On the importance of consistent terminology for describing sensory imagery and its absence: A response to Monzel et al. (2022)
Lambert and SibleyJune 2022
Our summary in plain words
What This Study Is About
This paper discusses the best way to name the experience of living without a "mind's eye" or a "mind's ear." It argues that we should use distinct terms for a lack of visual imagery (aphantasia) and a lack of auditory imagery (anauralia) because these two experiences do not always happen together.
How They Studied It
The researchers analyzed preliminary data from a massive survey of nearly 15,000 people in New Zealand. Participants answered questions about their mental imagery—the ability to "see" pictures or "hear" sounds in their minds. The researchers looked for "dissociations," which are cases where a person lacks one type of mental sense (like sight) but has a perfectly functioning version of another (like sound).
What They Found
The study found that about 1% of participants had aphantasia, while about 0.8% had anauralia. Most importantly, the data showed that these two conditions are often independent. About 7% of people with aphantasia reported that they could hear internal sounds and music as vividly as if they were actually listening to them. Conversely, about 6.5% of people who could not hear sounds in their minds reported being able to see mental images with perfect clarity.
What This Might Mean
These findings suggest that the brain uses different "hardware" to create mental pictures than it does to create mental sounds. Because a person can be "blind" in their mind while having excellent mental "hearing," the researchers argue that using one umbrella term for all types of imagery loss is misleading. Using specific names like aphantasia and anauralia helps scientists better understand how different parts of the human imagination work.
One Interesting Detail
The authors argue that calling a lack of mental hearing "auditory aphantasia" is as confusing and illogical as calling deafness "auditory blindness."
This summary was written with AI and may contain errors. Check the original paper.
Authors
Anthony J. Lambert
4 papers in the libraryChris G. Sibley
2 papers in the library
Cite this paper
Lambert, A. J., & Sibley, C. G. (2022). On the importance of consistent terminology for describing sensory imagery and its absence: a response to monzel et al. (2022). Cortex, 152, 153–156. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2022.03.012
Topics
Most-cited researchers
Recruit participants for your study
We can help you reach people across the imagery spectrum, from aphantasia to hyperphantasia.
Partner with usImage-Free Insights
A short note from our founder, Tom Ebeyer, every other week, plus occasional news and invitations to take part in studies. Change what you get from any email.