Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39271632›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

Beyond self-report: Measuring visual, auditory, and tactile mental imagery using a mental comparison task.

Sebastian Paul Suggate

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Processing of Color Words in Sentence Comprehension.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sebastian Paul SuggateDepartment of Education, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. sebastian.suggate@ur.de.ORCID 0000-0002-7755-068X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Finding a reliable and objective measure of individual differences in mental imagery across sensory modalities is difficult, with measures relying on self-report scales or focusing on one modality alone. Based on the idea that mental imagery involves multimodal sensorimotor simulations, a mental comparison task (MCT) was developed across three studies and tested on adults (n = 96, 345, and 448). Analyses examined: (a) the internal consistency of the MCT, (b) whether lexical features of the MCT stimuli (word length and frequency) predicted performance, (c) whether the MCT related to two widely used self-report scales, (d) response latencies and accuracies across the visual, auditory, and tactile modalities, and (e) whether MCT performance was independent of processing speed. The MCT showed evidence of reliability and validity. Responses were fastest and most accurate for the visual modality, followed by the auditory and tactile. However, consistent with the idea that self-report questionnaires index a different aspect of mental imagery, the MCT showed minimal correlations with self-report imagery. Finally, relations between MCT scales remained strong after controlling for processing speed. Findings are discussed in relation to current understanding and measurement of mental imagery.

Indexed as

ImaginationSelf ReportAdolescentAdultAuditory PerceptionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReaction TimeReproducibility of ResultsTouchTouch PerceptionVisual PerceptionYoung AdultImaginationMental imagerySelf-report imageryTactileVisual

Identifiers

PMID39271632
PMCPMC11525388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.