For much of history, intelligence was viewed as a singular ability—primarily linked to logic and language skills. In 1983, psychologist Howard Gardner challenged this narrow view with his Theory of Multiple Intelligences, proposing that human intelligence is not a single, fixed ability but a range of distinct strengths that influence how we learn, create, and interact with the world. Yet, even with this broader perspective, a key question remains: How are these different types of intelligence connected with the minds perception?
We propose that mental imagery is the missing link between perception (sensory and non-sensory) and intelligence, offering a new way to map human cognition. Traditional models treat intelligence and mental perception as separate processes. However, this framework suggests that they are interconnected manifestations of the mind’s ability to generate, manipulate, and interpret mental representations.
Neuroscientist Adam Zeman’s research on mental imagery, particularly his work on aphantasia, has shown that mental imagery exists on a spectrum, ranging from those who experience vivid mental pictures to those who lack them entirely. His findings reveal that mental imagery is not just a tool for visualisation but a fundamental component of thought, memory, and perception. Whether solving a mathematical problem, recalling a memory, or reflecting on emotions, different forms of mental imagery shape how we think, learn, and experience the world.
The Imagination of the Senses
Mental imagery commonly refers to the mind's ability to internally simulate sensory experiences without external stimuli. This includes visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, olfactory, and other sensory modalities, allowing individuals to recall, imagine, or manipulate sensory information, contributing to cognition, memory, and problem-solving.
Zeman's groundbreaking research, beginning in 2015, advanced our understanding of how the mind generates and manipulates mental images. His work identified various forms of mental imagery, each playing a distinct role in cognitive processes:
Visual Imagery: The mental representation of visual images. This includes mental pictures of objects, scenes, or people. Visual imagery plays a crucial role in tasks like remembering faces or navigating environments.
Auditory Imagery: The mental representation of auditory sounds. This includes music, speech, or environmental noises. Auditory imagery allows for inner hearing, including recall of tunes or conversations.
Gustatory Imagery: The mental representation of tastes or flavors or textures. This includes sweetness, bitterness, spiciness, or the texture of food. Gustatory imagery is often involved in recalling favorite foods or imagining meals.
Olfactory Imagery: The mental representation of smells. Olfactory imagery allows individuals to recall scents or imagine the aroma of a flower, food, or environment.
Tactile Imagery: The mental representations of physical sensations of touch, such as texture, pressure, or temperature. Tactile imagery helps in recalling sensations like the feeling of soft fabric, the warmth of stroking a pet, or the roughness of a stone.
As detailed in The Cambridge Handbook of the Imagination, Zeman and other researchers in the field of imagination research also recognise:
Dream Imagery: The mental representation of sensing the unconscious mind.
Emotional Imagery: The mental representation of hormones, emotions and feelings
Motor Imagery: The mental representation of movements or physical actions.
Musical Imagery: The mental representation of rhythm, melody, and sound.
Spatial Imagery: The mental representation of spatial relationships between objects.
Other types of sensory perception that the mind may possess as imagery—extending beyond the traditional five senses to include additional bodily senses—include:
Somatic Imagery: The mental representation of pain, or recall of painful experiences.
Temporal Imagery: The mental representation of time, or the passage of time.
Thermal Imagery: The mental representation of hot or cold temperatures.
Vestibular Imagery: The mental representation of the bodies movement and balance.
Visceral Imagery: The mental representation of internal bodily sensations.
Electromagnetic Imagery: The mental representation of electrical and magnetic fields (the sense of electroreception and magnetoreception found in animals, debated in humans).
While such work provides significant insight into how these types of imagery contribute to cognitive processes, it also raises deeper questions about how these different types of mental imagery interact, overlap, and shape our experiences of the world: what other types of intelligence, sensory experiences, or ways of perceiving could be considered mental imagery?
Reframing Imagery and Sensory Perception
In traditional cognitive science, mental imagery is often defined as the mind's ability to generate internal representations based on sensory experiences, such as visual imagery (inner vision) or auditory imagery (inner sound). This perspective tends to limit mental imagery to what we can "see," "hear," or "touch" in our minds, reducing it to a sensory-only phenomenon.
