Blindsight: How Vision Can Occur Without Visual Awareness

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Consciousness, Metacognition & Self-Awareness · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Blindsight is a neuropsychological phenomenon in which a person with damage to the brain's primary visual cortex can respond to certain stimuli in a region of the visual field they report being unable to see. In carefully controlled experiments, some participants locate a light, distinguish motion, or choose between visual features at rates above chance even when they report no corresponding visual experience. The central finding is a measurable dissociation between visual information processing and reported visual awareness; its extent, underlying brain pathways, and interpretation vary by patient and task. Cowey's historical and scientific review and a 2022 analysis of blindsight and theories of consciousness explain why this phenomenon remains one of the most revealing cases in consciousness research.

Blindsight is generally studied after injury to primary visual cortex (V1) or associated cortical visual pathways. It is a research description of residual visual capacities in people with neurological visual-field loss, rather than a stand-alone psychiatric diagnosis or a way to identify someone from everyday behavior. It also does not mean that a person can reliably navigate the world without vision. Laboratory performance is often limited, stimulus-dependent, and insufficient to replace ordinary conscious sight.

What Does Blindsight Mean?

Normal human vision depends heavily on signals traveling from the retina through the thalamus to primary visual cortex, followed by processing in a network of visual cortical regions. Injury affecting V1 commonly causes a contralateral visual-field defect: a person may lose vision in the left portion of the visual world after a right-sided occipital injury, for example. The eyes may still receive light, while the cortical system ordinarily supporting conscious sight in the affected field is disrupted. In some people, limited visual information continues to influence behavior through surviving connections. Leopold's review of V1, awareness, and blindsight reviews the distinction between the role of V1 in visual processing and claims about its direct role in consciousness.

An experimenter might briefly present a target within the affected visual field while the participant fixes their gaze elsewhere. Asked whether they saw anything, the participant may say no. When required to guess whether the target appeared on the upper or lower side, however, the same participant may choose the correct location significantly more often than chance would predict. The relationship between those two observations, under controlled testing, is the defining scientific interest.

The word 'vision' in blindsight refers to preserved visual discrimination or visually guided action; 'without visual awareness' refers to the participant's report of lacking the relevant visual percept. Researchers must establish both independently. A report of not seeing is important evidence about experience, but it cannot be treated as a perfect measurement of all possible subjective awareness.

How Blindsight Was Discovered

Neurological observations of preserved responses in patients with visual-field defects predate the name 'blindsight.' In 1973, Ernst Pöppel, Richard Held, and Douglas Frost reported residual eye-movement responses after brain injuries affecting central visual pathways. Their work demonstrated that clinical visual-field loss could coexist with a narrower, experimentally detectable capacity. Pöppel, Held, and Frost (1973).

The influential 1974 study by Lawrence Weiskrantz and colleagues examined patient D.B., who had a visual-field defect after restricted occipital surgery. Forced-choice tasks disclosed residual visual abilities in the affected field despite absent ordinary reports of sight. That research established the modern experimental tradition of blindsight and its importance for separating different aspects of vision. Weiskrantz, Warrington, Sanders, and Marshall (1974).

Later work with people such as patient G.Y. clarified that residual performance can have more than one subjective profile. Some responses occur alongside an explicit denial of seeing; other trials are associated with a vague feeling that something happened. The history therefore contains both strong demonstrations of dissociation and continuing disputes about how to measure awareness. Derrien and colleagues (2022).

How the Visual System Can Process Information After V1 Damage

The ordinary route through primary visual cortex

In the dominant geniculostriate pathway, retinal signals reach the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) of the thalamus, then V1, and subsequently multiple extrastriate visual regions. These networks contribute to detecting form, orientation, location, movement, and the integrated visual scene. Disrupting V1 severely limits ordinary vision, but V1 is one part of a distributed visual system. Its damage therefore offers a natural experiment in which visual functions may become dissociated. Leopold (2012).

The lateral geniculate nucleus and extrastriate motion systems

Some visual signals can reach extrastriate cortex without passing through intact V1. One important candidate is an LGN-to-extrastriate route involving motion-sensitive regions such as hMT+/V5. In macaques with V1 lesions, experimentally disrupting the LGN abolished residual visual responses under conditions in which blindsight-like performance had been preserved. This provides causal evidence for the LGN's role in that animal paradigm. It does not prove that every human blindsight case uses an identical pathway. Schmid and colleagues (2010).

In a human neuroimaging study of 14 individuals with unilateral V1 damage, Sara Ajina and Holly Bridge found that patients with motion blindsight had preserved motion-related hMT+ activity and functional connectivity with the LGN, whereas the comparison patients without blindsight lacked that same pattern. The study supports the importance of an LGN–hMT+ connection for the studied form of motion processing. Functional connectivity is evidence of network association, not an intervention proving which structure alone causes a person's experience. Ajina and Bridge (2018).

