The role of imagery abilities in children and young people in school learning

BACKGROUND: Mental imagery is the simulation of sensory experiences in the absence of external sensory input (Kosslyn, Ganis, & Thompson, 2001). Mental imagery abilities vary largely between individuals with some individuals reporting absent imagery abilities (e.g. aphantasia). Furthermore, mental imagery abilities can differ intraindividually between sensory modalities. It remains unclear, if and to which extent mental imagery abilities of children influence their learning and performance in school. In this systematic review, we investigate the role of individual mental imagery abilities of children and young people in school learning and its impact on performance in school across sensory modalites and learning domains. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the available empirical evidence on how children's individual imagery abilities are related to school performance? METHODS: We conduct a preregistered systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. We search PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, ERIC, arXiv, and PsyArXiv from database inception to the date of preregistration. Search strings combine terms for imagery (e.g., imagery, aphantasia, inner speech, visuospatial, mental rotation) with academic outcomes (e.g., mathematics, reading, writing, literacy, numerical cognition) and population terms (e.g., child*, adolesc*, primary/secondary school). We perform backward and forward citation searches. Eligible records examine associations between individual imagery abilities (any sensory modality) and school-related performance in children or adolescents; use quantitative or qualitative designs; and are published in English, German, Spanish, or French before preregistration. We include peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, preprints, theses, dissertations, and reviews. We exclude conference abstracts and non-scholarly sources. We deduplicate records in R and screen them in Rayyan. One reviewer screens titles and abstracts, consulting a second reviewer when eligibility is unclear; ≥2 reviewers independently assess full texts. We resolve disagreements through discussion or third-party adjudication. Two reviewers independently extract study characteristics (authors, year, sample size, age), imagery measures (modality, assessment), academic outcomes (domain, task), design features, and effect estimates (e.g., correlations, regression coefficients). We synthesize findings narratively using structured tables and figures. Data and analytic code are shared via OSF.