Introduction
Aphantasia, a condition in which individuals lack one or more sensory modalities of the mind, has traditionally been defined in terms of the absence of the five external senses. However, this narrow view fails to consider the possibility of additional, unrecognised senses that shape our internal perception. Recently, researchers have redefined “global aphantasia” as the inability to mentally recreate “all sensory experiences”—not just visual imagery. This definition is problematic because it presumes a completeness of understanding that has not yet been established. Specifically, the terms "all" and “global” are misleading, as they imply a full comprehension of the sensory modalities involved, when in fact, only a limited set of sensory experiences have been defined.
Given that the human body possesses a broad array of sensory modalities—at least 33 sensory modalities, according to research from the University of Glasgow conducted in 2005—it seems arbitrary and limiting to restrict mental imagery to just the five traditionally recognized senses. The Sensory Trust also claims there are up to 53 senses being debated, many of which are not considered in these definitions.
The revised definition also fails to acknowledge forms of imagery like spatial awareness, internal dialogue, emotional processing, and intuition—each representing distinct sensory experiences in their own right. In this paper, I argue that these forms of imagery, detailed in Refining the Lexicon of Mental Imagery Research: Terminology Beyond Absence—while not traditionally recognised—are valid sensory experiences that deserve acknowledgment as legitimate sensory modalities.
1. Definition of “Global Aphantasia”
The Aphantasia Network defines "global aphantasia" as the inability to mentally recreate sensory experiences related to the five traditional physical senses — sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch — which are typically linked to perceiving the external world. According to the Network, this condition specifically refers to the absence of mental imagery associated with these external senses.
In contrast, the Network distinguishes other cognitive abilities, such as spatial awareness, emotional processing, internal dialogue, and intuition, from sensory imagery. While these abilities are acknowledged as real and valid, the Network asserts that they do not involve the mental recreation of physical sensory experiences. However, this assertion is not supported by research or empirical studies; rather, it appears to be based on outdated beliefs — namely, the old dogma that the mind has only five senses and that everyone experiences them.
This outdated framework was challenged by the existence of aphantasia, which proved that not everyone experiences mental imagery related to the five senses. As a result, the Network maintains that these forms of cognition fall outside the scope of aphantasia as they define it. Thus, the definition of "global aphantasia" is presented as a precise term, specifically referring to the absence of mental imagery across the five external sensory modalities — sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.
2. “Total Aphantasia” preferred over “Global Aphantasia”
The term "global" in the context of aphantasia is problematic, as it implies a universal, all-encompassing absence of mental imagery. However, this definition does not account for the diverse and complex range of mental senses that individuals may experience, especially those that extend beyond the five traditional external senses.
A more accurate term might be "total aphantasia," as it allows for the possibility of additional senses beyond the five external ones, allowing for the restriction of the absence of imagery related to the five external senses, the “total” of those external senses. This term would leave room for internal senses to be better defined and incorporated into future understandings of the condition.
I understand why the current categorisation might be useful if the goal is to study individuals with "no mental senses" (by their definition) in order to understand what is actually going on in the mind and what senses we may still possess. However, as it stands, the term "global aphantasia" fails to capture the full complexity of the condition and limits further exploration of potential internal senses.
3. Narrow-Focus: Why Limit the Mind to Only Five Senses?
The current definition of “global aphantasia” seems to be rooted in a limited perspective, cherry-picking only external senses as valid forms of mental imagery or sense. While the five traditional external senses (sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch) are widely recognised, the human body actually has at least 33 confirmed senses, with many others still under debate. These include, but are not limited to, senses related to balance, proprioception, and the internal awareness of body states, such as hunger and pain.
Given that the body possesses a broad array of senses beyond just the five traditionally recognised, it seems arbitrary and limiting to restrict mental imagery to only those five. If we acknowledge that the body is capable of perceiving a diverse range of sensory inputs, why would we assume that the mind, which processes and stores these sensory experiences, should be confined to just five external modalities, when the body itself has so many more ways to perceive and react to the world?
