The following framework was developed to create a shared vocabulary and understanding of mental imagery, including fifteen distinct modalities (what I call 'yedas'*), each with four variations in strength: aphantasia, hypophantasia, phantasia, and hyperphantasia. This results in sixty variations and over one billion possible combinations of mental experiences. By expanding the lexicon, this framework provides deeper insight into the diverse ways our minds engage with imagery, offering a more comprehensive understanding of mental imagery. Neurodiversity is the norm; each of us brings a unique perspective to the table. Personally, I think it is time we recognised the value of emotion and intuition within the grander scheme of cognition and imagery.
*The 'yedas': To keep a long and previously documented story short, my mind worked backwards—as it often does—from the need to find language for the imagery I do experience, despite having global aphantasia, to where I am today. If this doesn’t make sense, don’t worry—it’s not important for the conversation moving forward.
Refining the Lexicon of Mental Imagery Research: Beyond Absence
Mental imagery has long fascinated researchers, yet traditional discussions often focus on its absence rather than its nuanced variations. In my paper, Refining the Lexicon of Mental Imagery Research: Terminology Beyond Absence, I challenge this limited perspective and introduces a refined framework for categorising mental imagery experiences. My work expands the current limited framework of mind, and the lexicon beyond the binary concept of having or not having mental imagery, emphasising the diversity of experiences across different sensory modalities.
The Problem with a Binary Approach
Historically, mental imagery research has been largely dominated by discussions of aphantasia—the complete absence of voluntary mental imagery. While this term has been crucial in recognising the lived experiences of those without mental imagery, it also presents an overly simplistic view. The traditional classification fails to account for individuals who experience imagery beyond those defined.
To address this, I proposes a more comprehensive model, categorising mental imagery into four distinct types, as detailed by Zeman et. al: aphantasia, hypophantasia, phantasia, and hyperphantasia, across fifteen imagery modalities. This new classification system allows for a more precise understanding of how mental imagery operates across individuals, especially for those like myself, with senses not yet defined.
The Four Types of Mental Imagery
Mental imagery exists on a spectrum, with varying degrees of vividness and detail. Below are the four distinct types, each representing a different way individuals experience mental imagery.
Aphantasia – The complete absence of voluntary mental imagery. Individuals with aphantasia cannot visualize objects, faces, or scenes in their mind’s eye, even when prompted.
Hypophantasia – A diminished ability to generate mental imagery. Those with hypophantasia can form mental images, but these are often faint, blurry, or difficult to maintain.
Phantasia – The typical range of mental imagery experienced by most people. These individuals can visualize and manipulate mental images with relative ease.
Hyperphantasia – An exceptionally vivid and immersive mental imagery experience. Individuals with hyperphantasia report imagery so lifelike that it can feel as real as actual perception.
Expanding Beyond Visual Imagery
One of the most significant contributions of my work is the emphasis on the multi-modal nature of mental imagery. Discussions on aphantasia and hyperphantasia often focus on the visual domain or the 'main five' senses. However, mental imagery extends beyond these into additional modalities, including:
Auditory Imagery:Â Mentally hearing imagined sounds, voices, or music without external stimuli.
Dream Imagery:Â Sensory experiences occurring during sleep, meditative states, or influenced by substances.
Emotional Imagery:Â Mental representation of emotions and feelings in a sensory-like, non-physical form.
Gustatory Imagery:Â Recreation of tastes and flavors without actual consumption.
Introspective Imagery: Experiences of thoughts, self-reflection, and personal insights.
Intraphonic Imagery:Â Perception of internal sounds, such as inner speech or imagined conversations.
Intuitive Imagery:Â Spontaneous generation of knowledge without deliberate effort or reasoning.
Motor Imagery:Â Simulation of movement and bodily actions without physical execution.
Olfactory Imagery:Â Recreation of scents and smells based on memory and experience.
Somatic Imagery:Â Representation of bodily sensations, such as pain, warmth, or tension.
Spatial Imagery:Â Manipulation of imagined objects, distances, and spatial relationships.
Tactile Imagery:Â Recreation of touch-related sensations, like texture, pressure, or temperature.
Temporal Imagery:Â Perception of time, including past, present, and future experiences.
Thermal Imagery:Â Representation of heat and cold without direct physical stimulus.
Visual Imagery:Â Formation, recall, and manipulation of images and scenes in the mind.
By recognising these sensory variations, this framework paves the way for a more inclusive and accurate study of mental imagery experiences, while allowing for definitions for my own lived experiences of the imagery I possess, despite the lacks.
Implications for Research and Everyday Life
This refined lexicon holds significant implications for various fields, including psychology, neuroscience, and education. Understanding the spectrum of mental imagery can lead to better cognitive assessments, improved teaching strategies, and even enhanced therapeutic approaches. For example:
Education: Some students may struggle with visualisation-based learning strategies, requiring alternative methods for comprehension.
Mental Health: Differences in mental imagery may influence anxiety, PTSD, and other psychological conditions.
Creativity & Innovation: Hyperphantasia may contribute to enhanced creative abilities, while aphantasia could foster unique problem-solving strategies.
Summary
My work represents a crucial step toward a more comprehensive understanding of mental imagery. By moving beyond the binary of imagery presence or absence, this refined lexicon acknowledges the rich diversity of human cognitive experiences. As research in this field continues to grow, this expanded framework will hopefully play a pivotal role in shaping how researchers perceive the un-defined mental imagery that those with—and without—visual or global aphantasia experience.