However, this view is too narrow and overlooks a broad spectrum of cognitive processes that rely on other types of mental representations. Mental imagery extends far beyond sensory modalities. It encompasses a wide range of internal experiences, including emotions, abstract concepts, the passage of time, and even movement—none of which are necessarily sensory in nature. These diverse forms of mental representations should all be considered part of the broader mental imagery process.
By rethinking mental imagery as a more inclusive cognitive process, we can move beyond the constraints of sensory-based definitions. This allows us to adopt a more holistic view of human cognition, where imagery is not solely limited to sensory experiences. In this expanded framework, everything from emotional imagery (e.g., mentally experiencing joy or anxiety) to abstract thought (e.g., visualising mathematical concepts or forecasting future events) becomes part of the unified language of mental imagery.
The Theory of Multiple Intelligences
Intelligence is the ability to acquire, process, understand, and apply information to solve problems, adapt to new situations, and learn from experience. It encompasses various cognitive functions, including reasoning, memory, perception, creativity, and problem-solving.
Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences revolutionised our understanding of human intelligence by challenging the traditional notion of a single, general intellectual ability. Instead, Gardner proposed that humans possess eight distinct intelligences, each contributing uniquely to personal growth and cultural development, including:
Linguistic Intelligence: Sensitivity to spoken and written language, enabling effective communication and expression.
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence: Capacity for analysing problems logically, performing mathematical operations, and investigating issues scientifically.
Musical Intelligence: Skill in performance, composition, and appreciation of musical patterns, including sensitivity to rhythm, pitch, and timbre.
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence: Ability to use one's physical body skillfully and handle objects adeptly, encompassing both fine and gross motor skills.
Spatial Intelligence: Capacity to perceive the visual-spatial world accurately and perform transformations upon perceptions, such as imagining objects from different angles.
Interpersonal Intelligence: Skill in understanding and interacting effectively with others, including sensitivity to moods, motivations, and intentions (Emotional Intelligence).
Intrapersonal Intelligence: Capacity for self-awareness and self-reflection, enabling understanding of one's own emotions, motivations, and inner states.
Naturalistic Intelligence: Ability to recognise, categorise, and draw upon certain features of the environment, such as flora and fauna.
While Gardner’s theory has broadened educational and psychological perspectives, it left questions about how these intelligences connect within the mind unanswered. Specifically, it didn’t fully explain how perception, imagination, memory, and thought interact across these domains.
Unifying Intelligence and Mental Imagery
This theory fits seamlessly into our proposed framework, extending and enriching this emerging new language of the mind. We suggest that all forms of intelligence—linguistic, spatial, emotional, and beyond—are interconnected through a core cognitive ability: the creation of mental imagery.
Rather than viewing imagination, thought, sensory experience, or memory as separate processes, this perspective proposes that they are all expressions of the same internal mechanism. Each cognitive function represents a unique way of generating, interpreting, or manipulating mental representations. Here’s how each type of intelligence can be understood through the lens of mental imagery:
Linguistic Intelligence → Intraphonic Imagery: The mental representation of the inner voice and the structure of language.
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence → Numerical Imagery: The mental representation of abstract patterns and symbolic relationships.
Musical Intelligence → Musical Imagery: The mental representation of rhythm, melody, and sound.
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence → Motor Imagery: The mental representation of physical movement and bodily control.
Spatial Intelligence → Spatial Imagery: The mental representation of structures, dimensions, and spatial relationships.
Interpersonal Intelligence → Emotional Imagery: The mental representation of moods, feelings and empathy (also called affective imagery).
Intrapersonal Intelligence → Introspective Imagery: The mental representation of self-reflection and awareness of inner states (also called metacoginitive imagery).
Naturalistic Intelligence → Intuitive Imagery: The mental representation of subconscious patterns of insight and immediate understanding, e.g. to 'know' what a bird or tree are.
The Imagination Vividness Spectrum
This framework suggests that intelligence and mental sensory perception are fundamentally about the mind's ability to generate, manipulate, and interpret a wide range of mental imagery. These processes shape cognitive experiences such as learning, problem-solving, and emotional processing. The variability in the vividness of mental imagery provides additional insights into this cognitive diversity, with Zeman's team defining the following:
Aphantasia: An inability to form mental imagery (defined in 2015).
