What This Study Is About
This paper discusses the best way to name the experience of having no mental imagery. While "aphantasia" is the most common term for a lack of visual imagery (the "mind's eye"), researchers are debating whether that same word should be used for other senses—like a lack of mental "hearing" or "smell"—or if a new, broader term like "dysikonesia" should be used instead.
How They Studied It
This was a theoretical discussion paper rather than an experiment with new participants. The authors reviewed the history of how aphantasia has been defined in scientific literature and compared it to how other conditions, like synesthesia (where senses blend together), were named in the past. They also looked at the linguistic roots of the words to see which ones make the most sense for both scientists and the public.
What They Found
The authors argue that while "aphantasia" is widely recognized, it was originally coined specifically to describe a lack of visual imagery. They suggest that using one word for every type of missing imagery might cause confusion, similar to how early researchers struggled when they used one name for many different types of synesthesia. However, they acknowledge that "aphantasia" is already the popular choice and that language often evolves on its own, regardless of what scientists propose.
What This Might Mean
This discussion suggests that as we learn more about aphantasia, we need to be careful about how we categorize it. If someone has no visual imagery but can still "hear" music in their head, calling them "aphantasic" might be misleading if the term is expanded to mean a total lack of all mental senses. The authors suggest that using specific terms (like "anauralia" for a lack of mental hearing) alongside a broader umbrella term might be the clearest path forward.
One Interesting Detail
One of the authors of this study has aphantasia themselves. They noted that the word "aphantasia" can sometimes be uncomfortable because people often confuse it with a lack of imagination. They clarify that even people with no mental imagery can have very strong, creative imaginations.