Zeman Labs | The Changed Definition of Aphantasia

Beyond Deficits: Unlocking the Uniqueness of Our Mental Perception

• Imagination in English, comes from the Latin imaginatio, which translates the Greek term phantasia. Defined in the 14th century. Before this, we had mystics who understood mind far better than modern science does, listing seven mental senses (clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairsentience, claircognizance, clairtangency, clairgustance and clairaliance) and the daimon. 
• Phantasia in Greek, derived from phainesthai (meaning "to appear" or "to become visible"), refers to mental imagery formed without sensory input.
• Originally, Aphantasia referred specifically to the absence of mental visual imagery.

All the terms mentioned above pertain to types of imagery, focusing solely on one sense: vision. None of these terms encompass mental senses that are not image or vision-based. The full scope of mental sense perception is not detailed in these definitions, what they do is define the subheading that encompasses the mental sense of vision. Which was why the term was adopted in the first place. 

When aphantasia was coined ten years ago, it specifically referred to the absence of mental visual imagery—or “mind blindness.” only. This definition was widely accepted and understood by researchers and the general public alike. But in 2022, new studies identified the absence of other mental senses, such as inner sound or inner voice. By 2024, the scientific community began lumping all these sensory deficits into the umbrella term “aphantasia,” creating confusing subcategories like global, deep, total, and multisensory aphantasia. 

While these terms sound precise, they are actually ambiguous and unhelpful. They fail to distinguish between nuanced mental experiences, leaving people frustrated and confused. For example:

• What’s the difference between global, total, deep and multisensory aphantasia? What is aphantasia today? A lack of what? What have we accurately mapped to show there is a lack? Where is the evidence we have not just had exposure that reveals the different systems of mind? 
• I am a multisensory aphant that is also hyperphantic by current definition. What does that tell you about me? A person that has high mental vision and lacks a couple of other mental senses is also a multisensory aphant and hyperphantic. But we are not the same, not even close. 
• Pretty sure most people might have some form of excess and lack of the main mental senses, so most would be both aphantic and hyperphantic. What does it tell you about us all? Nothing. The language doesn't work. It did, when applied to the subheading it was created for. 

These confusing terms reveal the limitations of the current approach, which views mental perception through the lens of deficiency and imagery, rather than diversity and as senses. The real issue is that science is trying to classify mental experiences without properly understanding this new frontier. It needs to label the topic of mental sense perception first and foremost, then its subheadings and their variations, with language that works and with words that reveal meaning and understanding. 

Mental sense perception requires its own distinct heading, focusing on all senses and all their variations, to ensure accurate understanding. It is a topic in its own right, not merely an extension of conditions experienced only by those with aphantasia (lack of mental vision). As we explore and define each subtopic and its variations—such as aphantasia, hypophantasia, phantasia, and hyperphantasia—they should be systematically organized and listed under this main heading. It is lazy to not give the topic of mental sense perception its own definition and to only study the lack of senses. It literally makes no SENSE. 

The Eight Mental Senses: Mapping Diversity Instead of Deficiency

Rather than forcing people into ambiguous categories, science should adopt a more nuanced and exploratory framework that recognizes the eight key mental senses—each of which can exist at different intensities. These senses are:

1. Emotion (Mental Emotion) 
2. Intuition (Knowing Thoughts) 
3. Sight (Mental Imagery) 
4. Sound (Mental Audition) 
5. Smell (Mental Olfaction) 
6. Taste (Mental Gustation)
7. Touch (Mental Touch) 
8. Voice (Mental Self-Talk) 

Each of these senses can be absent or conceptual, hypoactive, average, or hyperactive—leading to 65,536 possible combinations (AI updated my calculation of 1020, saying that was inaccurate for 4 sets for the 8 groups). No two people will have the same mental profile, and every person’s mind is unique. Forcing individuals into rigid, confusing categories like “total” or “global” aphantasia only obscures this richness. It actually excludes research into what we possess. 

Why Zeman’s Terminology Fails

Zeman’s framework—using terms like global, total, multisensory, and deep aphantasia—is not just confusing but actively unhelpful. The attempt to categorize mental perception using terms like global, total, deep, and multisensory aphantasia is problematic for several reasons:

