimensional structure (a single "vividness" factor without messy sub-factors). The instrument has been translated and validated in Polish, Persian, French, Japanese, Spanish, Dutch, and others.

The VVIQ-2 is increasingly preferred in new aphantasia research, although the original VVIQ remains the dominant tool because of the depth of historical comparison data.

3. The Plymouth Sensory Imagery Questionnaire (PSIQ)

The PSIQ, developed by Andrade, May, Deeprose, Baugh, and Ganis (2014), is the leading multisensory imagery instrument and crucial for distinguishing visual aphantasia from multi-sensory (global) aphantasia.

Structure

Scoring

Each item is rated on an 11-point Likert scale (0–10): 0 = "no image at all" to 10 = "image as clear and vivid as real life." Subscale scores are computed per modality; a total score is also commonly reported. Factor analysis confirms that the modalities load on separate factors, not a single imagery factor — meaning someone can be aphantasic in one modality while preserved in another.

Relevance to aphantasia

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. However, dissociations exist: some people with low VVIQ retain normal auditory, olfactory, or motor imagery.

Where to access

4. The Object–Spatial Imagery Questionnaire (OSIQ)

Developed by Blajenkova, Kozhevnikov, and Motes (2006), the OSIQ measures preferences and habits in imagery use — not vividness. It captures a robust dissociation between two cognitive styles.

Structure

Scoring

Subscale scores are computed by averaging items. A difference score (OSIQd = Object − Spatial) is sometimes used: positive scores indicate object-imagery preference, negative scores indicate spatial-imagery preference.

Relevance to aphantasia

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. This is why OSIQ data is useful: it can identify the specific subtype of aphantasia rather than treating it as monolithic.

A larger 45-item OSIVQ version adds a Verbal subscale, capturing verbal/analytical thinking style, and is increasingly used in aphantasia studies because many aphantasics report compensating with verbal/abstract cognition.

5. The Spontaneous Use of Imagery Scale (SUIS)

The SUIS (Reisberg, Pearson, & Kosslyn, 2003) measures how often a person spontaneously uses mental imagery in daily life — distinct from how vividly they can produce it on demand.

Structure

Psychometrics

Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicate a unidimensional structure. The SUIS shows acceptable reliability and convergent validity, correlating with the VVIQ but tapping a partly distinct construct (deliberate vividness vs. habitual use).

Relevance to aphantasia

Aphantasics score consistently low on the SUIS. The SUIS is increasingly used alongside the VVIQ to triangulate diagnosis, since someone with mild visual imagery deficits may still spontaneously rely on it, while someone with aphantasia almost never does.

6. The Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ-2)

Adjunct instrument used in aphantasia research to probe motor imagery specifically.

Structure

Relevance

VMIQ-2 distinguishes athletes/dancers with intact kinesthetic imagery despite low VVIQ, and helps confirm whether aphantasia extends into motor simulation. Many but not all aphantasics show reduced kinesthetic imagery on the VMIQ-2.

7. Binocular Rivalry — The Keogh & Pearson Objective Test

Developed by Pearson, Clifford & Tong (2008) and adapted by Keogh & Pearson (2018) as the first objective behavioral measure of imagery in aphantasia. This is the standard "experimental confirmation" test.

How it works

  1. The participant is briefly shown a colored striped pattern (e.g., red horizontal stripes) and asked to imagine it for several seconds.
  2. Then the participant is shown the binocular-rivalry stimulus: red horizontal stripes to one eye and green vertical stripes to the other eye, simultaneously, via a stereoscope or mirror setup. The brain cannot reconcile both images, so perception alternates between them.
  3. Imagery priming effect: in people with normal imagery, the previously imagined pattern dominates perception more often than chance — proving the imagery actually engaged the visual system.
  4. In aphantasics, no priming effect is observed: the previously imagined color does not bias which percept dominates.

Scoring

A "priming score" is computed across many trials. Keogh & Pearson (2024) and a 2025 paper (Why indecisive trials matter) updated the priming-score formula to handle "mixed" or indecisive trials, increasing predictive validity. With the improved equation, the binocular rivalry priming score explained substantially more variance in self-reported imagery capacity.

Where to take it

8. Pupillometry — The Pupillary Light Response (PLR) Test

Developed by Kay, Keogh, Andrillon, & Pearson (2022, eLife) — the first physiological marker for aphantasia and arguably the cleanest objective evidence that aphantasia is a real perceptual phenomenon, not a self-report artifact.