Superior colliculus and pulvinar routes

The superior colliculus, a midbrain structure involved in orienting, receives visual input and connects with thalamic structures, including the pulvinar. Anatomical tracing in macaques has identified routes from the superior colliculus toward dorsal-stream visual cortical regions that could support motion or orienting responses when V1 is damaged. These connections offer a plausible substrate for some residual abilities, especially visually guided action. Lyon and colleagues' anatomical pathway study is a primary example.

A 2025 systematic review of 25 human and monkey studies concluded that multiple surviving routes may contribute, including LGN–extrastriate, superior-colliculus–pulvinar, and pathways involving remaining V1 tissue. Different tasks and lesion patterns recruit different components. The most defensible contemporary explanation is therefore network-specific: the surviving visual route and the kind of information carried help determine the residual ability.

Surviving cortical tissue and neural plasticity

Brain lesions are rarely identical. A small intact region of V1, individual anatomical variability, or changes over time can influence what appears to be preserved. Recovery or training-related change is also relevant, especially when studies enroll patients at different times after injury. A 2025 review of V1 damage and perceptual learning describes evidence for training-induced improvements alongside substantial uncertainty about which functions generalize into ordinary life. Consequently, describing blindsight simply as a single hidden visual highway is too reductive.

What Can Someone With Blindsight Actually Do?

Detecting and locating a stimulus

In basic experiments, the participant may guess which of two intervals contained a flash, or point toward a light presented in an affected field. Performance exceeding statistical chance over many controlled trials suggests that information about the stimulus influenced the response. It does not imply full conscious detection, precise localization in all conditions, or safe independent navigation. Cowey (2010).

Discriminating movement and simple visual properties

Some patients can distinguish aspects of motion, orientation, contrast, or other restricted visual features while reporting little or no corresponding visual experience. Residual motion processing is a particularly well-studied example because extrastriate motion regions can receive signals through routes that bypass damaged V1. Other kinds of discrimination may depend on different circuitry, and the same patient can perform above chance in one task and at chance in another. Ajina and Bridge (2018); Derrien and colleagues (2022).

Guiding an eye movement or reaching action

A visually driven saccade, pointing response, or reach may contain information about a stimulus the participant says they did not see. Action-related capacities have motivated discussion of 'action blindsight' and the distinction between mechanisms for guiding behavior and reporting visual perception. Experimental dissociations require tight control over the participant's fixation and possible cues. Danckert and Rossetti (2005).

A 2026 study by Sepe and colleagues tested eye movements in two macaques just three to four weeks after unilateral V1 damage. When targets appeared unpredictably in the affected field, timely correct saccades were rare; advance temporal cues increased delayed, initially misdirected, or multi-step responses more than accurate direct movements. This early-stage animal finding shows why researchers must distinguish any visually influenced action from rapid, well-calibrated visual guidance, and why results from chronic human blindsight cannot automatically be generalized to early recovery in other species. A 2026 commentary by Lau and Nakamura argues for paired signal-detection tests to distinguish weak visual sensitivity and response criteria from a genuine dissociation involving awareness. The macaque study and the commentary address different evidentiary questions.

Emotional or socially meaningful visual cues

Researchers have also explored responses to emotional expressions or salient biological signals presented in affected visual fields. These findings have inspired hypotheses about subcortical pathways toward regions involved in emotional evaluation. The results vary by task and individual; emotional processing through an alternative route should not be interpreted as proof of an intact unconscious understanding of facial expressions. The 2025 pathway review discusses a possible superior-colliculus–pulvinar–amygdala route and its evidential limits.

Type 1 Blindsight, Type 2 Blindsight, and Blindsense

Type 1: measurable discrimination without reported awareness

Type 1 blindsight describes above-chance task performance with a report of no relevant visual awareness. The strongest evidence combines reliable objective performance, sensitive subjective questioning, accurate eye-position control, and exclusion of residual ordinary vision. The label describes a particular experimental profile, not an all-or-nothing property that has to remain constant across the person's activities. Derrien and colleagues (2022).

Type 2: some feeling without ordinary visual perception

In type 2 blindsight, a person may deny actually seeing a target's ordinary visual properties while describing a vague sense that something occurred. That experience could be described as a movement impression, a feeling of presence, or some other limited awareness. It matters whether the participant reports a stimulus, a visual quality, confidence, or a nonvisual sensation: these are different questions. Type 2 findings directly challenge the simplified statement that all blindsight is completely experience-free. Mazzi, Savazzi, and Silvanto (2019).

Blindsense and other proposed distinctions

The term 'blindsense' has been used for a reported nonvisual feeling associated with stimulation in an affected field even when discrimination on particular forced-choice tasks is absent. Its relevance lies in showing that subjective presence and objective task performance can dissociate in more than one direction. The terminology and criteria are research constructs under continuing investigation, rather than clinical subtypes formally required for diagnosis. Derrien and colleagues (2022).

These distinctions also explain why every blindsight paper must define which feature was tested and how the participant was asked about experience. A binary 'Did you see it?' question can yield a different picture from a graded scale that distinguishes no experience, a fleeting glimpse, partial awareness, and clear vision.

