Can people with aphantasia improve their mental imagery?

Studies suggest that people with low baseline imagery may improve less than those who start with moderate vividness. Some people with aphantasia report small gains in vividness or control with practice; others notice no change. Research is still limited, and there is no requirement to develop imagery—many are content with their existing cognitive style.

How long does imagery training take to show effects?

Controlled studies often use programs of about 6 weeks of structured practice. Improvements are typically measured with self-report scales (e.g. VVIQ-style ratings). Longer-term effects and generalizability beyond the groups studied (e.g. athletes) are not yet well established.

Do improvements in vividness translate to better performance?

Not automatically. Research links higher self-reported vividness to outcomes like self-efficacy and stress reduction in some contexts (e.g. athletes), but gains in vividness don't always translate to performance without integration into real-world practice and behavior. Training is one factor among many.

2026-02-24

How to Improve Mental Imagery (If You Want To)

Many people wonder whether they can get better at "seeing" or "hearing" in their mind—whether mental imagery vividness can be trained. The short answer from peer-reviewed research is yes, for many people, with structured practice. The longer answer is that results vary, studies have limits, and there is no obligation to change. Your imagery profile is not broken; improvement is an option, not a requirement.

What the Research Shows

Controlled studies show that self-reported imagery vividness can increase after targeted training. The evidence comes mainly from interventions that last on the order of weeks and use standardized questionnaires (e.g. VVIQ-style scales) before and after.

Direct Imagery Training

In a randomized study with gymnasts and dancers, a 6-week structured imagery program (using an approach that emphasizes both visual and kinesthetic elements in a clear, stepwise way) led to clear gains. Average scores for visual imagery vividness and kinesthetic (movement) imagery increased compared with a control group that did not do the training. So deliberate, multisensory visualization practice—rehearsing not only what something looks like but how it feels to do it—can improve both how vivid the images feel and how well people can generate and control them.

Action Observation as an Alternative

The same study found that watching videos of yourself performing (action observation) also boosted self-reported vividness. People who struggled to stay focused during pure "eyes closed" visualization still improved when they repeatedly watched their own performance and then imagined it. So if sitting and visualizing is hard, observation plus imagination can be a useful alternative—and in that trial it was nearly as effective as direct imagery training.

Broader Interventions

Other work has tested Functional Imagery Training (FIT)—combining vivid, episodic imagery with goal planning—and found small to medium positive effects on imagery vividness and on behavior (e.g. physical activity). Vivid imagery acted as a mediator: when people got better at generating clear mental images in a structured way, that seemed to support motivation and follow-through. The idea generalizes beyond pure "visualization": affective and motivational imagery can be trained too.

Who Benefits in the Studies?

Many of these studies focus on athletes or performers (e.g. gymnasts, dancers, martial artists). In those groups, higher baseline vividness often correlates with outcomes like self-efficacy and stress reduction, and dynamic imagery training (imagining movements and scenarios in real time) has been especially linked to confidence in high-pressure situations. So the evidence is strongest in performance contexts; we know less about how much the same methods help in everyday life or in people who don't train for sport or art.

What Training Often Involves

Practices that show up in the research include:

Multisensory visualization — Not only "see" a scene but include kinesthetic (how it feels), auditory (sounds), tactile or olfactory/gustatory where relevant, or affective (mood) elements.
Progressive practice — Start with simple objects or scenes, then move to more complex actions or scenarios, so you build clarity and control step by step.
Integration with the real world — Combine imagery with actual observation (e.g. watch a movement, then imagine it) or with performance and feedback, rather than imagery in isolation.

Assessment is usually via self-report: you rate how vivid an image was on a scale from "no image at all" to "perfectly clear and vivid." That's the same family of tools used in how imagination is measured (e.g. VVIQ and related questionnaires).

Limitations and Caveats

Interpreting this work honestly matters:

Samples and duration. Many studies use athletes and short programs (e.g. 6 weeks). Generalizability to non-athletes and to long-term change is not fully established; broader meta-analyses are still needed.
Self-report. Improvements are based on people's ratings of their own experience. Those can be influenced by expectation, effort, or context. Objective measures (e.g. brain or eye-tracking) are still underrepresented in the imagery-training literature.
Individual differences. Not everyone benefits equally. People with very low baseline imagery (e.g. aphantasia) may improve less or not at all in visual vividness; the same methods might still support motor or other senses. There is no guarantee that training will shift your scores.
Vividness vs. performance. Higher vividness can be associated with better outcomes in some studies, but gains in vividness don't automatically mean better real-world performance. Integration with practice, feedback, and behavior matters. Training is one lever, not a magic fix.

So: improvement is possible for many people, but the size and consistency of effects depend on who you are, how you train, and what you're measuring.

No Pressure to Change

Some people want to strengthen their imagery for sport, art, or memory. Others are fine with how they imagine—including people with aphantasia, who often have strong creativity, memory, and problem-solving without a vivid mind's eye. If you're curious whether training could help you, the research suggests it's worth a try if you have the time and interest. If you're not interested, that's valid too. Your imagination spectrum is a description, not a prescription.

See Where You Stand First

If you're considering training, it helps to know your starting point. The Imagination Index assessment gives you a profile across visual, auditory, motor, and other senses. You can use that baseline to choose which dimension to work on (e.g. visual vs. kinesthetic) and to compare over time if you retake it. The core assessment is free and takes about 12 minutes.

Further reading: Imagery training and action observation – Bulletproof Musician (research summary); Functional Imagery Training – Plymouth theses; Imagery vividness and performance in athletes – Frontiers; PMC imagery and behavior.