Aphantasia, dysikonesia, anauralia: call for a single term for the lack of mental imagery–Commentary on Dance et al. (2021) and Hinwar and Lambert (2021)
Monzel, M., Mitchell, D., Macpherson, F., Pearson, J., & Zeman, A. (2022). Aphantasia, dysikonesia, anauralia: call for a single term for the lack of mental imagery–commentary on dance et al. (2021) and hinwar and lambert (2021). Cortex, 150, 149–152. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2022.02.002
Abstract
Recently, the term ‘aphantasia’ has become current in scientific and public discourse to denote the absence of mental imagery. However, new terms for aphantasia or its subgroups have recently been proposed, e.g., ‘dysikonesia’ or ‘anauralia’, which complicates the literature, research communication and understanding for the general public. Before further terms emerge, we advocate the consistent use of the term ‘aphantasia’ as it can be used flexibly and precisely, and is already widely known in the scientific community and among the general public.
Authors
- Merlin Monzel23
- David Mitchell2
- Fiona Macpherson4
- Joel Pearson28
- Adam Zeman14
Understanding Aphantasia: A Call for Consistent Terminology
Overview/Introduction
Aphantasia is a term that has gained traction in both scientific circles and the general public to describe the absence of mental imagery. This means that people with aphantasia cannot visualize images in their mind. Recently, there has been a proliferation of new terms like ‘dysikonesia’ and ‘anauralia’ to describe specific subtypes of aphantasia, which has led to confusion. This paper argues for the consistent use of the term ‘aphantasia’ to maintain clarity and ease of communication.
Methodology
The authors conducted a thorough review of existing literature and terminology related to mental imagery and its absence. They analyzed how different terms are used and the implications of introducing new terminology. The goal was to assess the impact of these terms on research communication and public understanding.
Key Findings
- Aphantasia is widely recognized: The term is already well-known among scientists and the public, making it a convenient and effective term for communication.
- Flexibility of the term: Aphantasia can be modified to specify different types of imagery absence, such as ‘visual aphantasia’ or ‘auditory aphantasia’, similar to how ‘hallucination’ is used with qualifiers like visual or auditory.
- Complications with new terms: Introducing new terms like ‘dysikonesia’ or ‘anauralia’ complicates the discourse and can hinder understanding and research collaboration.
Implications
- Unified Communication: By sticking to the term ‘aphantasia’, researchers and the public can communicate more effectively, facilitating better collaboration and understanding.
- Research Efficiency: A single term helps streamline research efforts and prevents fragmentation in the study of mental imagery.
- Public Awareness: Consistent terminology aids in raising awareness and understanding among the general public, making it easier for individuals to relate to and discuss their experiences.
Limitations
While the paper strongly advocates for a single term, it acknowledges that some researchers may prefer more specific terminology to describe different aspects of mental imagery absence. However, the authors argue that the benefits of a unified term outweigh these concerns.
In conclusion, the paper calls for the retention of ‘aphantasia’ as the primary term to describe the absence of mental imagery, suggesting that this approach will best serve both the scientific community and the public.