This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Neuroscience Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disability Aphantasia is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Aphantasia. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

I didn't want to just do this without getting some input, but I think we should remove Zelda Williams from the list of notable people with Aphantasia. The tweet thread that was used as the source for adding her has since been entirely deleted - and there are no additional tweets where she mentions the term. And as far as I can tell, other than people referencing that tweet - and some celeb news randomly mentioning the tweet - there's no other information online to use as a source. I know that we'll use unreliable sources in some cases, especially if it's a controversial topic the article's subject is trying to avoid being attached to. But I doubt that this is the case. Much like her request for people to stop sending her that video of a guy doing an impression of her dad online, I suspect she pulled the thread because she got tired of people asking her about it on Twitter. But it still leaves us without a reliable source to reference. CleverTitania ( talk) 21:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I've removed it since the tweet is now deleted. Some1 ( talk) 23:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC) reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 3 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allysondavey ( article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by KBP98 ( talk) 18:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NaviRome, Vdelreal ( article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by NaviRome ( talk) 21:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply

If the term correctly applies to other senses (touch, smell, taste, hearing at the least), then they should be discussed; if the term correctly only applies to vision, then there should be a brief mention and/or a link to any related sites if they exist. As it now stands, it seems unclear. Kdammers ( talk) 03:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Aphantasia by definition refers only to vision, but people with aphantasia tend to have corresponding deficits in the other senses as well. This is mentioned in the Research section ("A 2020 study concluded that those who experience aphantasia also experience reduced imagery in other senses..."), but it's not very prominent. Dan Bloch ( talk) 04:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

You're right on both counts. Hopefully, the article can be modified with a brief note near the lead, since the research section is not where some-one might think to look. I found this site about the inability to call up other senses, but I don't know if it is citable:hhttps://www.canva.com/design/DAFub7Pk1l8/k8hIdCZ1mA8GY = Dysikonesia and Mental Sensory Perception - Medium Banner (US) (Landscape) (canva.com) Kdammers ( talk) 18:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't believe "Lack of Internal monologue" has a specific term coined for it yet, but it seems like it may be a common comorbidity with Aphantasia, to a degree significant enough to warrant mention in this article. Here are some sources I could find. https://www.livescience.com/does-everyone-have-inner-monologue.html https://futuredoctor.ai/internal-monologue-vs-thinking/

192.77.12.11 ( talk) 02:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I would note that there's a distinction to be made between "Lack of internal monologue" and "Lack of internal voice" (I personally would lack the latter but not the former). But how to include this information to the article or similar articles, I have no comment. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 08:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the clarification. This may or may not be the correct page to include information on either a "Lack of internal monologue" or "Lack of internal voice", I simply don't know. All I do know is that it seems to be an underrepresented topic on Wikipedia. 192.77.12.11 ( talk) 07:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This would be the main article for this subject, as " internal monologue" redirects there. Despite being a GA, I'm not sure how well this perspective is covered. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 08:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Interestingly, a 2021 study has named this phenomenon Anauralia. Specifically relates to a lack of internal auditory imagery. Just added a section in the Research section of this page, but I believe in time, this term may warrant its own page. 72.183.156.189 ( talk) 16:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Since my attempt to add John Green to the notable people list was removed for citing a tweet, I am considering re-adding him with this source instead: https://aphantasia.com/article/news/john-green-aphantasia-discovery/. Would that be acceptable? — FactoidCow ( talk) 14:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I would argue that source does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. It seems to be a person with aphantasia who is trying to spread the word on it. Not exactly a non-biased third party. Cerebral726 ( talk) 14:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, what is an acceptable source for inclusion on the list? It seems like most or all of the people who are already on the list are self-reported—which makes sense, since aphantasia is primarily a subjective conscious experience. Even a formal medical diagnosis would most likely rely on self-reporting, albeit in a more formalized way (e.g. the VVIQ test). — FactoidCow ( talk) 15:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The one for Edwin Catmull is particularly strong, as is Glen Keane. It's fine if it's self reporting if it's published in a WP:RS. But John Green didn't even say he has aphantasia, so it's OR to look at what he says and diagnose him with aphantasia. I haven't looked through all the sourcing of that list, some of them may need to be removed or have better sources found. Cerebral726 ( talk) 15:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't characterise it as "diagnosing". Being unable to form pictures in your head is not a symptom of aphantasia, it is aphantasia. Aphantasia is just a shorter word to describe that phenomenon. If Green tweeted that he was experiencing pain in the portion of his digestive tract between the esophagus and the small intestine, it wouldn't be a "diagnosis" to say that he had a stomachache. — FactoidCow ( talk) 15:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with Cerebral726. John Green didn't say he has aphantasia, so it's WP:Original research to diagnose him with such. If a celebrity tweeted that they're sad all the time, could a random editor add that celebrity to the hypothetical List of notable people with depression article? Obviously not. Until Green explicitly says that he has aphantasia, he stays out of the list. Some1 ( talk) 22:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I would like to draw attention to the use of the term "aphantasiac." Upon researching, e.g., on Google Scholar, I have been unable to discern a specific reason to use this term differently from "aphantasic." Should there be such a reason, it would be a good idea to articulate it on the page, would you not agree? @ Matchups @ CleverTitania FdeD8953 ( talk) 01:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

