The Enigmatic Eidetic Image: A Reply to Gray and Gummerman

Abstract

Gray and Gummerman (1975) contended that eidetic imagery differs from visual-memory imagery only in quantitative aspects. There is evidence to controvert that argument and to support a theory of eidetic imagery as a qualitatively distinct phenomenon. It is proposed that eidetic imagery plays an essential role in early development and that superimposition methods are adequate for measurement of eidetic imagery in young children. It is further suggested that eidetic imagery is the precursor of iconic storage. The persistence of eidetic imagery in older children appears to be associated with some but not all forms of brain damage and may be overshadowed by more advanced memory imagery.