User talk:TotalAphantasic

May 2021
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Aphantasia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Also make sure to read WP:Reliable sources and Conflict of interest since your previous account User:Aphantasianetwork was blocked. Some1 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
What is informal about "Using another novel technique, involving transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), they found an inverse relationship between vividness of visual imagery and V1 cortical excitability.[] Meaning people with aphantasia have highly-excitable neurons in their visual cortex, whereas people with hyperphantasia have low cortical excitability."? Every statement contained is a direct finding from the study. Is it because it contains the word "novel"? If so, I used the word novel because it was the first time tDCS was used to measure visual imagery, but let me know if such adjectives are an issue.

The Aphantasia page has had a request for secondary or tertiary sources for the past month, I added the most reliable secondary source I know of - Mike Perrotta is a neuroscientist who works under David Eagleman at Neosensory and is published in the journal Neuroscience regarding his work in sensory substitution, building devices that help deaf people hear through vibrations on their skin. Not only is it the most reliable secondary source, all other reliable "secondary sources" are republished press releases from UNSW, qualifying them as noncanonical primary sources. Let me know how I can avoid issues in the future, I read every study and science article about aphantasia when I get the Google Alert, and there isn't a ton of secondary sources on many of the studies. There is much science I'd like to include, but will hold off until I have become better educated on how to share. TotalAphantasic (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC).