Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40759828›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2025

Why indecisive trials matter: Improving the binocular rivalry imagery priming score for the assessment of aphantasia.

Merlin Monzel, Christian O Scholz, Joel Pearson, Martin Reuter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Merlin MonzelPersonality Psychology and Biological Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Bonn, Kaiser-Karl-Ring 9, 53111, Bonn, Germany. merlin.monzel@uni-bonn-diff.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7012-9350
Christian O ScholzInstitute of Philosophy II, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Joel PearsonSchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Martin ReuterPersonality Psychology and Biological Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Bonn, Kaiser-Karl-Ring 9, 53111, Bonn, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since mental imagery cannot be observed from the outside, it is all the more important to make it measurable. Yet, many so-called mental imagery tasks confuse object and spatial imagery or can be solved entirely without mental imagery, making them inappropriate for the assessment of mental imagery strength. One promising measurement method is the binocular rivalry task by Pearson et al. (Current Biology 18(13):982-986, 2008), which uses mental imagery priming to quantify mental imagery strength. Here, we propose an improved equation for the binocular rivalry priming score to significantly increase its predictive validity. In a sample of 38 aphantasics and 73 controls, we demonstrate that the binocular rivalry priming score calculated by the new equation explains more variance in the self-reported mental imagery capacity than the original equation. The improved binocular rivalry priming score is particularly beneficial when only a few trials are recorded (e.g., due to time or attention constraints) or when people with low mental imagery (i.e., aphantasics) have to be identified. The improved binocular rivalry priming score is advantageous in many situations, making it the preferred measure for future research.

Indexed as

ImaginationVision, BinocularAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultAphantasiaBinocular rivalryDiagnosticsMental imageryPriming

Identifiers

PMID40759828
PMCPMC12321684

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.