Impoverished recall of sensory details along infrequently travelled routes in aphantasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual imagery is important for recalling environmental details, but individuals with aphantasia are reported to show intact spatial memory. We investigated spatial memories of previously experienced environments in individuals with and without aphantasia using self-report and route description tasks. Aphantasic participants (n = 113) and controls (n = 110) completed questionnaires on spatial navigation, memory, anxiety, and mood. A subgroup (aphantasic: n = 65, control: n = 72) completed a route description task assessing memory for details along frequently and infrequently travelled routes. Aphantasic participants did not differ significantly from controls on self-reported navigation ability or strategies. Both groups recalled similar numbers of spatial, entity, and sensory details when describing frequently travelled routes. However, aphantasic participants recalled fewer sensory details for infrequently travelled routes. This finding was corroborated by nominally lower ratings on self-reported memory for object locations and new routes. Findings suggest that spatial memory, including sensory content, remains intact in aphantasia for frequent routes. Impoverished sensory details for infrequent routes indicates that individuals with aphantasia may rely on compensatory strategies, like semanticization, for frequently experienced environments. This suggests that spatial memory for real-world environments involve dissociable processes, some of which are independent of imagery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".