Projected imagery and field mapping

Prophantasia

Prophantasia maps projected mental imagery: reports in which internally generated visual content is experienced as world-placed, environment-overlaid, or spatially present rather than only in the mind's eye. The project keeps academic imagery research, public self-testing platforms, and community practice vocabularies in separate lanes so the field can be read without cure rhetoric.

Direction

Field map

The stable center is imagery variation: aphantasia, hyperphantasia, multisensory imagery, prevalence sensitivity, object-spatial differences, and converging measures such as binocular-rivalry priming, pupillary response, drawing tasks, and neuroimaging.

The unsettled edge is projected imagery. Prophantasia and imposition appear in community vocabularies for images or presences experienced as externally placed. That makes them useful research targets, but not settled clinical categories or validated training outcomes.

The working map splits claims along several axes: vividness, sensory modality, controllability, location, voluntariness, practice history, individual strategy, and source type. A lab result, a self-report scale, a public test, and a forum guide all enter the map differently.

Current work

  • Imagery variation, aphantasia, hyperphantasia, and multimodal imagery profiles
  • Measurement limits across VVIQ, binocular rivalry, pupillometry, drawing, and behavioral tasks
  • Projected imagery, prophantasia, and tulpamancy imposition as boundary cases
  • Induced vision through ganzfeld, ganzflicker, and stroboscopic visual phenomena
  • Public platforms, self-tests, and community practice archives treated as source ecology

Connected projects

Boundary

Claim discipline

The page treats prophantasia as a research problem and practice vocabulary, not as a proven intervention. Community guides can document methods, terms, and self-experimentation cultures. They cannot establish efficacy, safety, or generalizable change.

Tulpamancy is a partial comparator, not a synonym. Its visualization and imposition wing overlaps with projected imagery, while other tulpamancy practice can be dialogic, social, identity-based, nonvisual, or centered on presence rather than image strength.

Aphantasia is also kept out of simple deficit language. The field includes individual differences, adaptive strategies, neurodiversity arguments, measurement disagreement, and people who do not want change framed as repair.

Public focus

  • Field definitions before training claims
  • Multidimensional imagery profiles rather than one vividness score
  • Community sources marked as practice ecology, not validation evidence
  • Projected imagery separated from hallucination, tulpamancy, and general vividness

References

Current references

These are the main anchors for the public field map. Academic sources define the evidence base; platform and community sources document real-world terminology, testing, and practice ecology.

Field definitions and measurement

Profiles, mechanisms, and induced vision

Platforms, imposition, and practice ecology