Eidetic Image Psychology: A Review of Literature

Abstract

The study critically analyzed the evolution of eidetic image psychology, from its philosophical background to the scientific neuropsychological evidence. Literature reveals that imagery and its significance have been demonstrated by a number of philosophers. From Aristotle to Ludwig Wittgenstein, almost all the leading philosophers acknowledged the significance of imagery in one way or other (i.e., Watson, 1913; Aristotle, 1930; Allport, 1924 etc.). Psychologists studied imagery under the term of ‘Mental Imagery’ and identified its role in learning and memory, and defined it as a process (not as merely a picture) (i.e., Finke, 1989). Mental imagery has been used for various therapeutic purposes; several approaches to mental imagery were critically analyzed and recommendations were offered for future inquiry. The strong relation between affective-somatic processes and imagery was emphasized. Reviewing its vividness, sensory and somatic components, many researchers began to study imagery under the name of ‘Eidetic Imagery’, in the realm of psychology. Ahsen (1965, 1968, 1977a, 1984) compiled and extended their work more scientifically and established eidetic imagery as an independent school of psychology with a well-formulated set of principles about the function and structure of the image and the state of consciousness. Ahsen’s theory of eidetic imagery and its ISM model has been proved by the modern literature, in neuropsychological perspective (i.e., Gains et al., 2004; Slotnick et al., 2005; Patel et al., 2007; Ganis & Schendan, 2008; Holmes & Mathews, 2010; Ji et al., 2017).