Hypophantasia: A reduced vividness of mental imagery (defined in 2025, may not be officially recognised yet in all scientific circles).
Phantasia: An average vividness of mental imagery.
Hyperphantasia: An exceptionally vivid mental imagery (defined in 2015).
Global Aphantasia: An inability to form the 5 core sensory types of mental imagery; visual, auditory, gustatory, olfactory and tactile imagery (defined in 2025, may not be officially recognised yet in all scientific circles).
This spectrum of vividness—from aphantasia to hyperphantasia—highlights cognitive diversity by recognising that individuals process and experience the world uniquely, stepping away from the deficit-based perspective of mental imagery. It also provides a language to describe these experiences. People with varying levels of mental imagery—whether visual, auditory, emotional, or instinctive—bring distinct strengths to different cognitive domains. Rather than being a limitation, this diversity reflects how various forms of mental imagery support different types of cognition and neurodiversity.
For instance, those with strong visual imagery may excel in spatial intelligence (e.g., architects, artists), while individuals with heightened auditory imagery may excel in musical intelligence. People with heightened emotional imagery may demonstrate strong emotional intelligence, thriving in roles like counseling or social work. Those lacking vivid imagery in one domain may compensate with strengths in other areas. Mental imagery—whether sensory or non-sensory—plays an important role in the ways people think, learn, and create.
Mapping the Modalities of Mental Imagery
This concept builds on our earlier paper, Refining the Lexicon of Mental Imagery Research: Terminology Beyond the Senses, where we expanded on Zeman’s work by introducing 15 types of mental imagery and four vividness ranges. This was part of a proposed linguistic framework designed to articulate mental experiences not yet fully defined in existing literature. In this latest article, we extend the model by adding five additional modalities—numerical imagery, vestibular imagery, musical imagery, visceral imagery and electromagnetic imagery—bringing the total to 20 distinct forms of mental imagery:
Core Sensory-Based Imagery
Visual Imagery – Mental representation of visual elements (shapes, colours, scenes).
Auditory Imagery – Mental representation of sounds, music, or speech.
Gustatory Imagery – Mental representation of tastes and flavours.
Olfactory Imagery – Mental representation of smells.
Tactile Imagery – Mental representation of touch, texture, or physical sensations.
Intelligence-Linked Imagery
Intraphonic Imagery – Mental representation of voice and language patterns.
Numerical Imagery – Mental representation of abstractions, numbers and patterns.
Musical Imagery – Mental representation of rhythm, pitch, and melody.
Motor Imagery – Mental representation of physical movement.
Spatial Imagery – Mental representation of spatial relationships and object placement.
Emotional Imagery – Mental representation of hormonal states, emotions and feelings.
Introspective Imagery – Mental representation of awareness and reflection of self.
Intuitive Imagery – Mental representation of subconscious patterns or insights.
Other Cognitive and Sensory Imagery
Dream Imagery – Mental representation of the unconscious mind during sleep.
Electromagnetic Imagery – Mental representation of electrical or magnetic phenomena.
Visceral Imagery – Mental representation of internal bodily sensations.
Somatic Imagery – Mental representation of pain, pressure, or discomfort.
Temporal Imagery – Mental representation of sequences, and the passage of events.
Thermal Imagery – Mental representation of temperature sensations.
Vestibular Imagery – Mental representation of balance, motion, and spatial orientation.
This expanded framework, incorporating 20 modalities of mental imagery and 4 levels of vividness, aligns more closely with emerging scientific theories. It replaces earlier intuitive concepts and temporary language I used to articulate my understanding before established terminology existed. By integrating imagination, intelligence, and mental sensory perception into a unified model, we can:
Deepen our understanding of neurodiversity and cognitive styles, recognising how different forms of imagery dominate an individual’s cognitive experience.
Develop language and strategies that acknowledge and validate non-sensory forms of mental representation, particularly for those with non-traditional cognitive profiles.
Build a more comprehensive map of how the mind processes, stores, and generates knowledge, ultimately improving problem-solving, memory retention, and emotional regulation across various forms of intelligence.
This framework doesn’t replace Gardner’s theory, nor Zeman's research on mental imagery—it evolves them. By connecting perception, sense, thought, and memory, it brings us closer to understanding the full spectrum of human consciousness and cognition.
Mental Imagery as a Language Tool
Mental imagery serves as more than just a cognitive function—it can be understood as a fundamental language of the mind. Just as spoken language allows us to communicate external experiences, mental imagery provides a means of articulating internal experiences. This perspective is especially valuable when considering the cognitive diversity of individuals with conditions such as aphantasia (who lack visual mental imagery) and hyperphantasia (who experience exceptionally vivid mental imagery).
By framing mental imagery as a shared language, we create a bridge between these vastly different cognitive experiences. This not only helps individuals better articulate their own thought processes but also fosters greater understanding between people with different cognitive styles. Someone with hyperphantasia, for instance, may describe their thinking as a series of vivid moving images, while someone with aphantasia may process thoughts more abstractly through non-visual mental representations. A structured framework for discussing these differences allows for deeper communication, reducing misunderstandings and increasing awareness of cognitive diversity.
Beyond personal understanding, this approach has broad practical applications. In education, recognising how students engage with mental imagery can help teachers adapt their instruction methods to different learning styles. In therapy, practitioners could use this framework to help clients articulate emotions and thoughts that are otherwise difficult to express. Even in everyday conversations, having a refined language to discuss mental imagery can improve communication, allowing individuals to convey their internal experiences with greater accuracy and understanding.
The Subjectivity and Challenges of Mental Imagery
One of the challenges in studying mental imagery is its inherently subjective nature. Unlike external sensory input, internal representations cannot always be directly measured or observed. However, this subjectivity does not make mental imagery any less significant; in fact, it underscores its importance in understanding cognition. By providing a structured way to categorise and discuss these experiences, this framework offers a method for exploring aspects of thought that traditional scientific models may struggle to capture.
Aphantasia provides a compelling case study in this regard. Once thought to be purely anecdotal, it is now a recognised cognitive variation, with neuroscience shedding light on its neural basis and cognitive implications. This shift demonstrates that subjective experiences, while difficult to measure initially, can still be studied using innovative scientific approaches. Similarly, this framework for mental imagery and intelligence could serve as a foundation for new lines of research into how different cognitive styles influence perception, memory, and problem-solving.
Even if certain aspects of mental imagery cannot be measured through conventional means, they can still be explored through interdisciplinary collaboration. Researchers across cognitive science, psychology, and neuroscience could leverage this framework to investigate how various forms of intelligence and perception interact. Individuals who lack mental imagery in specific domains can offer valuable insights by articulating the compensatory strategies or alternative cognitive processes they employ. By recognising both the strengths and limitations of subjective experience, this approach fosters a more nuanced understanding of the complexity and diversity of human cognition.
Conclusion
Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences expanded our understanding of cognitive diversity, while Adam Zeman’s research on mental imagery revealed the depth and complexity of how we internally represent experiences. By unifying these ideas, we propose a framework where all forms of intelligence—linguistic, spatial, emotional, and beyond—are expressions of mental imagery in various forms.
This evolving framework bridges the divide between intelligence and mental perception, aligning with both personal experience and emerging scientific theories. It highlights the incredible diversity of human cognition—whether through vivid visualisation, abstract reasoning, or intuitive emotional processing. These differences represent distinct pathways of intelligence, not limitations, enriching our understanding of what it means to be truly intelligent.
Recognising mental imagery as a universal cognitive language allows us to better understand neurodiversity, improve educational practices, and foster deeper empathy for different ways of experiencing the world. As research continues to evolve, so too should our frameworks—encouraging a more inclusive, nuanced, and holistic view of how we think, learn, and imagine.
Sources:
You can also view the paper on ResearchGate.
Given it is so hard to seek genuine feedback on my experiences and the terminology, I asked the AI's for their opinion, asking the "At what grade would you give this paper, for what level, and for what field?". Below are the responses from DeekSeek-V3 and ChatGPT-o4: