Talk:Aphantasia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 25 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SBakion (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Scouterson, Ninitasporseen.

Hypothesized!?

It's not hypothetical for me. I didn't know other people could do this thing - projecting pictures on the back of their eyelids - until I was in my forties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.sullivan (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Mark.sullivan, first be sure to sign your posts with the four tildes, and if a section doesn't exist on a talk page, create one before adding a note. I've moved your comment into a section for you.

In addition, this is not really the place for general talking about a subject, but for discussion of the adaptation of the page. There are groups online, where people are discussing aphantasia - a FB group I was in, that was originally identified by the term non-imager, has changed its name to include the new term aphantasia. So a search should help you find it. You're not alone in discovering it late in life either - if you spend your life thinking people are just being metaphorical, when they say "picture it in your mind," there's no way to be conscious that your mind works differently. It's part of the Unknown Unknown principle.

Also, they aren't projecting images onto the back of their eyelids. It's not a physical process, it's a mental one. They have an ability to simply see an image mentally, on demand as it were. I know because while I have been a complete non-imager my entire life, I had one single instance of seeing a full mental image, a few years ago. It's definitely an 'eye opening' experience, and one that makes it even more frustrating to be aware of having acute aphantasia.

But if you're really interested in discussing more about aphantasia, I would recommend finding a group online discussing it - I'm sure the group I'm in, is not the only one who has included this new term in their group information, to make it searchable by others. Many people who have been begging for real clinical research into this issue for years, are very excited right now, to see mainstream media attention focusing on aphantasia. CleverTitania (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Mark,

Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia has different rules for describing phenomena than other venues; a medical phenomenon like this has to defined in terms of the scientific consensus, regardless of any one person's experiences; and as it's a relatively newly-researched phenomenon there is no such consensus to talk about just yet, hence the adjective "hypothesized". As the body of research develops and the phenomenon's existence is verified using all the usual means we may yet remove this term. François Robere (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a reliable paper which describes the phenomenon. That's enough to remove the "hypothesized." Sure, there's plenty more to learn, but we don't need to wait to know everything to call it real. What does it mean to "rely on consensus?" IMHO, provided that there are reliable sources who say something and no reliable sources which contradict it, we can state it as fact. If RS's disagree, then we need to start treading carefully. Ma^t_chups 21:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

So I went to remove it from the article and saw a comment, "Regarding "hypothesized": Not being unsympathetic to aphantasiacs, acknowledging a new neurological disorder requires meetings a certain burden of proof. Barring significant new sources supportive of such acknowledgement - eg. a systematic review, ICD revision or publication by a professional neurological association - the current wording should be kept." Can someone cite policy in support of that? Of course a doctor might not be able to bill for treatment without that level of approval, but I don't believe we need it. I will make this change in a week if there is no policy citation.Ma^t_chups 21:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:RSMED François Robere (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I read that policy and still disagree with your conclusion. I've posted a query at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Aphantasia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchups (talk • contribs)

The cited source, a BBC article, is far short of meeting wp:MEDRS. If there's something that does, please cite it. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Just some random thoughts. Our options aren't limited to "hypothesized" or nothing, there are other words that may be more relevant such as "purported", "reported", "proposed", etc. Why "neurological" and not "cognitive" or "psychological" or just calling it an unqualified "condition"? What exactly is Aphantasia, is it a lack of ability to visualize mental imagery in otherwise normal people, thus excluding the congenitally blind, those suffering from visual agnosia, and those who have lost such an ability following traumatic injury (such as this case in 1954)? Is it a total loss of mental visualization, because impairments in visualizing mental imagery have been discussed in a variety of contexts, for an extensive bibliography on biological, psychological, and philosophical papers concerning mental imagery see here. Lastly, @Mark.sullivan: can you draw things from memory, and if so do you do this without imagining what they look like in your head? M. A. Bruhn (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

After waking up and perusing the literature I believe that 'aphantasia' is a new term for an old concept long recognized in the literature, that this article should be based on the concept rather than the word to avoid WP:NOTNEO, that the article name should remain 'aphantasia' in compliance with WP:COMMONNAME, that 'neuropsychological' is more appropriate and in-line with the authors who proposed it than 'neurological', and that until the literature adopts usage of the term 'aphantasia' it should be described as a term proposed to refer to the condition rather than as the condition itself. Since the article is currently only a few lines long I will go ahead and write up a more comprehensive article with a greater bibliography that should support and address all of this. I will propose the new text on this talkpage in a new section before changing the article. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

M. A. Bruhn Regarding qualifiers: Something along the lines of "purported" or "suggested" would've been fine, but I chose "hypothesized" as it seems more accurate in this context - the authors suggest a medical condition of a neurological origin. Either way it's indeed one of the reasons some such qualifier has to be in place - the lack of a verified mechanism or aetiology for the suggested condition.

