[auggierose]

The woman in the article describes that she has no problem identifying faces she has seen before, in fact, she is better at that than average. It is just that she doesn't see these faces as a picture in her head.

So clearly, there is some encoding process going on here, and the comparison is done on the basis of this encoding. This can be much more efficient than comparing the actual thing. Think of it has taking the hash of a picture, and performing comparisons using the hash, not the picture itself.

[listenallyall]

It sounds like people simply have different definitions of "a picture in her head." Her mental processing sounds entirely normal on all counts.

I guess I must have the condition. I closed my eyes and tried to see a red apple, which the article uses as the diagnostic test. Nope, all I saw was black. Could I think of what a red apple looks like? Of course. If the test is to actually, truly see an apple while your eyes are closed, my guess is everyone would fail.

[ownagefool]

I suspect the 3.9% estimation is wildly inaccurate but that the condition / spectrum is true.

In the 1-5 guide, I'd probabably rate myself a 99 or something silly. I feel like the equipment is capable of visualising, but I just don't know how to operate it.

However, I do have involuntary visualizations. My dreams are images, very unlike thought. And in the last 5 or so years I can recall 2 occasions where I was in a relaxed state and pictured things without really trying, so I know it's possible to have dream like images when awake.

My wife says she can just perfect recall stuff. I entirly believe she can visualise, but I believe she confuses what happened with what she can see. She also states she can visualise the apple, or pretty much anything else she wants.

[navjack27]

Don't close your eyes. Just picture it in your head. It has nothing to do with invoking closed eye visualization.