How it works

The pupil reflexively constricts when looking at bright stimuli and dilates when looking at dark ones. Crucially, the same response occurs (in attenuated form) when normal-imagery participants merely imagine bright vs. dark scenes — your pupil reacts to the imagined light.

The protocol: 1. Participant views one or four bright or dark triangles for 5 seconds. 2. Blank-screen interval (8 s) lets afterimages fade. 3. Participant imagines the prior shapes for 6 seconds while pupil diameter is recorded at 200 Hz. 4. Participant rates trial-by-trial vividness (1–4).

Findings

This makes pupillometry a strong candidate for an unbiased, low-cost clinical measure. It is not yet available as a consumer self-test — implementation requires an eye-tracker.

9. Imagery Priming Tasks (Beyond Binocular Rivalry)

Additional behavioral paradigms used to confirm aphantasia objectively:

These tasks aren't routinely available as online self-tests, but they are the basis on which the VVIQ-based diagnosis is experimentally validated.

10. Self-Report Limitations and "Imagery Skepticism"

The VVIQ and its kin are self-reports of a private mental experience, which raises real concerns:

These concerns are exactly why the binocular-rivalry and pupillometry findings matter so much: they provide convergent objective evidence that low VVIQ scores are not just reporting bias. The current consensus is that aphantasia is best diagnosed through converging measures — VVIQ + PSIQ + (where available) binocular rivalry or pupillometry — rather than VVIQ alone.

A 2024 viewpoint paper by Zeman, "Defining and 'diagnosing' aphantasia: Condition or individual difference?", explicitly argues that aphantasia sits on a continuum and that single-cutoff "diagnosis" is misleading. Faw (2009) similarly argued for trial-by-trial vividness ratings rather than relying on single sum scores.

11. Comparison Table of Major Instruments

Instrument Year # Items Modalities Scoring Range Aphantasia Cutoff Type Online?
VVIQ 1973 16 Visual only 16–80 (low = poor) ≤32 (most common); also ≤25, ≤23 Self-report Yes
VVIQ-2 1995 32 Visual only 32–160 (high = vivid) ≤55 (approx) Self-report Limited
PSIQ (full) 2014 35 7 sensory + emotion 0–10 per item Low scores across all modalities Self-report Yes
PSIQ-Short 2014 21 7 sensory + emotion 0–10 per item — Self-report Yes
OSIQ 2006 30 Object + Spatial 1–5 per item (Style measure, not cutoff) Self-report Limited
SUIS 2003 12 Visual (spontaneous) 12–60 Low (specific cutoffs vary) Self-report Limited
VMIQ-2 2008 12 (×3 perspectives) Motor / kinesthetic 12–60 Low Self-report Limited
Binocular Rivalry 2018 ~100+ trials Visual Priming score No priming effect Behavioral / objective Experimental online version
Pupillometry (PLR) 2022 ~40 trials Visual Pupil diameter Δ No luminance-driven Δ during imagery Physiological Lab only
Bainbridge Drawing 2021 Scene drawings Visual / object vs. spatial Object/spatial detail counts Low object detail, normal spatial Behavioral Lab only

12. Practical Diagnostic Approach (2025–2026)

Best practice for self-assessment, consolidating current research recommendations:

  1. Start with the VVIQ in an academic implementation (e.g., Meadows Research preset, or Marks's own site) rather than a heavily reformatted consumer version. Score under 32 indicates likely aphantasia.
  2. Take the PSIQ short form to determine whether the deficit is visual-only or extends to other senses (auditory, tactile, gustatory, olfactory, kinesthetic, emotional).
  3. Take the SUIS to confirm low spontaneous imagery use in daily life.
  4. Take the OSIQ to determine whether spatial imagery is preserved (the typical pattern in aphantasia).
  5. Optional, where available: try the binocular rivalry test for behavioral confirmation; there is no consumer pupillometry option yet.
  6. Recognize the limits: All current tests are imperfect. The continuum is real and "diagnosis" is conventional rather than clinical. Convergence across instruments is more informative than any single cutoff.

There is no formal medical diagnosis — no ICD-11 or DSM-5 code for aphantasia. A neurologist might rule out acquired causes (stroke, lesion-induced aphantasia) but congenital aphantasia is identified through these instruments and self-recognition, not a medical test.

Sources