mind’s eye – New training approaches and emerging neuroscience suggest some people may strengthen mental imagery—even if they start with none. What’s changing, and what remains uncertain?
What do you “see” when you close your eyes—an apple, a street, a face? For some people, the answer is simple: nothing. That experience has a name—aphantasia—and for years it was treated more like a fixed quirk of perception than a skill.
Misryoum spoke with researchers and looked closely at one training approach that aims to reshape that inner darkness.. The question driving the effort isn’t just curiosity.. It’s whether mental imagery—often described as a mind’s eye—can be improved. and what that would mean for our understanding of perception. memory. and even mental health.
Aphantasia was only formally named about 16 years ago, and that relatively recent scientific spotlight has changed public awareness fast.. People who “never” see images in their head have found one another online. trading strategies and debating whether they can train their inner world.. Communities such as Misryoum covers reflect something important: when a trait is unfamiliar, it can stay invisible.. Once people learn that others experience the same internal landscape, the incentive shifts from acceptance alone to experimentation.
Scientifically, the phenomenon is considered a mental difference rather than a disorder.. But proving whether training can alter it is complicated by a fundamental problem: researchers can’t directly observe what’s happening inside someone’s mind.. A key tool has been the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ). where participants rate how clearly they can picture familiar faces. places. and scenes.. The issue is that it depends on subjective reporting—people can interpret the questions differently. or adjust their answers as they learn what kinds of imagery researchers expect.
That uncertainty is one reason scientists also pursue more objective measures.. In Misryoum’s reporting, aphantasia research often points to tests that connect imagery to physiology.. For instance. some studies have looked at pupil responses to imagined light and dark. or at whether people show typical emotional reactions when reading vivid. scary descriptions in darkness.. Others use visual illusions that only work if a person can generate an internal image. such as binocular rivalry paradigms designed to probe the presence—or absence—of color imagery.
The training being tested in the story Misryoum explores is not framed as a medical cure.. It’s built around exercises intended to change how trainees pay attention to internal experience.. In one program. the coach encourages a relaxed state and repeated practice: describing objects or scenes. then recreating them mentally with eyes closed.. Sometimes the exercises are grounded in real life—walking a familiar route, then repeating the scene in the head.. Sometimes the coach describes an image while the trainee’s eyes are closed. asking them to track what. if anything. appears.
A crucial detail from Misryoum’s review of this approach is what “improvement” might actually mean.. The coach’s clients describe reported breakthroughs across a spectrum—from seconds of visual-like thoughts to more complete internal scenes.. But researchers urge caution.. No research has yet fully evaluated whether these programs truly cause lasting changes in mental imagery itself. rather than changes in strategy. attention. or self-awareness.
Misryoum also found that researchers think the mind’s eye may not be one single system.. One influential idea divides visual processing into streams: one for object imagery (the details of what something looks like) and another for spatial imagery (where something is. and how it moves).. In that model. a person with aphantasia might still perform relatively well in spatial tasks even if object-focused visuals are absent.. That matters because training could strengthen parts of the visual machinery—or. at least. help people become more conscious of non-visual representations like spatial “knowing.”
In the account Misryoum reviewed, the trainee struggled to generate the typical look of a pictured bird.. Yet. during training. they began reporting subtle changes: an internal sense of orientation and arrangement. such as feeling where something “faces” or noticing an “empty space” after removing an object from a room.. Whether these experiences count as true visual imagery or a different kind of mental representation is exactly where science is still wrestling—because “seeing” is not the same as “knowing.”
That distinction becomes even more important when considering the lived experience of people with aphantasia.. Some report emotional blunting or differences in empathy. while others say their inner lives remain rich with sound. emotion. and concepts.. Misryoum’s reporting reflects a common theme in clinical discussion: aphantasia isn’t automatically linked to lower intelligence. fewer creative careers. or a failure to function.. In fact, there are artists and writers with aphantasia who rely on alternatives to visual rehearsal.
Researchers also remain cautious about ethics.. If a person’s internal experience is stable and not distressing, what does it mean to “turn on” imagery?. Misryoum’s review highlights that motivation varies widely.. Some people want relief—especially those who describe intrusive or distressing mental imagery in related conditions.. Others simply want confirmation, or they fear that new mental content could feel distracting, overwhelming, or unwanted.
A turning point Misryoum points to is that formal tests may soon move beyond speculation.. A psychologist studying aphantasia plans to evaluate whether the training program works in people with and without aphantasia.. If any change is measurable—and especially if it appears in people who report no imagery at baseline—that would challenge the idea that aphantasia is entirely structural and fixed.. It would suggest that internal representations may be more flexible than previously believed, at least under certain training conditions.
At the same time, even positive findings may not mean everyone can become a “movie in the head” visualizer.. Misryoum’s review underscores a realistic expectation: if imagery is a skill. improvement might be partial. uneven. and dependent on which component—object detail or spatial arrangement—can be trained most effectively.
For now. the science feels poised between two possibilities: aphantasia may reflect a specific bottleneck in visual pathways. or it may reflect how networks are used—how the brain compensates when imagery isn’t available.. Either way, the bigger implication Misryoum sees is a shift in perspective.. The mind’s eye might not be a single switch you either have or don’t; it could be an internal capability shaped by attention. practice. and the ways we learn to interpret our own experience.
There’s also a human takeaway that runs beyond any lab result.. In Misryoum’s reporting, the trainee didn’t end up thinking they had gained lifelike images.. Instead, they became more aware of how their mind represents space, movement, and sensation—even when visuals are absent.. If that observation generalizes. then “training” might matter not because it creates vivid pictures. but because it teaches people to notice what’s already there.
Whether the next wave of studies can separate true visual change from refined awareness remains the open question.. But the effort itself is already reshaping the conversation around aphantasia: from a one-word label to a research agenda about plasticity—what can change in the mind. and what form that change takes.