Zeaman Labs | The Changed Definition of Aphantasia

Beyond Deficits: Unlocking the Uniqueness of Our Mental Perception

When aphantasia was coined ten years ago, it specifically referred to the absence of mental visual imagery—or “mind blindness.” 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 and total aphantasia? Both imply multiple missing senses, but the terms offer no clear distinction.
• Is multisensory aphantasia distinct from deep aphantasia, or do both simply mean the absence of multiple senses?
• What about people who have mental imagery but lack inner sound or emotion? Are they aphantic, or do they fall outside the framework entirely?

These confusing terms reveal the limitations of the current approach, which views mental perception through the lens of deficiency rather than diversity. The real issue is that science is trying to classify mental experiences without properly understanding them.

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 from absent or conceptual to hypo or even hyper. These senses are:

1. Emotion (Mental Emotion) – Absence: Alexithymia
2. Intuition (Knowing Thoughts) – Absence: Ametacognition
3. Sight (Mental Imagery) – Absence: Aphantasia
4. Sound (Mental Audition) – Absence: Anauralia
5. Smell (Mental Olfaction) – Absence: Aphantosmia
6. Taste (Mental Gustation) – Absence: Aphantogeusia
7. Touch (Mental Touch) – Absence: Apsychosomatosensation
8. Voice (Mental Self-Talk) – Absence: Anendophasia

Each of these senses can be absent, low, average, or hyperactive—leading to 65,536 possible combinations. 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.

Why Zeaman’s Terminology Fails

Zeaman’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 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?
• 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.
• 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 meaningfully studied under a term that implies “lack of mental vision”?  What happens to clarity when unrelated experiences, like emotional deficits or muted self-talk, are lumped together under a term originally meant to refer to a single, specific absence? How can research account for profiles where some senses are hyperactive while others are absent?

Zeaman'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

Instead of focusing on deficits, science needs to treat the mind as a frontier waiting to be explored. The goal should not be to label people based on what they lack, but to understand how their unique combination of senses shapes their mental world. Mental perception is not binary—it is a dynamic interplay of senses, each operating at different 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. 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.

Conclusion: Embrace the Infinite Potential of the Mind

The future of mental perception research lies not in labeling people based on what’s missing 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). Time to define the heading and its subheadings, whether a lack or excess, correctly. You cannot explore mind 

The attempt to group all these experiences under the term “aphantasia”—along with confusing subcategories like global and total—only serves to limit understanding. It reduces complex mental experiences to labels of deficiency rather than embracing the infinite variety of human cognition.

Science must move beyond deficit-based thinking and adopt a frontier mindset, treating the mind as a landscape waiting to be charted. Each individual’s mental perception is a map waiting to be explored—not a list of things they are missing.