Seeing Is Feeling: How Aphantasia Alters Emotional Engagement With Stories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual imagery is thought to act as an "emotional amplifier," potentially contributing to narrative engagement. To examine this, we conducted two experiments in which participants were presented with emotionally charged audio and video story excerpts. Experiment 1 included 84 online participants from the general population, while Experiment 2 involved 25 individuals with aphantasia (the inability to generate mental images) and 25 controls. In both experiments we assessed narrative engagement behaviorally using the Narrative Engagement Questionnaire (NEQ), while for Experiment 2 we also measured physiological responses. We found a main effect of modality, with video stimuli scoring higher across all NEQ subscales in both experiments. Notably, in experiment 2, a significant group effect on emotional-but not cognitive-engagement emerged, with aphantasics reporting less emotional engagement than controls. Moreover, controls experienced higher heart rate during audio narratives, while aphantasics had a similar heart rate across both modalities. Our results suggest that the enhanced physiological response seen in non-aphantasics during audio narratives is driven by the mental effort required to generate imagery. Furthermore, this capacity for visual imagery appears to enhance emotional engagement with stories. This highlights mental imagery's role in both subjective and physiological responses, emphasizing distinct cognitive processes during narrative engagement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".