• Ambiguity: There’s no clear distinction between the term "aphantasia" as the heading and "aphantasia" as the subheading. Nor for terms like global and total—both imply a broad absence of multiple senses, but the differences are not defined.
• Redundancy: Both deep and multisensory aphantasia imply the same thing—missing several senses. Why are two terms needed for the same concept? Are these the same as the above? If so, why do we have four terms for the same thing?
• Exclusion of Partial Profiles: The current framework ignores the possibility of mixed profiles. For example, someone with mental imagery but no inner voice or strong intuition but weak emotional perception doesn’t fit into any of these categories. Is a visualiser (low, regular or hyper) with none of the other seven senses, a; mutisensory aphant, deep aphant, total aphant, global aphant or not aphantic? 
• Reductionist Thinking: This framework treats mental perception as a list of deficits rather than recognizing the strengths and alternative ways of thinking that emerge when certain senses are absent.
• Confusion of Terminology: By grouping all mental sensory deficits under the aphantasia umbrella, the original meaning of aphantasia as the absence of mental vision is lost. The term is now so broadly applied that it no longer provides any clarity for those who specifically experience mind blindness.
• Limitations of the Research: How can hypersensory phenomena—like hyperphantasia (extremely vivid mental imagery) or hyperempathy (heightened mental emotion)—be studied meaningfully under a term that implies “lack of mental vision”?

Zeman's framework does a disservice to individuals by forcing diverse experiences into vague, overlapping categories. Instead of offering insight or support, it obscures the true nature of individual mental perception—and contributes to misunderstanding and misclassification.

A New Framework: Mapping the Frontier of the Mind

Instead of relying on misleading labels like global or total aphantasia, we need to treat mental perception as a frontier—an unexplored territory waiting to be mapped. Each person’s mind is a unique combination of senses operating at different intensities. The goal of science should not be to label deficits, but to explore and document the full diversity of human cognition.

If the scientific community understood the key properly, they would see that mental perception is unique for every individual. With just the eight recognized senses alone, and four possible intensities for each, there are 65,536 unique mental profiles. If we expand to include other senses we haven’t yet discovered—or new dimensions beyond intensity—the variations become infinite.

The point isn’t to label people based on what they lack but to understand the richness of their cognitive experience. Everyone has a different mental profile, and every mind is a map waiting to be charted.

Moving Beyond Aphantasia as a Catch-All Term

It’s time to abandon the misguided practice of using “aphantasia” as an umbrella term for all mental sensory variations. This framework limits understanding and makes it impossible to study phenomena like hyperphantasia or heightened sensory experiences under a term that implies only lack. Mental perception is not binary—it is a dynamic interplay of senses operating at varying intensities.

Key Steps for a New Framework:

1. Explore and Map Individual Minds: Recognize that each person’s mental profile is unique and document the full range of their sensory experiences.
2. Recognize Strengths and Alternatives: When certain senses are absent, other senses or cognitive processes often become stronger. For example, someone without mental imagery may rely more heavily on inner voice or intuition.
3. Create Tools for Visualizing Mental Landscapes: Develop tools to help people understand their own mental profiles, promoting self-awareness and acceptance.
4. Correct Headings and Move Beyond Labels: Stop using terms like “total” or “global aphantasia,” which offer no real insight. Instead, focus on mapping the rich diversity of human cognition. Ensure the headings and subheadings are not named the same, there is absolutely no reason for it, this is new research. Once other sense lacks were identified researchers should have named the entire heading of mental sensory perception, in its own right.  

Conclusion: Embrace the Infinite Potential of the Mind

The future of mental perception research lies not in labeling people based on deficits but in mapping the richness of their mental worlds. Every person’s mind is unique, with 65,536 possible profiles (or more, if we include additional senses or dimensions). Science needs to accurately define the heading and subheadings for these mental phenomena—whether a lack or an excess—under the correct terminology.

The attempt to group all sensory variations under “aphantasia” only limits understanding, reducing complex mental experiences to labels of deficiency. Science must move beyond deficit-based thinking and adopt a frontier mindset—treating the mind as a landscape to be charted, not a list of things to be fixed.

For the Record: I am no authority on the matter. I am an independent researcher and advocate for more clarity in the language and definitions used in mental imagery research. Raising awareness of the need for more research into what those with multisensory aphantasia possess.  

Update 19/10/24: I recognise eight main mental senses—science has identified my lack of some, but it has yet to define the unique senses I possess, which I know from experience. A broader list suggests up to 42 possible mental senses, and there could be more. Similarly, while we often focus on five physical senses, science has defined at least 53, though this is debated.

Of the eight mental senses, I have four (some heightened, some average) and lack the rest. Terms like aphantasia or multisensory aphantasia fail to capture my experience, but the key provided here offers clarity. Researchers in this field must recognise that vague and inconsistent terminology, such as total aphantasia or visual imagery, limits understanding and excludes important perspectives.

It’s time to align science with personal and historical attempts to define these experiences, focusing on precision rather than ambiguity.

Update 21/10/24: Discovered Adam Zeman is a kind and open minded man, he has appeased my frustrations by very graciously agreeing to give up his time to discuss this with me further in a meeting arranged for later this year, so watch this space!

Update 08/12/24: Updated Thesis on ResearchGate, here. Join my Reddit discussions, here.