Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ)

1. Abstract

The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) is one of the most widely utilized psychometric instruments in cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, and cognitive neuroscience for assessing the subjective clarity and perceptual realism of visual mental imagery. Developed by British psychologist David F. Marks and first published in 1973, the instrument was designed to quantify individual variations in the experiential quality of endogenous visual representations in the absence of direct retinal stimulation. The instrument comprises 16 items organized across four distinct thematic vignettes: the appearance of a familiar relative or friend, the rising sun and changing meteorological conditions, the architectural facade and retail interior of a frequently visited shop, and an expansive country landscape featuring trees, mountains, and water. Each scenario prompts the respondent to evoke specific visual details, evaluating the generated mental picture across a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 (“Perfectly clear and as vivid as normal vision”) to 5 (“No image at all, you only ‘know’ that you are thinking of the object”). In contemporary psychometric practice, scoring is frequently reversed (ranging from 1 to 5, yielding composite scores between 16 and 80) such that higher scores reflect greater imagery vividness.

Extensive psychometric investigations have established that the VVIQ possesses excellent internal consistency (with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently reported between .88 and .94) and robust test-retest reliability across multiple temporal intervals ($r = .73$ to $.88$). Structural equation modeling and exploratory factor analyses typically reveal either a dominant general factor of visual vividness or a four-factor oblique structure reflecting situational scenario clusters, supporting the use of a unified composite index. Convergent and criterion validity have been rigorously corroborated through behavioral paradigms—including binocular rivalry priming, mental rotation, and picture recall—as well as objective neuroimaging markers, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) signal variations in the primary visual cortex (V1) and pupillary light response dynamics. The VVIQ has played a foundational role in modern cognitive science, serving as the benchmark instrument for characterizing neurodevelopmental spectrums of visual imagination, notably aphantasia (the complete absence of voluntary visual imagery) and hyperphantasia (the capacity for imagery vividness indistinguishable from actual perception).

2. Keywords

Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire, VVIQ, visual mental imagery, aphantasia, hyperphantasia, mental simulation, phenomenological vividness, David F. Marks, cognitive neuroscience, primary visual cortex, subjective clarity, psychometrics

3. Authors

The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire was conceptualized, operationalized, and validated by David F. Marks. At the time of the instrument’s initial development and formal publication in 1973, Marks was based in the Department of Psychology at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. Marks subsequently held senior academic and administrative appointments in the United Kingdom, including serving as Professor of Psychology and Head of the Centre for Health Research at City, University of London. Throughout his academic career, Marks made substantial empirical and theoretical contributions to the study of mental imagery, consciousness, subjective perception, health psychology, and the critical evaluation of anomalous cognitive claims.

Correspondence regarding the original development of the VVIQ was historically directed to the Department of Psychology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand, and in subsequent decades to the Department of Psychology, City, University of London, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, United Kingdom. Marks’ seminal 1973 paper, titled “Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures,” established the empirical foundation for quantifying vividness as a stable individual-difference trait and remains one of the most cited works in visual cognition literature.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire is to operationalize and quantify the subjective, phenomenological intensity and clarity of visual mental representations. Visual mental imagery occurs when sensory information is retrieved from long-term memory systems and reconstructed in working memory, producing a quasi-perceptual experience in the visual modality without direct photic input to the retina. For decades following the behaviorist era in psychology, the scientific study of internal subjective states was marginalized due to the methodological challenge of measuring subjective phenomena objectively. The VVIQ was engineered to bridge this methodological gap, providing a standardized, psychometrically grounded self-report mechanism designed to capture stable individual differences in imagery vividness.

In basic cognitive research, the VVIQ is employed to examine how imagery vividness modulates cognitive architectures, including episodic memory retrieval, autobiographical recall, prospective cognition, spatial navigation, and creative problem-solving. Individuals with elevated vividness scores consistently demonstrate distinctive patterns of mnemonic encoding and retrieval, showing enhanced retention of surface pictorial attributes (such as color, texture, and fine contours) in visual recall paradigms. Conversely, the VVIQ has illuminated critical cognitive compensations; individuals with minimal or absent imagery often achieve equivalent accuracy on spatial and visual working memory tasks through non-visual, propositional, or semantic strategies, revealing redundant computational pathways in human cognition.

