ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
Defining imagination: a conceptual mapping and provisional model.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Imagination is a central feature of human thought, yet it remains poorly defined and inconsistently conceptualized across disciplines, limiting cumulative progress in research. This paper proposes a provisional conceptual model of imagination aimed at organizing existing terminology and clarifying imagination's structure and role in human cognition. Methods: Using a conceptual review approach, the authors synthesize literature from psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, and related fields, focusing on work that defines, measures, or models imagination. Sources were analyzed to identify recurring components and theoretical perspectives, which were then organized through an iterative process of comparison and integration. Results: The review identifies 60 dimensions of imagination (in addition to eight forms of applied imagination), organizing these literature-derived terms into three overarching domains: cognitive-narrative, sensory-motor, and social-emotional. Building on these domains, the paper advances a conceptual model in which imagination is defined as the capacity to simulate, reconfigure, and extend beyond reality. The model further proposes that imagination operates across varying levels of awareness and interacts dynamically with attention. Discussion: This work positions imagination as an integrated, multifaceted process that is deeply embedded in other core mental functions, including memory, planning, and social understanding, rather than as a separate faculty. By offering a framework and clarifying its underlying structure, this conceptual map provides a foundation for future empirical research and highlights the broad significance of imagination in shaping human experience and behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.