This selective approach disregards the broader, untapped potential of internal mental senses, which could provide a more comprehensive understanding of conditions like aphantasia.
This broader understanding of sensory diversity invites us to consider individual accounts of overlooked modalities. While many of these internal sensory experiences remain unacknowledged in current definitions, they provide valuable insight into the richness of mental perception. The following section explores specific sensory experiences that I, and potentially others, encounter, challenging the narrow constraints of traditional frameworks.
4. The Sensory Experiences I Have That Are Not Recognised
The following are examples of senses I experience, which are not included in the traditional understanding of aphantasia. These sensory modalities expand the concept of mental imagery and challenge conventional definitions.
Emotional Imagery
My emotional and “feeling” experiences are more than just processing feelings; they are distinct and felt as imagery. This internal imagery is not simply emotional processing as suggested by current definitions but a form of sensory experience in its own right. Emotional imagery goes beyond processing feelings—it is a vivid, sensory experience rooted in the body's physiological and hormonal responses (both from the heart and the endocrine glands). I feel it as an imaginary sensation in my body.
While the Aphantasia Network dismisses emotional imagery as "emotional processing," this distinction seems arbitrary. Visual imagery could just as easily be dismissed as "visual processing," yet it is considered a valid sense. While both visual and emotional imagery are complex mental processes, visual imagery is traditionally categorised as a “sense,” while emotional imagery is reduced to non-sensory processing. Could this distinction be reconsidered, given that both emotional and visual imagery involve complex and central processes in human perception?
Emotional imagery can manifest as physical sensations, like tightness in the chest or warmth in the body, and their mental representation feels as real as any sensory experience. For example, stress is sensed in my mind as if it’s full of thick fog, slowing everything down, accompanied by imaginary sensations in my chest. By ignoring emotional imagery, current definitions of aphantasia reinforce a narrow view of human perception.
Example: When I engage in imagining emotions, they are accompanied by distinct internal imagery. For instance, anger or frustration might feel like a thick heavy fog in my mind, slowing everything down, with subtle differences hard to detail, while joy speeds up my mind and it feels light and spacious. Emotions like awe might pause everything momentarily and can feel “sharp”. To imagine sadness or depression, my mind feels like it “sinks” or “bows”. I tend not to feel the sensations in my physical body and only in the tenebrous abyss of my mind space, unless I think about it for too long, in which case, my physical body might start displaying the physical symptoms of these emotions, (with the exception of anything that triggers intuitive imagery or “gut instinct” and “fight or flight” responses, in which case there are instant and often exaggerated physical symptoms in the physical body, due to living with PTSD injury). I have speculated that this process may align with techniques actors use to elicit emotional responses, such as crying on demand.
These experiences are not abstract—they are sensory, immediate, and inseparable from my perception of the world.
Intraphonic Imagery
This involves the ability to hear my own voice internally, distinct from external auditory input and without any auditory imagery. It involves the mental representation of the voice box, vocal cords, and larynx, creating a sensory experience rooted in the body.
This sensation is not based on external auditory perception, but rather on the internal, embodied awareness of these organs. When someone "hears" their mental voice, they might actually be tapping into a mental representation of their vocal cords and the physical act of speaking. This process occurs without external sound, but it is still grounded in the sensory experience of the voice box, similar to how we sense the movement of our limbs or the position of our body. These thoughts are not just mere processing; they are internal, sensory experiences that reflect the complexity of internal sensory processing.
If the ears and hearing organs are considered external, then why not the voice? The lips, which are external, form part of the vocal system, and the rest of the organ—the vocal cords, larynx, and associated muscles—are internal, much like the structure of the ear. The distinction between external and internal seems arbitrary, as both involve organs with sensory capabilities. Just as auditory perception is recognised through the ear, the perception of one's internal voice, grounded in the vocal apparatus, should similarly be considered a valid mental sense.