In clinical and neuropsychological domains, the instrument serves critical diagnostic and investigative functions. Following the clinical characterization of lifelong visual imagery absence by Adam Zeman and colleagues in 2015, the VVIQ became the primary screening and diagnostic benchmark for operationalizing aphantasia (typically indexed by VVIQ composite scores between 16 and 32 on the 16–80 modern scoring format) and hyperphantasia (indexed by scores between 75 and 80). Furthermore, vivid mental imagery represents an underlying mechanism across multiple psychiatric disorders. In post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), pathologically vivid, intrusive flashbacks dominate symptom profiles; in major depressive disorder, patients frequently exhibit an impoverished capacity to mentally simulate vivid positive future events (prospective imagery); and in schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, hyper-vivid mental images can blur the distinction between internal simulations and external sensory realities, contributing to hallucinations and delusions. In sport psychology and motor rehabilitation, the VVIQ is widely used to assess the efficacy of motor imagery and mental rehearsal interventions, where vividness of visualized action sequences directly correlates with motor cortex excitability and subsequent physical skill acquisition.

5. Psychological Construct

The core psychological construct evaluated by the VVIQ is visual imagery vividness. Vividness is conceptualized as a multi-attribute phenomenological construct denoting the degree to which an internally generated mental image resembles the richness, clarity, structural fidelity, and sensory brightness of an actual perceptual experience. Rather than tapping into spatial manipulation abilities (such as mental rotation or coordinate spatial transformation), the VVIQ assesses the subjective, qualitative attributes of visual representation. The construct encompasses several interrelated perceptual subcomponents:

• Contour, Form, and Structural Definition: The ability to delineate precise boundaries, geometric profiles, and spatial proportions of imagined targets. This involves activating top-down representations of object shape stored within the ventral visual processing stream (“what” pathway). For example, Item 1 evaluates the respondent’s capacity to mentally depict the exact anatomical contour of a familiar person’s face, head, shoulders, and body silhouette.
• Dynamic Pose, Posture, and Biological Motion: The phenomenological depiction of characteristic gestures, somatic stances, and kinetic parameters. This requires simulating biological kinematics, tapping into cortical areas associated with motion and posture representation (such as the middle temporal area, MT/V5, and the superior temporal sulcus). Item 2 and Item 3 require visualizing characteristic body postures and the precise cadence, length of step, and carriage of a walking figure.
• Chromatic Fidelity and Luminance: The subjective recreation of hue, saturation, lightness, and color combinations. Visualizing realistic color involves the top-down reactivation of ventral occipitotemporal structures, particularly the fusiform and lingual gyri (area V4). Item 4 explicitly assesses the vividness of colors worn in familiar clothing, while Item 6 and Item 8 prompt the mental rendering of atmospheric hues, such as the surrounding blueness of a clear sky and the spectrum of a rainbow.
• Environmental and Contextual Integration: The synthesis of complex, multi-element visual scenes involving figure-ground segregation, architectural elements, lighting variations, and depth perspective. This dimension taps into scene-processing neural systems, such as the parahippocampal place area (PPA) and retrosplenial cortex. Scenarios 9 through 12 require constructing a commercial retail facade, inspecting storefront displays, approaching an entryway, and resolving intricate transactional details (such as the counter, merchandise, cashier, and physical coins/change).
• Dynamic Atmospheric and Environmental Forces: The mental simulation of kinetic transformations within natural landscapes, including meteorological transitions, cloud formations, and wind-induced motion. Items 5 through 8 and Item 16 probe dynamic changes, such as hazy atmospheric degradation, lightning flashes during a storm, and strong gusts of wind visibly agitating trees and generating waves across a body of water.

Marks recognized that visual imagery is not a monolithic, static capacity. By employing diverse scenarios spanning social stimuli (familiar faces), natural phenomena (sunrises and storms), built commercial environments (shops), and natural topography (lakes and mountains), the VVIQ captures a generalized, domain-independent index of visual vividness rather than idiosyncratic visual memory for a single class of stimuli.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the VVIQ is grounded in classical cognitive architecture, psychophysics, and modern cognitive neuroscience. The instrument’s development in 1973 directly intersected with the historic “imagery debate” in cognitive science, which pitted the quasi-pictorial (depictive) theory championed by Stephen Kosslyn against the propositional theory articulated by Zenon Pylyshyn. Pylyshyn contended that mental imagery is merely an epiphenomenon of underlying symbolic, language-like, language-of-thought representations; he argued that subjective reports of “seeing” an image do not reflect functional perceptual representations. Conversely, Kosslyn posited that visual imagery relies on a distinct computational format: depictive mental representations displayed within an internal coordinate space termed the “visual buffer.”