There's no difference. Both "aphantasic" and "aphantasiac" refer to someone with aphantasia, as does "aphant". "Aphantasic" and "aphantasiac" can also be used as adjectives, e.g., "aphantasic individual". What we're probably seeing is language evolving, since they're all new words.

The different words should probably be mentioned at the beginning of the article. We should also probably consistently use one in the article, instead of switching between the two. Dan Bloch ( talk) 01:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Added note. Dan Bloch ( talk) 22:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

In addition to the "language evolving" explanation, with which I agree, we can also look at the cases of more mental conditions. I searched Google Ngram Viewer for several, and found the -ic suffix is usually more popular than -iac [1] (it could be because the -ic suffixed words are boosted by being used as adjectives). Specifically, I checked the article on aphasia, and found no occurrence of "aphasiac", although it does exist (see here [2] and here [3]). I am not a native speaker. In my opinion, it would make more sense to stick to -ic because it's the nominalization of the adjective "aphantasic". FdeD8953 ( talk) 19:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Interesting point. Google Scholar also shows the use of aphantasics to be ten times as common as aphantasiacs. I'll make that clearer in the article. Dan Bloch ( talk) 19:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

"Aphants" is trickier. Its use falls between aphantasics and aphantasiacs in Google Scholar, but it's as common as aphantasics in google.com search, so it's apparently in common non-scientific use. Dan Bloch ( talk) 20:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

In my experience, "aphant" has evolved to be the most common noun used in the various social media groups and member-based organizations surrounding aphantasia, particularly those on the fastest tracks to becoming functional fundraising orgs - which disappointments me, strictly because I personally enjoy the whimsical nature of the term "aphantasiac" so much. But if "aphantasic" is becoming the common noun in the research circles, social usage is likely to change in the coming years.

It's even more likely when you consider why I would hesitate to use aphasia as a verbiage guide - because it is far more of an acquired condition, whereas aphantasia looks to be more often a congenital condition on a spectrum - impacting both the number of people affected and how quickly the term is expanding into common usage. Therefore I'd consider dyslexia or autism better guides for framing the terminology, and obviously the nominalizations of their adjectives (i.e. dyslexic and autistic) have become the most common nouns for people with those conditions.

So, whimsy or no, I think it would make more sense to treat "aphantics" as our standard noun for people with the condition, in the article. At least until we get a sense for whether the aphantasia community is going to lean into person-first or identity-first language, as MOS:DISABILITIES tends to stick with whatever the community/sources favors. CleverTitania ( talk) 05:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Agreed –let's just track it. There's definitely autisism advocacy with its own political lexicon ("alltistics"); if the same dynamic held for the aphantasic community those apples would have emic names and we'd be hearing about them. kencf0618 ( talk) 10:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply