PHI6670: Exploring the Relationship of Visual Perception and Imagery

This essay delves into the complex relationship between visual perception and mental imagery, exploring the arguments presented by philosophers and psychologists. It begins by defining both visual perception, the ability to interpret the surrounding environment through vision, and mental imagery, the ability to recreate experiences in the mind without direct retinal input. The essay then reviews the arguments for and against the existence of a relationship between these two faculties, citing studies that highlight functional and structural resemblances and the use of similar cognitive resources. The essay discusses the role of memory and the idea of stimuli in the recreation of mental images, arguing that visual perception can aid in the construction of mental imagery. Furthermore, it explores how mental imagery is used in problem-solving. The essay examines various theoretical models and viewpoints on the topic, supporting the idea that visual perception and mental imagery are closely related and share a putative functional relationship.

Running head: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MENTAL IMAGERY 1
The Relationship between Visual Perception and Mental
Imagery

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MENTAL IMAGERY
2
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MENTAL
IMAGERY
Introduction:
The question as to whether visual perception and mental imagery have an existing
relationship has raised concerns among various scholars. To this manner, multiple philosophers
and psychologists have performed various experiments in an attempt to answer the question.
However, amid such investigations, some scholars have found that visual perception has an
alleged relationship with mental imagery. According to lexicographers, there, exists an
acknowledgeable link between mental imagery and visual perception. Some philosophers and
psychologists, on the other hand, argue that despite the close resembles between the two
concepts, imagery is but only a sui generis phenomenon. The content of this paper, based on the
existing studies, evaluates the arguments of philosophers and psychologists regarding the
controversial question relating to mental imagery and visual perception. To this manner, the
content reviews argument for and opponent arguments against the relationship between visual
perception and mental imagery as here below. However, the content begins with a broad
evaluation of the two faculties before contemplating on the arguments for and against the
existing relationship between visual perception and mental imagery.
Mental Imagery and Visual Perception:
Visual perception:
According to various scholars, visual perception is the existing capability of an
individual to have an acuity of what is taking place within the surrounding environment through

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MENTAL IMAGERY
3
vision. Neurologically, visual perception is what occurs when light passes through the eye into
the retina, changed into a series of electrochemical signals which are then sent to the brain for
interpretation based on the existing ideas within the cerebral cortex (Shine et al. 2015). To this
manner, visual perception occurs when an object is seen through the eyes and then assigned an
interpretation or by the brain based on experience.
This process, for this reason, occurs due to the adaptation of sensory receptor nerves to a
continuously occurring stimulus. Eyes as organs normally keep on moving from second to
adapting to various objects within the environment which, according to neuropsychologists, are
the stimuli (Monty, Fisher & Senders, 2017). As a result of this phenomenon, objects seen are
recognized based on the adapted stimulus, for example. For instance, perceiving a picture of an
animal as a cow means that the object is perceived as a cow based on a constant adaptation of a
cow as a stimulus, in the retinal receptor cells. The phenomenon of sensory adaptation to the
stimuli, environment performs a bigger role in visual perception as it gives cues to the brain
useful in retinal image analysis and construction. The process is deemed to be very important for
daily human interaction with the environment. The visual perception of an object, its
organization, and interpretation enable human beings to learn new concepts useful for survival.
Models of visual perception:
Visual perception has been explained through two theoretical models, and these include
direct or constructive theory and the bottom-up theoretical model. To start with, a direct
theoretical model explains the phenomenon of visual perception in relation to existing or adapted
stimuli in human memory. An according to this theory, visual perception arises from the existing
memory of an experience adapted as a stimulus in the brain. The theoretical framework claims

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MENTAL IMAGERY
4
that when an object is seen, it is recognized or perceived in relation to prior knowledge in human
memory. The developers of the theory claim that the process is simple and relates what is seen to
the already existing information in mind (Veit, 2018).
However, an alternative theory of bottom-up was developed to provide a deeper
understanding of visual faculty in a more complex manner. According to this viewpoint, visual
perception involves effective use of motor-sensory nerves to reconstruct ideas or images from
the 3-D receptor models on the eye retina. The bottom-up theorists believe that visual perception
relies more on feature detectors a concept from neurophysiologists, they claim that cortical
neurons in the brain have various features that are used to perceive on and object the visually
encountered object (Veit, 2018). However, in as much as these two theoretical models exploit
varied techniques to explain the phenomenon, both theorists recognize the effect of the
surrounding environment in image identification and recognition.
Mental imagery:
The concept of mental imagery has attracted various definitions from various scholars.
However, the common definition of mental imagery is as seeing with the eye of the mind’, where
items are somehow visually represented in the human mind occurs without any relevant retinal
input. The process involves having visualized experience which is not genuinely formed through
the normal visual process through retinal and cortical nerves (Bailes & Bishop, 2016). Mental
imagery, therefore, involves the recreation of experiences in the human mind without the
involvement of the eye as well as other functional parts of the eye. In as much as has mental
imagery occurs naturally, scientist have shown that not everybody has the ability to vividly
picture and scan what is present in their memory and for this reason some individuals in various

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MENTAL IMAGERY
5
scientific studies are able to draw detailed information from the process, some fragments while
others lack the ability to deduce anything from the process. According to Dijkstra, Bosch & van
Gerven (2019), most mental patients forms the major part of the individuals who have the
problems to visualize experiences from their mind fully. As per these scholars’ schools of
thought, and evaluation of patients with mental illness in their study, it is evident that mental
imagery originates from the mind without any contribution of the retina (Dijkstra, Bosch & van
Gerven, 2019).
Putative Link between Visual Perception and Mental Imagery
There exists a close relationship between mental imagery and visual perception, which is
based on both functional and structural resemblances. According to the psychologists, such
similarities suggest an existing activity relationship between mental imagery and visual
perception (Dijkstra, Bosch & van Gerven, 2017). By definition, visual perception is the
capability to see an object, organize what has been seen, and interpret the seen object in relation
to the environment. Therefore, for perception to take place, the brain is involved in organizing
the image to make sense based on the environment. Thus, it is believed that without visual
perception, an individual cannot make sense of anything within their environment or even
coordinate his body part, such as hands to perform day by day duty. Mental imagery, on the
other hand, is defined as the recreation of an image in your mind from the memorized
information (Pearson, Naselaris, Holmes & Kosslyn, 2015).
Moreover, mental imagery can also be defined as the recreation of experience from
memory. Metal imagery, therefore, involves similar cognitive requirements just as visual
perception. Based on the definitions of mental imagery and visual perception, one can agree that

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MENTAL IMAGERY
6
these two faculties cognitive process as well as motor sensory or resources to occur. Since
mental imagery and visual perception utilize similar resources and involve the same cognitive
process, one can affirm that that seeing something from outside the cognizance or mind is, in
important respect the same as the process of elaborating the same thing within visual imagery
(Dijkstra, Bosch & van Gerven, 2019).
Apart from visual perception sharing resources and cognitive process with mental
imagery, some scholars argue that perception and ideas have no difference in any kind apart from
their casual history and their degree of vivacity. This because, according to these scholars, visual
perception involves seeing an object, organization of the object, and interpreting in your mind
takes place at the most current moment. However, the same object can again be seen through the
eye of the mind (mental imagery) at a later moment. To this manner, scholars defending this
point believe that mental imagery involves seeing the exact image based on a similar experience
(Pearson, Naselaris, Holmes & Kosslyn, 2018).
Therefore, from this perspective of argument, there is almost no substantial differences
between seeing something and using your mind to interpret it at that particular time and seeing
the same thing or generating the same experience from your mind later. So according to this
argument, there exists a close relationship between mental imagery and visual perception.
However, this argument has attracted various counterviews from other scholars such as
Bergmann et al. (2016) who analyzed it using various experiments. These authors in their three
experiments based on study hypotheses found out that in as much as there is a relationship
between mental imagery and visual perception, the relation should be evaluated in an in-depth

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MENTAL IMAGERY
7
manner rather than simply speculating. This is because the authors found a deeper neurological
link between the mental and cognitive process involved in the two faculties.
The close relationship between mental imagery and visual perception has further been
supported by various philosophers such as McGinn in his 2004 school of thought. According to
this scholar, imagery is based at one end of a spectrum that beginning from veridical, to highly
stimulus-driven, then to stimulus constrained perception and finally to pure imagery. Therefore,
he claims that during the process of visual perception, experiences are retrieved from mental
memory to fill in the existing gaps between the extremes (Dijkstra, Bosch & van Gerven, 2015).
As a result, a close relationship can be seen between mental imagery and visual perception.
Moreover, this argument can also be used to support the previous discussions of historical
difference. This is because the author states in his school of reasoning that even so there is a
relationship between the two faculties, visual perception as a faculty occurs at one's will and
control, however, mental imagery occurs on its own as we cannot prevent our minds of using its
eyes to see what it wants to see and it also does not involve other body parts in the process.
To justify their claim, these scholars also noted that metal imagery is representation from
the recalled memory and cannot happen by our will, but are products of stimulus that arise from
combined nerve functions. This is because the creation of mental imagery relies upon already
preserved experience. Therefore, the brain only needs to be triggered in order to recreate the past
experience. Thus, such images can be recreated anytime as long as the recalled memory has
been triggered. McGinn (2004) argument as cited by Dijkstra et .al (2015) are therefore quite
convincing based on real-life recollection where people experience the recreation of the past
without their will or desire at any time a stimuli triggers the recalled mental memory. Therefore,

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MENTAL IMAGERY
8
the idea of stimuli, on the other hand, reveals a detailed limited relationship between the two
faculties.
Moreover, it is evident from the argument of various scholars that visual perception helps
in the reconstruction of mental imagery. These, further states that in even though mental imagery
is a product of sensorial source materials which are involved during its construction, the process
involves various aspects of visual perception. To this reason, creative process include both
visual perception and mental imagery. Therefore, for one to come up with an innovative product,
one must use various processes of visual perception to create a mental image (Nanay, 2018).
Being that there is an existing collaboration between mental imagery and visual perception while
doing creative work, it is worth noting that there two faculties have a putative functional
relationship. Furthermore, some scholars argue that the mental ideas arise from visually
perpetuated representation stored in the memory, not from the information that an individual is
registering in the brain at the current time. Thus, the existing link between the two faculties.
Furthermore, a link between visual perception and mental imagery has been developed by
philosophers in the idea of knowledge and use of knowledge to in problem-solving. According to
this argument, mental imagery is used in the interoperation of visual information to solve an
existing problem (Monty, Fisher & Senders, 2017). When an individual is present in a difficult
situation, that individual can solve the problem by reflecting on another similar experience and
how it was solved, thus the same technique to overcome the challenge. This argument shows that
two faculties work together in a situation that requires both physical and mental exercises.
Apart from the philosophical cognitive link between visual perceptions and mental
imagery, there is also a relationship between the two faculties that is based on neural

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MENTAL IMAGERY
9
characteristics. This relationship is drawn from the neurophysiologists' point of view which state
that the underlying process involved in the image construction within the mind remains the same
and involves similar cortical neural even though retinal representation is not involved in mental
imagery (Bergmann, Genç, Kohler, Singer & Pearson 2016). According to this expert opinion,
the hyper-column involved in recognition of visual information within the visual cortex has
unique features which are useful in the recreation of images in mental imagery (Blumberg and
Jane 489). Hyper-columns are special nerves in the cortex that assign to every image seen
through the eyes its own unique features. Though in as much these neurons are only activated
with the retinal effect, various unique features assigned to objects remain intact and could even
be seen with eyes closed or through mental imagery. Therefore, the scholars who advocated for
these concepts reached a conclusion that visual perception and mental imagery relates when
viewed in the perspective of the roles of neurons.
The conclusion in relation to sharing of neural roles was also found to be truthful from
other scholar’s views point such as Dijkstra et al. (2015) who also agreed that there is shared
neural mechanism by mental imagery as a faculty and visual perception as another faculty.
Dijkstra and his group psychologists seek to justify the idea of shared neural mechanisms
between the faculties, using several neurological studies which they used to compare the process
of mental imagery and the process of visual perception. The study conclusion is very convincing
as it provides justification for the shared neural mechanism by the two faculties. To this reason,
it is philosophically convincing that mental imagery and visual perception relate to the context of
neurons (Berntsen & Watson, 2015).

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MENTAL IMAGERY
10
Furthermore, other empirical studies have also shown compelling pieces of evidence of
the existing relationship between mental imagery and visual perception. Mast & Ellis, in their
2015 study, came up with evidence on how the faculties relate. Rendering to their school of
thought, mental imagery, or recreation of past experience in individuals mind arise from similar
forms or visual aspects which are also activated during visual perception. Therefore, when one
experience brightness during the visualization using retinal input, the same brightness will also
be formed during metal image formation in the brain (Berntsen & Watson, 2015). Reasoning
from their study outcome, the participants of the study experienced similar brightness when
subjected to both faculties even though, imagers created through mental imagery were purely
psychological. The authors also confirmed that the same effect of brightness as an imagined
stimulus on the eye pupil during visual perception just as it has on mental image creation.
Notably, another relationship between mental imagery and visual perception is evident
from the perspective of image scanning. The individual scanning ability during visual perception
is the same for the same individual during mental imagery. The study conducted by Borst &
Kosslyn (2008) shows that participants who had optimal image scanning abilities retained the
same abilities while scanning mental images, and that those with average ability to scan objects
at a distance also retained the same performance in scanning mental images. The study just as the
other studies confirmed that mental imagery and visual perception share specific features, and
that is the reason for the correlation between the scanning abilities. Moreover, the study indicated
that, mental imagery remained in a pretty good condition so long as the visual perception also
had the in the same a good state (Borst & Kosslyn, 2008). This argument is justifiable and

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MENTAL IMAGERY
11
convincing based on the scanning experiments and the conclusion can be drawn that the two
faculties share features for image scanning, which is a correlation.
The Relationship between Stages of Visual Information Process and Mental
Imagery
The existing relationship between mental imagery and visual perception can further be
exploited through evaluating stages of visual information and how it related to mental imagery.
According to various experiments, there exists an equivalence between mental imagery and
visual perception. However, it is difficult to note from the immediate stage of visual information
processing. Therefore, when one sees color, visual perception performs the task and has a limited
relationship with mental imagery (Nanay, 2015). This is based on the fact that at the last stage,
the only the visual field is involved. The process of seeing is fast and consists of no will, and
this, therefore, means it is independent of will. The second stage of visual perception depends on
the will and involves the sequential mode of attention.
Therefore, based on the limited involvement of mental imagery, opponents of the
argument that there is no link between representation and visual perception defend their schools
of thought based on these architectural peculiarities of mental imagery. The architecture and the
process of visual shows a sharp and a phenomenological distinction to that of mental imagery
according to opponent philosophers. They claim that visual perception involves vision which
occurs in its unique way. From the first two stages of visual perception includes pre-categorical
activities that only consists of the input of vision (Hamlyn, 2017). The knowledge only involves
a small process whereby a visualized object is forwarded to the brain for cognitive processing.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MENTAL IMAGERY
12
The processed information is, therefore stored in the central data or memory. The imagery,
therefore, withdraws information that has already been visualized, and it is blind to the real
experience. Thus, the analysis of the visual perception process and stages asserts that there is no
close relationship between the two faculties. This is because all the two stages of visual
perception information process suggest no link to mental imagery, and every experience
involved are both genuine and involves retinal input (Nanay, 2015).
Thus, in analyzing various stages of visual information, it can be noted that the stages
involved in the formation of visual perception is purely different from the stages involved in
mental imagery. According to the authors, the architectural design (nerves and organs) involved
in visual perception show no link with various nerves involved in mental imagery process.
Taking for example, visual perception in the second stage involves the use retina which has no
effect and use during mental image formation.
Opponent arguments against the existing putative link between visual perception
and mental imagery
In as much as other scholars have shown through experiments and research that there
exists a relationship between visual perception and mental imagery, there is a group of
individuals who argue in the opposite direction. Philosophers such as Wittgenstein in the year
1967, as cited by McGinn, stated that there is sharp phenomenological and a conceptually
distinct distinction between mental imagery and visual perception (Shen & Ma, 2019).
According to them, the contrast comes since there is not ink between the process of imaging and
visual perception. This scholar in his school of thought further explains that it is impossible to
deduce new ideas from mental imagery but can only recreate an image, idea or an experience