Aphantasia, dysikonesia, anauralia: call for a single term for the lack of mental imagery-Commentary on Dance et al. (2021) and Hinwar and Lambert (2021).

Recently, the term 'aphantasia' has become current in scientific and public discourse to denote the absence of mental imagery. However, new terms for aphantasia or its subgroups have recently been proposed, e.g., 'dysikonesia' or 'anauralia', which complicates the literature, research communication and understanding for the general public. Before further terms emerge, we advocate the consistent use of the term 'aphantasia' as it can be used flexibly and precisely, and is already widely known in the scientific community and among the general public.

On Picturing a Candle: The Prehistory of Imagery Science.

The past 25 years have seen a rapid growth of knowledge about brain mechanisms involved in visual mental imagery. These advances have largely been made independently of the long history of philosophical - and even psychological - reckoning with imagery and its parent concept 'imagination'. We suggest that the view from these empirical findings can be widened by an appreciation of imagination's intellectual history, and we seek to show how that history both created the conditions for - and presents challenges to - the scientific endeavor. We focus on the neuroscientific literature's most commonly used task - imagining a concrete object - and, after sketching what is known of the neurobiological mechanisms involved, we examine the same basic act of imagining from the perspective of several key positions in the history of philosophy and psychology. We present positions that, firstly, contextualize and inform the neuroscientific account, and secondly, pose conceptual and methodological challenges to the scientific analysis of imagery. We conclude by reflecting on the intellectual history of visualization in the light of contemporary science, and the extent to which such science may resolve long-standing theoretical debates.