Kosslyn’s neurocognitive model of mental imagery proposes that generating a mental image relies on shared neural machinery with visual perception. When an individual attempts to visualize an object from memory, high-level structural information retrieved from associative memory (in the temporal and parietal lobes) is transformed via top-down signals through the frontoparietal attention network. These backward projections target retinotopically organized early visual cortices—including the primary visual cortex (Brodmann Area 17 / V1) and secondary visual cortices (V2, V3, V4, and V5/MT). In this framework, the phenomenological vividness measured by the VVIQ reflects the functional fidelity, spatial resolution, and signal-to-noise ratio of this top-down corticocortical reactivation. When feedback projections generate detailed, high-resolution patterns of neural excitation across early visual areas, the subject reports high vividness (scores corresponding to “perfectly clear and as vivid as normal vision”). In contrast, attenuated or non-existent feedback signaling results in low or absent vividness (“no image at all”).

The VVIQ also aligns with Allan Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory, which asserts that the human mind processes information through two separate yet interconnected systems: a non-verbal, visual structural system (the “imagen” system) and a verbal, linguistic symbolic system (the “logogen” system). The VVIQ specifically assesses the experiential potency of the imagen processing system. Furthermore, modern predictive processing frameworks (e.g., Karl Friston, Andy Clark) conceptualize visual imagery as “perception in reverse”: while veridical visual perception involves using sensory inputs to correct top-down perceptual predictions, visual imagery represents the intentional, unconstrained generation of top-down sensory predictions with sensory input ignored or suppressed (such as when testing with eyes closed).

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the VVIQ has been evaluated across five decades of empirical research, demonstrating robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity:

• Convergent Validity: VVIQ scores correlate significantly with other validated subjective imagery inventories, including the Gordon Test of Visual Imagery Control ($r = .45$ to $.65$) and the visual modality scale of Betts’ Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery (QMI) ($r = .70$ to $.82$). Furthermore, the VVIQ correlates robustly with the Object subscale of the Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ) ($r = .55$ to $.71$), confirming that the VVIQ selectively assesses object imagery (pictorial richness, color, texture) rather than spatial imagery (mental transformations, schematic relations).
• Behavioral Criterion and Psychophysical Validity: A major critique of self-report imagery scales was the potential susceptibility to demand characteristics and social desirability bias. However, experimental psychophysics has repeatedly linked VVIQ scores to non-conscious, objective behavioral markers. In a seminal paradigm by Joel Pearson and colleagues (2008, 2011), the sensory strength of visual imagery was measured using binocular rivalry. Prior visualization of a pattern primes perceptual dominance during subsequent brief binocular rivalry displays. Pearson demonstrated that behavioral priming strength correlates significantly with participants’ self-reported VVIQ scores ($p < .01$), establishing that subjective ratings directly reflect sensory visual trace generation. Furthermore, recent work by Kay, Keogh, and colleagues (2022) revealed that pupillary light responses—the involuntary constriction of pupils when imagining bright stimuli (such as the rising sun in VVIQ Item 5)—correlate with VVIQ ratings, with aphantasic individuals exhibiting no pupillary adjustment to imagined brightness.
• Neurofunctional and Neuroimaging Validity: Functional neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that VVIQ scores predict the magnitude of blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) responses in visual cortices. High-vividness imagers exhibit significantly greater neural activation in early visual areas (V1/V2) and ventral stream areas (fusiform gyrus) during mental imagery tasks relative to low-vividness imagers. Resting-state fMRI analyses (Cui et al., 2007) identified a strong negative correlation between VVIQ score (on the original 1973 scale where lower indicates higher vividness) and relative activation in early visual cortex ($r = -.73, p < .001$), demonstrating that visual imagery vividness directly reflects functional connectivity between prefrontal executive control networks and sensory visual cortices.
• Discriminant Validity: The VVIQ demonstrates distinct psychometric divergence from general intelligence (IQ), verbal comprehension, and non-imagery cognitive abilities. Meta-analytic evaluations (e.g., McKelvie, 1995) have shown that the VVIQ shares negligible variance with verbal intelligence ($r < .10$) and standard personality traits such as neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness ($r < .12$), establishing that it assesses a distinct cognitive capability rather than generalized intellectual ability or communicative competence.

8. Reliability

The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire demonstrates high reliability across diverse demographic cohorts, clinical populations, and linguistic adaptations:

• Internal Consistency: Across dozens of independent psychometric evaluations, the 16-item inventory consistently achieves high internal consistency. In his original validation studies, Marks (1973) documented split-half reliability coefficients exceeding $.85$. Subsequent psychometric investigations utilizing modern measurement theory have documented Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients typically ranging between $.88$ and $.94$. McKelvie’s (1995) comprehensive review of over 20 independent cohorts reported a median Cronbach’s alpha of $.89$. McDonald’s omega ($\omega_t$), a less biased measure of composite reliability, similarly yields values exceeding $.90$, verifying high internal coherence among the 16 items.
• Test-Retest Reliability: Temporal stability has been documented across varying test-retest intervals. Over short periods (one to three weeks), test-retest correlation coefficients consistently range between $r = .80$ and $r = .88$. In extended longitudinal paradigms assessing intervals from six months to two years, stability coefficients remain high ($r = .70$ to $.78$), demonstrating that visual mental imagery vividness represents a stable cognitive trait over time rather than a fluctuating emotional or situational state.
• Parallel Condition Equivalence (Eyes Open vs. Eyes Closed): In its classic administration format, the VVIQ is administered under two distinct experimental conditions: once with the respondent’s eyes open, and once with their eyes closed (generating 32 ratings across the 16 items). The correlation between the eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions is typically high ($r = .82$ to $.91$). Because scores under the two conditions demonstrate near-complete statistical parallelism, many contemporary research designs administer the scale solely under one standardized condition (typically eyes closed) or average the ratings across conditions without compromising instrument reliability.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structural architecture of the VVIQ has been evaluated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across numerous large-scale datasets, yielding nuanced insights into its psychometric properties.

Early exploratory factor analyses (e.g., McKelvie, 1986; Campos & Pérez, 1988) examined whether the VVIQ measures a single unidimensional construct of vividness or four discrete situational factors corresponding to its four contextual vignettes: (1) Familiar Person, (2) Rising Sun/Atmosphere, (3) Retail Store, and (4) Natural Countryside. Unrotated principal components analysis consistently reveals a dominant first factor that accounts for 40% to 55% of the total variance, with an eigenvalue far exceeding subsequent factors (typically $> 6.5$, while second and third factors yield eigenvalues around 1.0 to 1.3). All 16 items exhibit substantial positive factor loadings on this primary dimension, typically spanning from $.50$ to $.78$. This primary component reflects general, domain-unrestricted visual mental imagery vividness.

When oblique or orthogonal rotations (such as Promax or Varimax) are applied, secondary factors emerge corresponding to the stimulus scenarios. CFA investigations comparing rival structural models have revealed the following typical fit parameters across independent research samples:

• Strict Unidimensional Model: A single-factor CFA model specifying all 16 items loading onto a common visual vividness latent factor produces acceptable, though sometimes marginally sub-optimal, goodness-of-fit metrics due to residual local item dependencies within scenarios (e.g., $\chi^2 / ext{df} pprox 2.80$, CFI (Comparative Fit Index) $= .91$, RMSEA $= .068$).
• Four-Factor Oblique Model: A four-factor model matching the structural vignettes (Familiar Person: items 1–4; Sun/Sky: items 5–8; Retail Store: items 9–12; Country Scene: items 13–16) yields improved fit statistics ($\chi^2 / ext{df} pprox 1.95$, $ ext{CFI} = .96$,$ ext{TLI} = .95$,$ ext{RMSEA} = .048$,$ ext{SRMR} = .038$). However, inter-factor correlations among the four latent scenario constructs are high (ranging from$.65$ to $.82$), indicating significant construct overlap.
• Bifactor Model: A bifactor CFA model—positing one dominant general vividness factor ($G$) alongside four orthogonal group factors capturing item clustering—provides the best overall empirical fit ($\chi^2 / ext{df} pprox 1.45$, $ ext{CFI} = .98$,$ ext{RMSEA} = .032$). In this bifactor decomposition, the general factor explains over 80% of the common variance (Explained Common Variance,$ ext{ECV} > .80$, and hierarchical \omega,$omega_h > .85$). This confirms that the common variance is overwhelmingly driven by the general visual imagery trait, justifying the universal clinical and empirical convention of summing or averaging all 16 items into a single unified composite score.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire is a self-administered, 16-item psychometric rating inventory designed to assess the subjective clarity and perceptual realism of visual mental imagery. Below are the administrative parameters, structural characteristics, and scoring rules for the instrument:

