How common is aphantasia? Prevalence and research figures
Reliable figures from current research — from the imagery spectrum to genetics.
Contents
For decades, aphantasia was treated as a curious one-off — today we know that about 1 % of people have it under a strict definition, up to roughly 4 % under broader definitions. This page summarizes the reliable figures from current research.
- aphantasia (strict definition)
- ≈1 %
- VVIQ = 16 (Wright et al. 2024)
- incl. hypophantasia
- ~3.9 %
- VVIQ ≤ 32 (Dance et al. 2022)
- hyperphantasia
- ~6 %
- VVIQ 75–80 (Wright et al. 2024)
The imagery spectrum
Aphantasia is a spectrum — from complete absence of imagery to extremely vivid mental images.
- Aphantasia
- ~1 %
- Hypophantasia
- ~3 %
- Average
- ~90 %
- Hyperphantasia
- ~6 %
Where do these numbers come from?
The most reliable estimates come from Wright et al. (2024, Frontiers in Psychology, n=9,063) — the largest prevalence study to date — and Dance et al. (2022, Consciousness and Cognition, n=1,004). Both use the VVIQ, but apply different cut-offs:
- Strict (VVIQ = 16, Wright et al. 2024): ≈1 % of population
- Broader (VVIQ ≤ 32, Dance et al. 2022): ≈3.9 %
- Hypophantasia (VVIQ 17–32, Wright et al. 2024): ≈3.3 %
- Hyperphantasia (VVIQ 75–80, Wright et al. 2024): ≈6 %
Important: aphantasia and hypophantasia are different categories. When a source says "3–5 % aphantasia", it usually means the broader rather than the strict definition — the percentage depends crucially on which threshold is meant, not on uncertain measurements.
Differences between men and women
The largest peer-reviewed studies find no meaningful gender difference in aphantasia prevalence. Dance et al. (2022) reported no gender bias, and Milton et al. (2021) likewise found no significant difference (χ² = 3.98, p = .136). Claims of a specific percentage gap between men and women are not supported by the peer-reviewed literature.
Family clusters — hint at genetics
Aphantasia runs in families, pointing to a genetic component.
(Zeman et al., 2020)
Aphantasia runs in families — first-degree relatives of someone with aphantasia are more likely to also have it (Zeman et al. 2020, Cortex). That points to a genetic component, though a precise, robustly published clustering factor doesn't yet exist. Which genes are involved is not yet conclusively known as of 2026.
Spectrum, not switch
Aphantasia is not a yes/no state but a spectrum. The VVIQ scale ranges from 16 (complete absence of imagery) to 80 (extremely vivid images); the median in the general population is 57 (IQR 49–65, Wright et al. 2024). Aphantasia lies at the lower end: about 1 % under a strict delineation (VVIQ = 16), about 3.9 % including adjacent hypophantasia (VVIQ ≤ 32) (Dance et al. 2022). Hyperphantasia lies at the upper end at about 6 % (Wright et al. 2024). Someone with a VVIQ of 17–32 has hypophantasia — a category of its own, "markedly below average", not simply "mild aphantasia".
~1–4 % isn't uncertainty — it's a threshold question
Different numbers in different studies don't come from researcher uncertainty. They come from different VVIQ cutoff values including different populations.
With a strict cutoff (VVIQ = 16) it's ~1 % (Wright 2024). With the common definition (VVIQ ≤ 32) it's ~3.9 % (Dance 2022). For everyday purposes, ~4 % (incl. hypophantasia) is a reliable guide value.
- VVIQ = 16: strict definition — ~1 % (Wright 2024)
- VVIQ ≤ 32: common definition — ~3.9 % (Dance 2022)
Frequently Asked Questions
Is aphantasia equally common in children and adults?
Likely yes. Aphantasia is congenital in most cases, so prevalence stays constant over life. It has hardly been studied in children, however, because the VVIQ can only be applied reliably from adolescence.
Are there countries or cultures with more/less aphantasia?
Robust comparisons of prevalence between countries or cultures are not yet available.
How many people don't know they have aphantasia?
No robust published percentage exists for this. In surveys, people repeatedly report only discovering aphantasia as adults. Many lived decades assuming "imagine that" was metaphorical for everyone.
Is there a connection to specific talents?
A study with a self-selected sample found an association between aphantasia and technical-mathematical professions and software development (Zeman et al. 2020, Cortex). Whether that reflects a real overrepresentation, a causal effect (less visual distraction when coding), or selection (jobs that work without mental images) is an open question — and the sample bias means the finding shouldn't be overstated.
Last reviewed:
Related topics
Where are you on the spectrum?
Take the VST-16 in 5 minutes and find out where you sit on the spectrum (methodology modeled on the VVIQ, Marks 1973).