Example: When I experience intraphonic imagery, I “hear” my own silent voice, but there is no sound. The only times I have ever experienced sound in my mind was during a fit that caused a Near Death Experience (NDE) and during a "false-awakening" lucid nightmare during a trauma event, so I am aware of the difference. It is my intuitive imagery that helps me understand the intraphonic imagery. It's not about hearing an actual voice in the auditory sense. Instead, the intuitive imagery allows me to 'know' what the inner voice is 'saying,' giving me a deeper understanding of the thought or feeling. The two forms of mental imagery work together, with intuitive imagery acting as the bridge to interpret the inner voice conveyed through intraphonic imagery. I often wonder, had I been born deaf and had never heard my voice or learnt to talk, would I also lack that sense? I am aware the deaf do not have inner voices, though some that learn to talk do possess the inner voice. Intraphonic imagery would detail why that might be the case.
Intuitive Imagery
Intuitive imagery is an internal sense of knowing that transcends rational thought. It is not merely cognition but a sensory-based experience that feels vivid, immediate, and I consider it imagery. This allows me to connect with insights before they are consciously realised, creating a profound sense of understanding. Despite its significance, intuitive imagery is not acknowledged in current definitions of aphantasia but deserves recognition as a legitimate sensory experience.
This experience unfolds within my vast mindspace, distinct from my physical body. While I do not perceive thermal imagery, intuitive thoughts often manifest as sensations of “burning” or being “all-encompassing,” arriving suddenly and intensely and taking over my mind space.. When a concept is vast, these feelings come all at once, overwhelming me with interconnected facets of understanding.
Translating these sensations into words is challenging, especially if I lack prior knowledge of a topic. I experience more feelings (non-emotional imagery), in my mind than there are words in the English language for them. To validate or explore these “intuitions” or “knowings”, I must research, write about, or discuss them—only then does the “burning” intensity subside. During these moments, it is difficult to focus on anything else. I often describe it as my mind working backward, processing information in a way that feels both foreign and deeply ingrained.
Intuitive imagery is more than a fleeting sense—it is a palpable, embodied experience. It feels akin to “seeing” or “feeling” the truth before external evidence confirms it. This sensory aspect of intuition permeates my decision-making and problem-solving, often leading to fully formed insights.
Example: One striking example from my childhood highlights the sensory nature of intuitive imagery. During the casting of a school play, before the roles were announced, I experienced a sudden, inexplicable certainty that I would be assigned a lead role, and not just any role, but a male one. Despite my attempts to dismiss this feeling as irrational, it persisted with clarity and intensity, much like the way a mental image might appear vividly to those with visual imagery. When the teacher finally announced my name for the lead role of Joseph, in the school production of “Joseph and his Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat”—which was a very big deal at the time—the knowledge transformed into reality. It was highly irregular to cast a female in such a lead role and was not something that occurred at the school again, during my time there.
Spatial Imagery
I experience spatial imagery as a unique form of sensory perception that allows me to sense and navigate space internally. This spatial awareness exists within my mind space, a vast and seemingly eternal area that I feel extends to undefined edges. I can "feel" space and manipulate ideas within it without relying on the five traditional senses. This form of internal spatial awareness isn't accounted for in the current definitions of aphantasia.
To understand my mental space, thoughts and ideas could be represented as “dots,” though they don’t have a specific shape. They are more like invisible points or clouds of information, each one encapsulating everything I know about a specific topic—its characteristics, memories, knowledge, and connections to other concepts. This mental map evolves and adapts at different points, much like a “living mind map.”
Additionally, these “dots” don’t exist in isolation; they are part of a dynamic network where connections form between related ideas. Sometimes, this network of evolving dots leads to moments of sudden clarity, where seemingly unrelated thoughts converge into a new understanding—an “aha” moment. This experience is not just conceptual; it feels spatial and sensory, as if I can see or feel the connections forming in real time.