As for the rest: I'll be following the page to see what you have. Don't let it keep you awake! François Robere (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

In the paper where they propose the term, they don't appear to be attempting to suggest a condition so much as try to give a name to it. Here are some relevant lines:

• This phenomenon has received little attention since, though Faw reported that 2.1-2.7% of 2,500 participants ‘claim no visual imagination’ (Faw, 2009).
• Clinical reports suggest the existence of two major types of neurogenic visual imagery impairment: i) visual memory disorders, causing both visual agnosia and imagery loss, and ii) ‘imagery generation’ deficits selectively disabling imagery (Farah, 1984).
• In 2010 we reported a particularly ‘pure’ case of imagery generation disorder, in a 65 year old man who became unable to summon images to the mind’s eye after coronary angioplasty (Zeman et al., 2010).
• Here we describe the features of their condition, elicited by a questionnaire, and suggest a name – aphantasia - for this poorly recognised phenomenon.
• We propose the use of the term ‘aphantasia’ to refer to a condition of reduced or absent voluntary imagery. Terms used previously in related contexts include ‘defective revisualisation’ (Botez, Olivier, Vezina , Botez, & Kaufman, 1985) and ‘visual irreminiscence’ (Nielsen, 1946).

It doesn't escape me that they describe this phenomenon as "poorly recognised". Anyways, I think it would be most convenient if I first try to summarize the literature, for out of that a clearer picture of what wording should be used will emerge. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that "hypothesized" should be removed. Why? Well, because there is no actual doubt that this happens to a fraction of people, including people who have had traumatic brain injuries or strokes. "This happens in the real world" and "the paperwork process for this has been completed, and now we have an ICD-10 code for what everyone already knows to be a real-world phenomenon" are separate considerations. Wikipedia should focus more on the first than the second. This isn't The Encyclopedia of Official Scientific Agreement. Unless we have sources claiming that this thing never happens in the real world, then we should not use any sort of weasel words about it, especially including:

• "purported", meaning "we think these patients are telling lies when they say that they can't do this"
• "hypothesized", meaning "we're not sure if this condition exists in the real world"

Wikipedia does not need a verified etiology or mechanism. It would not have been necessary to first discover HIV and only then write about AIDS (or to fill the article with weasel words about how all these people dying was only a theoretical and unproven concept rather than a real condition). It is similarly not necessary to first discover the cause(s) of this condition and only then write an article about it. There is no doubt in the literature that this happens. It's therefore not merely "purported" or "hypothosized" to be happening.

It's possible that suggested or proposed could be used to describe a particular set of diagnostic criteria, if any have been proposed, but it doesn't make sense to use these words to describe the phenomenon itself. (Possible: "Alice Expert suggested that patients be diagnosed with this when they meet three of these five criteria"; very confusing: "This is a suggested medical condition". Because, you know, suggested also means recommended, and nobody recommends developing this inability to their friends.)

I'll set up redirects from some of those the alternate names in a moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there? repressed memories seemed widely-accepted outside professional circles for several decades now, as has multiple personality disorder, and we're still recovering from the MMR fraud, which had a half-life of at least three years. It's simply not Wikipedia's role to define such things, and we should wait for scientific consensus to at least begin to form.

Regarding aetiology: You're missing the point. This condition, at the moment, has very little in terms of scientific knowledge, aetiology being part of that. The parallel regarding HIV would be pre-1981 knowledge, when it was still called (when it was called) "gay cancer".

I suggest waiting on M. A. Bruhn's revision and continuing the discussion later. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

PS One possible wording that, while imperfect, could satisfy everyone's concerns (including Bruhn's future revision) is this: "Aphantasia is the suggested name for a condition... It is reported in medical literature, but research on the subject is scarce." François Robere (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

M. A. Bruhn Week past, do you agree with my above suggestion for (at least an interim) definition? François Robere (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Very sorry. Yes I agree with the above, as well as with WhatamIdoing. The condition is accepted, although the term itself hasn't been taken up by the medical literature (although it has been embraced by the public). M. A. Bruhn (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I edited the article as per the above. Take your time. François Robere (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Are there "[a]phantasia" skeptics, or everbody is buying it?

From what I've been reading, there are longstanding debates on the phenomenal nature of "imagination", "mental imagery", with some solid arguments along the lines that "visual imagination" isn't this self-induced-hallucination that the "aphantasia" concept implies, but rather just something more abstract, non-pictorial. The "non-aphantasious" visualization may well be some sort of self-delusion stemming from the wording of folk psychology, not unlike people genuinely thinking they have ESP (like feeling someone was looking at them from behind their backs), just not that esoteric. That is, they're not really paying attention to their "field of visual qualia", which is, on wakefulness, still 100% generated by optic input, but actually "minding" abstract concepts related with visuals, also present when actually seeing things. Kind of thinking of "sadness" without feeling sad, or even thinking abstractly of something like "height". A possible line of skepticism is described by Dennett:

Finally, Dennett (1969) presents two examples that seem to cause trouble for pictorialism and provide support for descriptionalism. The first example involves a striped tiger. (See also Armstrong 1968 for a related example involving a speckled hen.) Form a mental image of a tiger and then try to answer the following question: How many stripes does that tiger have? Invariably, the question cannot be answered; the mental images that we form typically do not contain that information. However, just as all tigers have a definite number of stripes, so too do all pictures of tigers. Thus, if mental images were pictorial, a mental image of a tiger should reveal a definite number of stripes. More formally, the objection to pictorialism that the striped tiger example poses can be stated as follows:

Mental images can be indeterminate with respect to visual properties (e.g., the number of stripes on a tiger). Pictorial representations cannot be indeterminate with respect to visual properties. So, mental images are not pictorial representations.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/imagery

It has some eerie resemblance with the "repressed memories" theory, that led many people to freak out about nonexisting traumas. Not that serious, but there are still people thinking they have this "condition" which may very likely be the normal condition - and there's no concrete proof it is not. Any supposedly "aphantasious" person will be able to fool testers into responding "as if" they had the "vivid imagination" other people think they have by virtue of not attending to their actual vision, much like a false memory. The belief in not being aphantasious also perhaps a different, "imaginary", manifestation of Anton–Babinski syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.110.183.57 (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure where Dennett is gaining his assumptions, but I've had many indepth conversations with people about aphantasia, including people who do and do not present any symptoms of it. And most of the non-aphantasiacs would say they absolutely can tell you how many stripes the tiger has. That's basically how guided imagery works in many situations, asking people to describe minute and complex details in what they are envisioning. Before I identified this particular anomaly in myself, I wondered how any could find meditation CD's useful that asked you to imagine a house, down to the foundations, the materials, the shape and size of the roof shingles, the number of panes on windows, etc. Because just making that crap in my head doesn't do anything for my mental focus or emotional state.

To me this argument is like saying that because someone with prosopagnosia could memorize facts about a person's face, and then recite those facts when asked (like nose shape, presence or number of freckles/moles, eye color, etc.), pretending they don't have it, that suggests everyone experiences face blindness they just don't know it and no one has prosopagnosia. But there are too many documented cases of extreme prosopagnosia to make that argument valid. We are well aware that it's a spectrum condition, like most neurological anomalies, but the way some people can draw things perfectly from memory definitely tells us that they have more visual acuity with memory than someone like myself has.

You can't have 'skeptics' about a condition that hasn't been fully recognized or defined yet. There may be people who think that having a fully active and functional "mind's eye" is a myth, but that doesn't equal aphantasia as non-existent. I have had one single moment of full visualization in my head. I saw a perfect image that I was able to recall later in exact detail, even though I could no longer see it pictorially. I can tell you that experience was a billion miles away from my normal experiences of accessing 'visual memory', while either awake or asleep. It was like going from being physically blind to suddenly having perfect vision. I'll grant you that's anecdotal information, but it's enough to tell me Dennett's argument is utter bunk. We need neural imaging scans to determine the true nature of aphantasia, to confirm its existence empirically, but that's simply a matter of time and funding not wildly speculative arguments about stripes and spots. Without observing neurological function and comparing it to perception , Dennett's theory is no more valid than Zeman's. CleverTitania (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of concrete critiques of the concept (Dennett included). If there are, they can certainly be added to the article, subject to WP:NOR and WP:SOURCES. In the meanwhile, do keep in mind WP:FORUM. François Robere (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the statement. The skepticism is not specifically about aphantasia, but really about "phantasia". I'm "aphantasic", but I believe "phantasia" is BS, as all the evidence suggests. My argument is that, as far as I know, there's no evidence that people's "imagination", "visualization", or "mental imagery" is really a form of phenomenal experience of voluntary visual hallucination, which is how it's often described, even though it's rarely worded that objectively. And there lies the wiggle room for confusion with real normal abilities to conjure detailed abstract physical-visual descriptions of things (or an impairment in such abilities), to a level comparable to that when people really phenomenally see things, nevertheless without voluntary hallucinatory subjective phenomenal visual experience. Without this hypothetical ability to insert perfect voluntary "brain-CGI effects" in real perceptual experience. If people really had this ability, there would be no use for pornography, which is quite a large market, much more than one would expect from the rarity of "aphantasia". The same goes for much of visual entertainment forms, just books would generate the best special effects one could ever have had, specially on early days of special effects. But it continues with stuff like "augmented reality" and so forth, things that, if "phantasia" is true, are just giving aphantasic people a very limited compensation to what most people normally have. 3D design and illustration would also be a rather trivial abilities everyone would have, you just need to "trace" the voluntary hallucination you can have, everyone with enough hand coordination to write can trace a photo.

Even though I'm "aphantasic", I can draw 3D shapes/objects, and rotate them better than most people who "are not aphantasic". And while I'm doing it I'm never "hallucinating" the things I can easily draw, the things I can "visualize" (not voluntarily hallucinate) with more ease than supposed "non-aphantasics". Perhaps it would be a valid analogy that normal "visualization" must be then somewhat like blindsight. When blind people still have functioning eyes and part of the brain pathways related to vision, but the neuronal "roads" are blocked before the information reaches the part responsible for phenomenal visual experience. That allows them to correctly point to the placement of a dot in a canvas, or tell the people's facial expressions, even though don't really see anything, they rather just somehow "know" some visual information as if we're told it with an earpiece while blindfolded.

It's just not surprising that some people would be able to tell "how many stripes the tiger has", even without having the real phenomenal experience of volluntary hallucination and literally counting the stripes. That's just like confabulation. It's in a way like change blindness happening without phenomenal vision itself. Apparently the "brain CGI inserts into visual experience" is only kind of known to sort of happen during hypnosis (which is not totally voluntary, but a guided process), and maybe in eidetic memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.102.136.202 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:FORUM François Robere (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"Claiming to have had a lifelong inability to visualize"?

Under the heading "History", it states "...Zeman was approached by a number of people claiming to have had a lifelong inability to visualise" (emphasis mine). The term "claiming" is pejorative; it implies the possibility that the person making the assertion may not be trustworthy. Would an article on say, headaches, say that people are "claiming to have headaches"? Of course not. There are a host of other terms that are neutral which could be used instead of "claiming": "stating", "saying", "describing", etc. One of them should be substituted for "claiming", or the sentence rewritten to remove the burden of impossible proof. Bricology (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM. Done. Changed to "stating to have had." ~Mable (chat) 20:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Are there any reports, scientific or anecdotal, of people who were cured from aPhantasia?

• As there are not yet much scientific studies, any anecdotal reports would help.

I know they can not be included in main wikipedia article, but is there a website or a book where I can find anecdotal reports? Any such cases in PubMed?

• Why Steve Jobs liked to use LSD when he was young and why he kept telling it was one of the most important things he did in his life? Did it help for aphantasia or for something else?

--91.155.23.138 (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• I recommend asking about this on forums, Reddit, or perhaps on a Discord server. There are various aphantasia communities where you can talk about this kind of stuff. I can't really answer any of these questions myself and in my experience, anecdotes vary wildly and rarely match research. There is no known "cure". Regardless, this isn't really the place to discuss how to deal with having aphantasia per WP:Forum. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Coined in 2015?

Does this mean it was "invented" in 2015, or just popularized? Because I remember hearing the word in 90s song, though I can't precisely remember the title or the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.97.86.231 (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The term "aphantasia" to refer to a specific medical phenomenon was first used in this manner in 2015. Earlier uses of the term likely referred to slightly different things, such as a lack of creativity. With the word "coined", we imply that the term was connected to a specific definition in 2015. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Catmull not an animator

In History there's a claim that several Pixar animators have Aphantasia including Ed Catmull but he's not an animator but a computer scientist / former president of Pixar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmips (talk • contribs) 07:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Noted and corrected. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Psychology

In addition to the above wikiprojects, would this not be of interest to WikiProject Psychology? Vorbee (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! This does pertain to cognitive psychology; I'll add the project. François Robere (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Psychopathology addition to Assessment section

The following sentence was added to the Assessment section fairly recently, "Reports of aphantasia may have a psychogenic, rather than organic (physical), origin, and it has been suggested that the future studies should incorporate psychopathological evaluation."

But wouldn't both of the sources used to justify this addition be considered "original research?" I read the full text on one, and a long abstract on another, and they are interesting work that arguably do belong here. But they are both speculative responses to Zeman's published studies, without any study data to support their suggestions of a possibly psychopathological element to some cases of aphantasia. To me, that doesn't feel like it's encyclopedic information, yet. If someone has secondary sources, that would obviously reconcile the issue.

Though I do think that, if the sentence remains, it should say, "Some reports of aphantasia may have...." Because I think the current wording implies that there is speculation that it's an entirely psychological phenomenon, and neither source seems to be suggesting that, or even that there are individual cases where it's entirely psychological; instead they are suggesting that in some reported cases there may be a combination of both neurological and psychological causes. CleverTitania (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

​This isn't original research by Wikipedia's definition, but I agree that it was misleading. I've rewritten that sentence. Dan Bloch (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

​ I'm a dolt. I didn't mean original research, I meant primary sources - and how they shouldn't be used except in certain circumstances. But I am quite certain you would've mentioned that as an issue in your response, if it had been an applicable guideline. Thanks for following-up. Overall I'm fairly well versed on sources, but there are gaps in my knowledge. And your rewrite makes the text more reflective of the sources' conclusions while also flowing better within the article. Nice job. CleverTitania (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Article biased to visual sensations

Aphantasia encompasses all senses, i.e. sense memory of sounds, smells, tastes, whereas this article strongly suggests it's only concerned with visual mental images.--184.20.10.253 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not really true. Aphantasia is visual. The title of Zeman's founding article was "Lives without imagery", and he consistently uses the terms "visual imagery" and "mind's eye", as do all the other sources I'm familiar with. If you have sources that differ, by all means cite them. It's true that people with aphantasia often report an inability to recall sounds, smells, etc. (they also often report face blindness), and if this is the point you're making then yes, this absolutely merits discussion. But the condition is defined in terms of visual memory. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added this. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's simply misleading to readers, giving them the wrong impressions (there are already so many wrong impressions of what this condition is like since most can't imagine it for themselves.) The new science may restrict itself to visual pictures but any talk with aphantasiacs and regular people alike will show it's a spectrum of severity and on all senses (it's the same for everybody) and if a "phantasia" is a sensual experience it necessarily includes all senses. You would need to qualify it as "visual aphantasia" to clarify what you mean if your intention is exclude the other senses. Also the word "feeling" is ambiguous, do you mean touch or emotion? I don't know if emotion is a "sense" and aphantasia is really best understood as the absence or dullness of "internal senses" as opposed to external senses. (I am a complete aphantasic myself. I could speculate that there is distinction between if the mind is generating stimuli or if it is not processing/receiving stimulation. Dullness of senses suggests the latter, where complete absence might indicate the former. For myself I don't experience anything that is like distracting thoughts or sensations other than what's happening in the real world in front of me or to me.) --184.20.10.253 (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the use of the word "feeling". As for the rest, I stand by what I (and CleverTitania) said. At this point in time (it may change in the future) the defining element of aphantasia is visual. If you can show me sources that say otherwise, then we can talk. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not biased, because what your stating isn't yet fact, but a logical assumption. Granted, it's one that I agree with, but that's irrelevant - because my agreement is as much an assumption as yours is. The term aphantasia was coined by Zeman to describe a very specific condition, in a specific group of people without the ability to deliberately visualize images in their minds. Technically, the term doesn't even cover anyone who cannot visualize when awake or asleep, as the original study participants were able to visualize in dreams. When the term made public traction, those of us who had been personally studying and discussing the various 'types of aphantasia' (understandably) latched onto the term. But the science has barely proved that aphantasia is a genuine phenomenon, much less that it has variances and versions.

Yes, based on the anecdotal information to date, combined with the research that is being done now (by Zeman and others) either the definition of aphantasia will ultimately need to be expanded to include all sensory information - and to include the spectrums of those who can't visualize in any situations, those whose visualizations exist but are hazy, and the distinction between people who conceptualize their aphantasia as a blank screen beside those who don't even feel there is a blank, dark or empty space within a visual register they possess - or another term will need to be implemented to cover the larger condition that goes beyond visual information. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the non-primary sources don't yet exist to back up the variances many of us believe exist. Until those sources exist, it should reflect only what (primary and reliable) sources do exist. Speculation and further anecdotal evidence are for the forums, websites and social media groups, not Wikipedia. CleverTitania (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

My concern is people reading this will come away with a wrong idea of what the subject is. If it's about visual stimulation, it should say "visual aphantasia" or the name would be "asightasia" or something like that. The article is biased. Note that the "mind's eye" is clearly not limited to vision... it covers all senses. The use of "eye" is just poetics.--184.20.10.253 (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but our sourcing policies (WP:RS and WP:RSMED) pertain to terminology as well, so we shouldn't introduce new terminology that wasn't published in eg. journal articles. François Robere (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I, as someone with aphantasia and in the aphantasia community, can confirm that aphantasia can (and usually does) apply to all senses. I hope ya'll can find sources covering that, as it would be very nice if we could include that information in this article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Quantifiable Information

I too agree that with the various studies conducted, why are there are no published results in the Wikipedia article? Given the notoriety, some measurable or quantifiable additions should be made.

Adding something to the article like this, for example, "This phenomenon has received little attention since, though Faw reported that 2.1-2.7% of 2,500 participants ‘claim no visual imagination’"

Faw, Bill (2009). "Conflicting Intuitions May Be Based on Differing Abilities: Evidence From Mental Imaging Research". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 16 (4): 45–68.

I, also have aphantasia and knowing the ratio of those that have it, is to the benefit of those that think they may have it. SBakion (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Things we should search for sources on.

Just to kick around some things that this article could explain (if we can find references).

So earlier today, I hit on some click-bait random YouTube video - "The man who can't visualize things" (or something like that). I was curious - so I watched - and (long story short) I just discovered that I have aphantasia. But the tests that are offered online are useless. They say things like "imagine an apple"...OK...so I'm imagining an apple. Then "What color is it?" - well, I can imagine a red apple or a green apple or a yellow apple - so I'll just imagine that it's green. But I'm not *SEEING* the apple. Not literally like I'm looking at it. All I see is blackness. But the necessary consequences of imagination are no problem for me. I work in the field of 3D computer graphics - and being able to mentally visualize a problem like "What shapes could be formed from the intersection of a cube and a sphere?" are easy for me...although I'm not SEEING a picture, I am aware of the shapes involved at some non-visual level.

So this isn't an easy thing to diagnose. But chatting with my wife (who evidently is not an aphantasiac), it's very clear that she is literally SEEING the things she imagines. One example was "Imagine a tiger"...and then "Count how many stripes it has." - that's something that she can do - but I don't have a picture to refer to...I could intellectually try to guess a reasonable number of stripes - but I can't count them.

So much is left to be done with effective diagnosis.

Then there are related symptoms that are eerily accurate for me:

• Aphasiacs have less vivid dreams (Yep!)
• Aphasiacs have poor biographical memories (Yep!)
• Aphasiacs aren't bothered by horror stories (Yep!) [1]
• There is weak evidence that aphasiacs have stronger than average mathematical, logical and verbal skills (Yep!)

...this is very creepy!

It's never going to be a simple thing to sort out though.

The weirdest thing could be that people who don't have the condition cannot conceive how I can imagine something WITHOUT seeing it - and I confess that now I think about it, it is hard to explain.

One line of thinking is that aphasiacs *do* make mental images at some subconscious level - but don't have the ability to access them from conscious thought...which seems entirely plausible to me.

Tracking down the reliable sources for all of this will take work - so I'm not expecting the article to incorporate much of it yet...and many of the studies were carried out in 2020 and 2021...so published papers are likely to be few in number. SteveBaker (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)