• Test Type: Self-report phenomenological rating scale; individual or group administration; suitable for laboratory, clinical, or online survey settings.
• Format: 16 items organized across four real-world stimulus scenarios (familiar person, sun/weather, retail store, country landscape).
• Administration Modality: Historically administered under two consecutive conditions: (1) Eyes Open (16 ratings) and (2) Eyes Closed (16 ratings), generating 32 total responses. Modern administration often utilizes a single standardized condition (typically Eyes Closed) or averages the two iterations.
• Authentic Response Scale: Evaluated using a 5-point rating scale:
  • 1 = Perfectly clear and as vivid as normal vision
  • 2 = Clear and reasonably vivid
  • 3 = Moderately clear and vivid
  • 4 = Vague and dim
  • 5 = No image at all, you only ‘know’ that you are thinking of the object (often reverse-scored in modern research so higher scores represent greater vividness)
• Scoring Protocols:
  • Original 1973 Scoring System: Direct summation of item response values without inversion. Total scores for a single 16-item administration range from 16 to 80. Under this system, lower scores indicate more vivid imagery (e.g., a score of 16 represents maximum vividness, whereas 80 represents complete absence of visual imagery). If both eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions are completed, scores range from 32 to 160.
  • Modern / Contemporary Scoring System: Reverse-scored such that $1 o 5$, $2 o 4$, $3 o 3$, $4 o 2$, and $5 o 1$. Total scores range from 16 to 80 for 16 items (or 32 to 160 for dual-condition administrations), ensuring that higher numerical scores correspond directly to higher levels of vividness.
• Diagnostic / Phenomenological Cutoffs (Modern 16–80 Inverted Scale):
  • 16–32: Diagnostic range for Aphantasia (complete or near-complete absence of voluntary visual mental imagery).
  • 33–54: Low to moderately low visual imagery vividness.
  • 55–74: Typical / average visual imagery vividness (normative range in adult populations).
  • 75–80: Diagnostic range for Hyperphantasia (photographic, near-perceptual vividness).
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes for single administration; 10 to 15 minutes for dual administration (eyes open and eyes closed).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire was first published in 1973 by David F. Marks in the peer-reviewed scientific journal British Journal of Psychology (Vol. 64, Issue 1, pp. 17–24). The original 16 items, instructions, and response scale were published directly within the open scientific literature.

For independent academic research, non-profit psychological evaluations, and pedagogical uses, the VVIQ is widely treated as an open-access psychometric instrument that can be utilized without royalty payments or formal licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to David F. Marks and the original 1973 publication. Researchers intending to incorporate the instrument into funded clinical trials, commercial diagnostic platforms, software applications, or revenue-generating digital products should contact the copyright holder or the British Psychological Society (publisher of the British Journal of Psychology) to verify current licensing terms, commercial rights, and institutional permissions.

12. References

• Campos, A., & Pérez, M. J. (1988). A factor analytic study of two measures of mental imagery. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67(2), 412–414. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1988.67.2.412
• Cui, X., Jeter, C. B., Bushnik, T., & Eagleman, D. M. (2007). Vividness of mental imagery reveals the strength of visual cortex activation. Vision Research, 47(4), 474–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.11.013
• Kay, L., Keogh, R., Andrillon, T., & Pearson, J. (2022). The pupillary light response as a physiological index of mental imagery. eLife, 11, e72423. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72423
• Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind. Harvard University Press.
• Kosslyn, S. M., Ganis, G., & Thompson, W. L. (2001). Neural foundations of imagery. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(9), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1038/35090055
• Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x
• Marks, D. F. (1995). New directions for mental imagery research. Journal of Mental Imagery, 19(3-4), 153–167.
• McKelvie, S. J. (1986). Factorial validity of the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62(1), 313–314. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1986.62.1.313
• McKelvie, S. J. (1995). The VVIQ as a psychometric test of individual differences in visual imagery vividness: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Mental Imagery, 19(3-4), 1–106.
• Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Pearson, J., Clifford, C. W., & Tong, F. (2008). The functional impact of mental imagery on conscious perception. Current Biology, 18(13), 982–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.05.048
• Pearson, J., Rademaker, R. L., & Tong, F. (2011). Evaluating the mind’s eye: The metacognition of visual mental imagery. Nature Neuroscience, 14(11), 1435–1442. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2959
• Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973). What the mind’s eye tells the mind’s brain: A critique of mental imagery. Psychological Bulletin, 80(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034650
• Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2002). Mental imagery: In search of a theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(2), 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X02000043
• Zeman, A., Dewar, M., & Della Sala, S. (2015). Lives without imagery – Congenital aphantasia. Cortex, 73, 378–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.05.019
• Zeman, A., Milton, F., Della Sala, S., Dewar, M., Frayling, T., Gaddum, J., Hattersley, A., Heuerman-Williamson, B., Jones, K., MacKisack, M., & Winlove, C. (2020). Phantasia–The psychological significance of lifelong visual imagery vividness extremes. Cortex, 130, 426–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.04.003

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)