Example: A visual analogy for the spatial imagery sensed within my mind space can be found in the Apple Dot Keynote Ads, from 2013, which shows a single dot that evolves and grows as it connects to related concepts. While the ad focuses on creativity, it closely mirrors how my mind works, using spatial imagery to organise and connect my thoughts in dynamic ways. As the dot evolves, it visually represents how concepts within my mind don’t exist in isolation but are part of a network of interconnected ideas.
For instance, when I think about “an apple,” the corresponding dot or cloud of information is pulled forward in my perception, bringing with it associated details—its characteristics, memories, knowledge, and connections to other concepts. I can mentally “turn” or manipulate this concept as though viewing a three-dimensional object, exploring its facets from different angles, revealing deeper layers of understanding and connections.
This process is not just conceptual but sensory, using what I call intuitive imagery—an internal sense of knowing what is contained within my mind space without relying on traditional senses. It feels like actively sensing connections and patterns as they form and grow, even though this experience does not fit conventional definitions of sensory perception.
Dream Imagery
Dream Imagery or Involuntary Imagery, is an unconscious or semi-conscious sensory experience, which can occur during sleep, deep meditation and during psychoactive drug interactions. It is a sense deeply linked to the pineal gland. It is an important form of mental imagery that is often overlooked. For some individuals, particularly those with brain injuries, trauma, or other conditions, the ability to experience or sense imagery in dreams may be disrupted or absent altogether. The sensation of dreaming, even if sometimes altered or absent, should be recognised as a valid form of perception. It is a sense people can lose — as seen in conditions like Charcot-Wilbrand Syndrome (which also causes visual aphantasia). This underscores the broader understanding that mental imagery is not always consciously controlled, or waking, nor does it always involve external sensory modalities.
Example: During a non-epileptic seizure that required paramedics, that was triggered by back pain due to a slipped disc, I experienced what I can only describe as a Near-Death Experience (NDE). Despite the fact that I don’t experience visual imagery in the typical sense, I had vivid awareness of the events happening around me. The only thing I wasn’t aware of was that I was unconscious and fitting at the time. I felt completely at ease and didn’t understand why the paramedics were there or why they weren’t responding to me. I was able to "see" and "hear" the paramedics treating me in a way that defied my usual understanding of perception—an experience that felt just as real as life, despite having no visual imagery in my mental repertoire.
This phenomenon suggests that the brain may create sensory dream-like or involuntary imagery experiences that don’t align with conventional definitions, particularly during extreme circumstances like trauma or brain injury. The experiences during my NDE, and a later event I can only describe as a "false awakening lucid nightmare"—were experienced as the same sensory type of experience, and felt just as real as life—highlight how involuntary imagery can compensate for a lack of typical sensory experiences in extraordinary situations. These instances show that there’s much more to mental perception than the narrow scope currently acknowledged.
5. The Emotional Spectrum in Aphantasia
A recent study (M. Monzel, et al., 2024) explored the relationship between aphantasia and alexithymia (a psychological condition where a person struggles to identify, understand, and express their own emotions) suggesting that the absence of emotional imagery in those with aphantasia may contribute to difficulties in recognizing or processing emotions. The study proposes that individuals with aphantasia, particularly those with reduced emotional imagery, may experience challenges with emotional awareness, potentially supporting the notion of "emotional aphantasia." However, this generalisation overlooks the diversity of emotional experiences within the aphantasia population.
While the study provides valuable insights into the overlap between aphantasia and alexithymia, it fails to capture the full spectrum of emotional imagery in individuals with aphantasia. It conflates emotional imagery with emotional processing difficulties, which are not universally applicable. The assumption that all aphantasics might experience some degree of alexithymia oversimplifies the condition’s diversity, overlooking individuals like myself, whose emotional imagery may be intense and sensory in nature, but not necessarily linked to traditional five external mental sense representations.
In my case, emotional processing manifests as emotional hyperphantasia—a heightened, vivid form of emotional imagery and empathic ability. My emotions feel as real and distinct as visual or auditory imagery does for others. The study’s narrow focus on emotional aphantasia overlooks individuals like myself, whose emotional experiences are intensely sensory but not necessarily tied to traditional mental representations.
By categorising aphantasia solely as an absence of mental imagery, the study neglects its complexity. As I’ve demonstrated previously, emotional imagery can be vivid and immersive, challenging the assumption that it is universally absent or diminished. Such generalisations hinder a broader understanding of aphantasia’s impact on cognition and perception.
This highlights the necessity for a more nuanced definition of aphantasia, one that accommodates the diversity of mental imagery experiences. The emotional experiences of those with aphantasia cannot be reduced to a single narrative of emotional absence. A fuller understanding of aphantasia requires acknowledging the variation in emotional, intuitive, and other forms of sensory imagery that may be experienced, both in the absence of external sensory imagery and, as in my case, with heightened internal imagery. Future research into aphantasia should take into account these variations and avoid oversimplifying the condition, thereby promoting a more inclusive approach that recognises all forms of mental imagery.
6. Why These Experiences Matter
The double empathy problem underscores how the disconnect between the lived experiences of those with aphantasia and those who experience the traditional five senses may skew the understanding of mental and sensory processing, especially when dealing with complex, non-visible or internal sensory modalities.
The failure to acknowledge emotional, intuitive, spatial, intraphonic, and involuntary imagery as valid sensory experiences diminishes the complexity of perception for individuals like me. By focusing only on external senses, the definitions of aphantasia miss the richness of our internal sensory worlds. These internal forms of imagery are not merely "processes," but real sensory experiences that need to be recognised and respected in the conversation about aphantasia.
7. Implications for Individuals with “Global Aphantasia”
The recent definition of aphantasia, which focuses solely on the absence of external sensory imagery, risks invalidating the lived experiences of those who report rich and varied internal sensory modalities despite lacking the typical external ones. This narrow perspective fails to recognise that individuals with "global aphantasia" might still experience a complex and unique world of internal sensory perception that does not align with traditional definitions of mental imagery.
Cognitive diversity within aphantasia highlights the need for a broader framework that goes beyond just sensory deprivation narratives. Individuals with "global aphantasia" may not have access to external sensory representations, but their internal experiences can be just as profound and essential for understanding their perception of the world. These internal sensory experiences—such as emotional imagery, intuition, spatial awareness, or even the internal sensations tied to physiological processes—need to be considered in research and discussions surrounding aphantasia. Recognising this broader spectrum of perception can help ensure more inclusive and accurate representations of how individuals experience the world.
By embracing a more inclusive definition of sensory experiences, we open the door to improved research methodologies, diagnostics, and therapeutic approaches. Research that acknowledges both external and internal modalities can better support individuals with aphantasia, especially in terms of tailored therapies, interventions, or coping strategies that respect their unique cognitive experiences.
8. The Interconnected Nature of Mental Senses
While mental senses like emotional imagery, intuitive imagery, spatial awareness, and even interoception may seem like separate experiences, they often work together in complex ways, blending to form a rich, multi-dimensional perception. These senses are not isolated; rather, they often interweave to create a more intricate mental landscape.
For example, when I have a sudden sense of knowing something intuitively—like a gut feeling or an insight—intraphonic imagery follows. My inner voice seems to confirm that knowing. However, I am not hearing my inner voice in the typical auditory sense. Instead, it’s the intuitive imagery that helps me "know" what my inner voice is "saying."
In this way, intuitive imagery and intraphonic imagery work in tandem. The intuitive sense provides me with a knowing or understanding, while the intraphonic imagery offers the inner voice that articulates or affirms that knowledge. The two forms of imagery are not separate but are experienced together, each enhancing the other.
