4.7 Article

The critical role of mental imagery in human emotion: insights from fear-based imagery and aphantasia

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.0267

关键词

visual imagery; fear; SCL; aphantasia; emotion; skin conductance

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1024800, APP1046198, APP1085404]
  2. Australian Research Council [DP140101560]
  3. J. Pearson's Career Development Fellowship [APP1049596]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study suggests that individuals with aphantasia lack a physiological response when imagining frightening scenarios, likely due to their inability to visualize, rather than general emotional or physiological dampening. This provides evidence for the emotional amplification theory of visual imagery.
One proposed function of imagery is to make thoughts more emotionally evocative through sensory simulation, which can be helpful both in planning for future events and in remembering the past, but also a hindrance when thoughts become overwhelming and maladaptive, such as in anxiety disorders. Here, we report a novel test of this theory using a special population with no visual imagery: aphantasia. After using multi-method verification of aphantasia, we show that this condition, but not the general population, is associated with a flat-line physiological response (skin conductance levels) to reading and imagining frightening stories. Importantly, we show in a second experiment that this difference in physiological responses to fear-inducing stimuli is not found when perceptually viewing fearful images. These data demonstrate that the aphantasic individuals' lack of a physiological response when imaging scenarios is likely to be driven by their inability to visualize and is not due to a general emotional or physiological dampening. This work provides evidence that a lack of visual imagery results in a dampened emotional response when reading fearful scenarios, providing evidence for the emotional amplification theory of visual imagery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据