Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31384033›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2019

The human imagination: the cognitive neuroscience of visual mental imagery.

Joel Pearson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 222 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
222citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

222 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Conscious and nonconscious thought: Insights from the neuroscience of decision-making.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Stable Diffusion Models Reveal a Persisting Human-AI Gap in Visual Creativity.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Imagery: Interference, facilitation, and theory.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026
    Review

162 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Joel PearsonSchool of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. jpearson@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3704-5037

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mental imagery can be advantageous, unnecessary and even clinically disruptive. With methodological constraints now overcome, research has shown that visual imagery involves a network of brain areas from the frontal cortex to sensory areas, overlapping with the default mode network, and can function much like a weak version of afferent perception. Imagery vividness and strength range from completely absent (aphantasia) to photo-like (hyperphantasia). Both the anatomy and function of the primary visual cortex are related to visual imagery. The use of imagery as a tool has been linked to many compound cognitive processes and imagery plays both symptomatic and mechanistic roles in neurological and mental disorders and treatments.

Indexed as

Cognitive NeuroscienceHippocampusHumansImaginationMemoryNerve NetVisual CortexVisual Perception

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.