Similarly, emotional imagery and interoception often overlap. (my introception is present, but I would say it is not very strong, senses in my mind are stronger). I might not physically feel stress in my body the way others might, but when I mentally imagine the sensation of stress, it becomes a distinct experience in my mind, with imagery like thick fog clouding my thoughts and slowing everything down. In these moments, emotional imagery and interoception are linked. My awareness of my body's internal state informs the mental imagery I experience, and vice versa.
This blending of mental senses is an essential part of how I perceive and navigate the world. These senses work together, reinforcing and deepening each other, creating a more complete mental experience that cannot be reduced to any one individual sense.
9. The Need for a Comprehensive Sensory Framework
To move forward, it’s essential that future research includes internal sensory modalities. Traditional research into aphantasia and cognitive perception often confines itself to the physical senses, leaving out a rich landscape of internal sensory experiences. This gap creates a limited and skewed understanding of cognitive diversity and mental sensory perception.
A new classification of sensory experiences should reflect the potential for a fuller spectrum of perceptual experience that has yet to be defined, not just those rooted in traditional sensory inputs like sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. This expanded framework should include the prospect that there are as yet undefined and unstudied internal processes that contribute to unique mental sense experiences, like emotional, intuitive, intraphonic experiences, ands involuntary or dream-like imagery, as well as many other possible senses, related to the body's internal processes, should also be considered.
Adopting this broader, more inclusive model would help ensure that cognitive science, mental health research, and therapeutic practices are more comprehensive and supportive of the diverse ways people perceive and interact with the world. Such inclusivity would improve our understanding of human cognition and enhance the ways in which we provide support to individuals with aphantasia, ensuring no one is left out of the conversation.
10. Clarifying the Research Gaps in Sensory Modalities
Current research on aphantasia relies heavily on self-report surveys and questionnaires. While these provide valuable insights, they have significant limitations. Participation is self-selecting, meaning only certain individuals engage, potentially skewing results. If those who respond share a specific cognitive trait that non-respondents lack (or vice versa), the data could misrepresent the full spectrum of aphantasia experiences. Additionally, survey fatigue—where respondents disengage or provide incomplete answers due to the length or repetitiveness of studies—can further impact accuracy.
To overcome these challenges, future research should incorporate alternative methodologies that do not rely solely on self-reporting. Neuroimaging techniques such as fMRI and EEG could objectively measure brain activity associated with different forms of internal sensory processing. Behavioural experiments—such as reaction time studies or problem-solving tasks—could help determine how individuals with aphantasia process abstract concepts without traditional mental imagery. Additionally, comparative studies with other neurodivergent groups, such as those with synesthesia or hyperphantasia, could provide a broader understanding of sensory diversity in cognition.
By moving beyond traditional questionnaires and embracing more empirical, multimodal research approaches, we can gain a more accurate and inclusive understanding of the diverse sensory experiences within aphantasia.
11. The Double Empathy Problem: Understanding Sensory Diversity
One critical issue in the conversation about aphantasia and sensory perception is the double empathy problem. This concept suggests that the difficulties in understanding someone else’s experiences are often mutual—especially when there are neurological differences. In the case of aphantasia, if a researcher, clinician, or anyone else doesn't experience the same sensory modalities that someone with aphantasia lacks, they may struggle to understand or relate to the experience fully. This disconnect isn't simply intellectual; it’s an empathetic gap that arises when we lack a shared frame of reference.
When researchers who have access to the full range of traditional senses—like sight, sound, and touch—try to comprehend the experiences of someone who doesn't experience these senses in the same way, they may dismiss or misunderstand the rich internal worlds that those with aphantasia still navigate. Without having experienced life without certain sensory perceptions, it’s difficult to truly grasp how complex and nuanced the experience can be.
This problem extends to understanding internal senses like emotional, intuitive, or spatial imagery. If someone has never relied on these internal modalities, they might assume they don't exist or aren't as valid as the senses they experience. But for individuals with aphantasia or those experiencing unique mental states, these senses are deeply real and can be just as crucial to navigating the world as the traditional five external senses.
