Study Finds People with Aphantasia Are Less Physically Affected by Scary Stories
Summary: People with aphantasia — a condition characterized by an inability to form visual mental images — show a reduced physiological fear response when reading frightening stories. A new study from the University of New South Wales suggests mental imagery plays a stronger role in linking thought to emotion than previously recognized.
Source: University of New South Wales
People with aphantasia — who cannot visualize mental images — appear less likely to be physically startled by written horror scenarios, according to a UNSW Sydney study.
Published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the research examined physiological responses while participants read distressing narratives, such as being chased by a shark, falling from a cliff, or experiencing an imminent plane crash.
Researchers objectively measured emotional arousal by recording changes in skin conductance, a standard psychophysiological method that tracks how the skin’s electrical conductivity increases with sweating during strong emotional states like fear.
The results showed that when readers could not visually imagine the scene, the stories provoked much less of a fear response. This supports the idea that mental imagery amplifies emotional reactions to imagined scenarios.
“We found the strongest evidence yet that mental imagery plays a key role in linking thoughts and emotions,” says Professor Joel Pearson, lead author of the paper and Director of the Future Minds Lab at UNSW Science. “Across our tests, the difference between people with aphantasia and those with normal imagery was substantial.”
In a controlled laboratory setup, 46 participants—22 with aphantasia and 24 with typical imagery—were guided into a darkened room. Researchers attached electrodes to the skin to monitor conductance while participants read short, suspenseful stories presented on a screen.
The narratives began with ordinary scenes—“You are at the beach, in the water” or “You’re on a plane, by the window”—and gradually introduced ominous details, such as distant movement in the surf or turbulence and dimming cabin lights.
“Skin conductance rose quickly among participants who could visualize the scenes,” Professor Pearson explains. “Their physiological response increased as the stories became more suspenseful. For participants with aphantasia, however, skin conductance remained largely flat.”
To rule out a general difference in sensitivity to fear, the research team repeated the test using emotionally charged images—photographs of a cadaver or a striking snake, for example. In that experiment, both groups showed similar increases in skin conductance when viewing the pictures.
“This pattern indicates that aphantasia is not associated with a broad reduction in emotional responsiveness,” says Professor Pearson. “Instead, the dampened response is specific to imagining scary scenarios from text. When the scary stimulus is perceived directly, the emotional response is comparable across groups.”
The authors interpret these findings as evidence that visual imagery acts as an emotional amplifier: thoughts that include vivid sensory detail provoke stronger emotions than thoughts lacking that imagery.
Living with aphantasia
Aphantasia affects an estimated 2–5% of the population, yet scientific understanding of the condition remains limited. Earlier work from UNSW linked aphantasia to broader differences in memory, dreaming, and imagination. Unlike many earlier studies that relied on behavioral self-reports, this study used an objective physiological measure—skin conductance—providing a measurable marker of emotional response differences during imagination.
“This evidence further supports aphantasia as a distinct, verifiable phenomenon,” says Dr Rebecca Keogh, co-author and postdoctoral fellow who collaborated on the research. “Skin conductance could become a useful objective tool to help confirm and diagnose aphantasia in the future.”
The study was partly inspired by community reports on aphantasia forums where many individuals indicated they derive less enjoyment from reading fiction compared with visual media. The results align with those anecdotal observations but also emphasize variability.
Professor Pearson cautions that these findings reflect group averages and do not describe every person with aphantasia. The study specifically targeted fear responses; other emotions elicited by fiction—such as sadness, joy, or awe—might show different patterns depending on the individual and the sensory modalities involved.
“Aphantasia presents in many forms,” he says. “Some people lack visual imagery but retain imagery in other senses; some do not dream. There are many variations we are only beginning to map.”
Future work at the Future Minds Lab will explore how conditions such as anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder may be experienced differently in people with aphantasia, potentially revealing how imagery-related differences influence mental health.
“Aphantasia is one expression of neural diversity,” Professor Pearson adds. “It highlights the remarkable ways brains and minds can differ.”
About this aphantasia research news
Source: University of New South Wales
Contact: Sherry Landow – University of New South Wales
Image: The image is adapted from the University of New South Wales research.
Original Research: Closed access. “The critical role of mental imagery in human emotion: insights from fear-based imagery and aphantasia” by Marcus Wicken, Rebecca Keogh and Joel Pearson. Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
Abstract
The critical role of mental imagery in human emotion: insights from fear-based imagery and aphantasia
Mental imagery is thought to make thoughts more emotionally vivid through sensory simulation, which helps with planning and memory but can also intensify intrusive or maladaptive thoughts in conditions like anxiety. This study tested that idea using people with aphantasia, who lack visual imagery.
Using multi-method verification of aphantasia, the researchers found that individuals with this condition displayed a flat physiological response (skin conductance levels) while reading and imagining frightening stories, whereas the general population showed increased arousal. A second experiment showed no group difference when participants viewed fear-inducing images directly.
These findings indicate the reduced physiological response during imagined scenarios is likely driven by the absence of visual imagery rather than by a general dampening of emotion. The results support the theory that visual imagery amplifies emotional responses to imagined events.