By acknowledging and addressing this empathy gap, we can encourage a more open, inclusive, and accurate approach to research. It is only through recognising and respecting the diversity of human sensory experience that we can build a better understanding of aphantasia and other cognitive conditions. Ultimately, the goal should be to include those whose experiences are outside of the traditional norms and validate their sensory perceptions as equally real and worthy of exploration.
12. Conclusion
The current definitions of aphantasia, particularly the emphasis on the absence of external sensory imagery, significantly underestimate the complexity and diversity of human perception. By focusing exclusively on the five traditional senses and excluding internal modalities, these definitions fail to account for the richness of internal sensory experiences such as emotional, intuitive, spatial, and intraphonic imagery. These forms of perception are not mere cognitive processes but distinct, valid sensory experiences that deserve acknowledgment.
The lived experiences of individuals with total aphantasia, like myself, highlight the importance of expanding the framework for aphantasia to include a broader understanding of sensory modalities. By doing so, we can ensure that the experiences of those with aphantasia are accurately represented and validated, promoting inclusivity in both research and therapeutic practices. The mind’s capacity for sensory perception extends beyond what is traditionally recognised, and future studies must explore this broader spectrum to fully appreciate the diversity of human cognition. In redefining aphantasia and its associated sensory experiences, we open the door to more comprehensive research, improved support, and a deeper understanding of how we perceive and interact with the world, whether through internal or external means.
References
Aphantasia Network. (2025). Aphantasia definition. Retrieved from https://aphantasia.com/article/science/aphantasia-definition/
Anonymouse Calling. (2024, December). Fifteen types of mental imagery and aphantasia. Retrieved from https://anonymousecalling.blogspot.com/2024/12/fifteen-types-of-mental-imagery-and.html
de Ronde, H. (2024). Refining the lexicon of mental imagery research terminology beyond absence [Research paper]. ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386534021_Refining_the_Lexicon_of_Mental_Imagery_Research_Terminology_Beyond_Absence](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386534021_Refining_the_Lexicon
Aphantasia Network - Facebook Page. (2025). Aphantasia definition. Retrieved from Responses to questions about aphantasia and mental imagery.. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=918509690472094&set=a.415838254072576
University of Glasgow. (2005.). How many senses do we have? Retrieved from https://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/best/senses.html
Sensory Trust. (n.d.). How many senses do we have? Retrieved from https://www.sensorytrust.org.uk/blog/how-many-senses-do-we-have
Open AI. (2025). ChatGPT, Generative language model conversation on mental imagery.. Retrieved from https://chat.openai.com
Innocaption. (2022, August 24). Can deaf people hear their thoughts? Innocaption. https://www.innocaption.com/recentnews/can-deaf-people-hear-their-thoughts
Anonymouse Calling. (2024, December). Yedacognizance at Play. Retrieved from https://anonymousecalling.blogspot.com/2024/12/vss-yedacognizance-at-play.html
Anonymouse Calling. (2024). Anonymouse Calling 2024 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ8vozZyvK0
Southbaydesign. (2013, June 10). Apple WWDC 2013 keynote intro video [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kFc5-D4PUs
Bischof, M., & Bassetti, C. L. (2004). Total dream loss: A distinct neuropsychological dysfunction after bilateral PCA stroke. Annals of Neurology, 56(4), 583-586. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20246
Monzel, M., Karneboge, J., & Reuter, M. (2024). Affective processing in aphantasia and potential overlaps with alexithymia: Mental imagery facilitates the recognition of emotions in oneself and others. Biomarkers in Neuropsychiatry, 11(1), 100106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bionps.2024.100106
J, Silvanto (January 2025). How interoception and the insula shape mental imagery and aphantasia. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388124943_How_interoception_and_the_insula_shape_mental_imagery_and_aphantasia
Now that’s what I call getting even! Well argued and convincing rebuttal of a seriously flawed theory.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the positive comment!
Delete