How Scientists Test Blindsight

Establishing a neurological visual-field defect

Researchers first characterize the lesion and the person's visual-field loss through neurological examination, structural brain imaging, and visual-field testing such as perimetry. These procedures help establish that stimuli were presented in a clinically impaired region. Visual-field boundaries must be measured for the specific participant rather than inferred solely from lesion location. Derrien and colleagues (2022).

Fixation and stimulus control

A target placed near a spared region may become visible through an eye movement, imprecise fixation, light scatter, or unintended cues. Modern designs therefore record eye position, use carefully positioned brief stimuli, and control luminance, contrast, presentation time, and screen geometry. The experiment must test the genuinely affected portion of the visual field. Apparent residual ability is far less informative when these controls are missing.

Forced-choice testing and statistical accuracy

In a two-alternative forced-choice task, chance performance is approximately 50% when the alternatives are equally likely and responses are unbiased. Reliable performance above that level, assessed with appropriate trial counts and uncertainty intervals, indicates that the choices contain information about the target. A single lucky answer or a small run of correct guesses does not establish blindsight. More demanding tasks can test location, motion direction, target presence, or stimulus identity. Azzopardi and Cowey (1997).

Subjective awareness, confidence, and signal detection

An objective measure of accuracy and a subjective measure of awareness address different aspects of performance. Signal detection theory distinguishes sensitivity to a stimulus from a person's criterion for reporting its presence. A participant who rarely says 'yes, I saw it' may be using a conservative response criterion, so a discrepancy between yes–no detection and forced-choice success cannot automatically be called unconscious vision.

Azzopardi and Cowey compared response-criterion-independent measures of sensitivity across tasks and found a difference in a hemianopic participant that could not be explained simply by ordinary near-threshold response bias. Their work strengthens the case that some blindsight dissociations have distinctive processing properties. It does not end debates about every patient, awareness scale, or task. Azzopardi and Cowey (1997).

Confidence ratings add a metacognitive dimension: an individual can discriminate a stimulus while expressing little confidence in the discrimination. However, low confidence is not identical to an absence of visual experience, and high confidence is not a demonstration of accuracy. To understand the phenomenon, studies may compare first-order accuracy, graded reports of experience, and second-order confidence separately. Derrien and colleagues (2022).

Neuroimaging, causal interventions, and converging evidence

Functional MRI and other brain measurements can identify which regions respond when a stimulus is presented in an affected field. Diffusion-based imaging can estimate anatomical connectivity. Experimental lesions or temporary inactivation in animal models allow stronger causal testing of specific pathways. Each method answers a distinct question: neural activity does not by itself prove awareness, a tract's presence does not guarantee functional performance, and animal behavior cannot directly reveal human-like subjective experience. Schmid and colleagues (2010); Ajina and Bridge (2018).

For a broader account of how neurological injury is used to investigate brain function, read Brain Lesion Studies: What Neurological Damage Reveals About Function. For explanations of what different recording techniques measure, see Brain Imaging Methods: What MRI, fMRI, PET, and EEG Measure.

What Blindsight Reveals About Consciousness

Blindsight supports a crucial experimental distinction: the brain can preserve some sensitivity to visual input while ordinary awareness of that input is profoundly impaired. It therefore challenges the assumption that successful visual behavior invariably entails a corresponding reportable visual experience. That is an empirical contribution to consciousness science. How the dissociation arises, and what it establishes about experience itself, require further theoretical interpretation. Derrien and colleagues (2022).

Visual processing is not the same as visual awareness

Visual processing comprises neural transformations of visual signals that may guide orientation, discrimination, and action. Visual awareness concerns the visual experience a person reports, including whether a stimulus appears and what it looks like. Conscious access refers more specifically to information being available for flexible reporting and wider cognitive use. Attention is the prioritization of information. Wakefulness is a level or state of arousal. Responsiveness is observable reaction to a stimulus. Self-awareness involves representing or attending to oneself. These constructs overlap in daily life but have distinct experimental definitions.

A person showing blindsight may be awake, responsive, and attentive to the task while lacking ordinary visual awareness of a stimulus in a particular field region. It would be inaccurate to describe that person as globally unconscious or lacking self-awareness.

Does blindsight prove vision without any experience?

The most ambitious interpretation treats type 1 blindsight as a case of visual processing with no phenomenal consciousness of the target. Another interpretation holds that some residual experience is weak, unusual, or inadequately captured by conventional reports. These are genuinely competing interpretations. Reports of fleeting visual qualities, motion awareness, and graded visibility in some people with V1 lesions complicate a universal claim of complete unawareness. Mazzi, Savazzi, and Silvanto (2019).

Researchers can test predictions about performance, neural activity, confidence, and verbal reports. They cannot directly observe another person's subjective experience independently of all behavioral and physiological evidence. The appropriate scientific formulation states what a study measured, how awareness was operationalized, and which interpretation its results support.

What different theories predict

Global Neuronal Workspace Theory emphasizes the widespread availability of information for report and flexible use; blindsight invites the question of why some local visual processing fails to achieve broader access. Recurrent Processing Theory asks whether specific recurrent cortical interactions are needed for normal visual awareness, and how residual processing survives disruptions of V1-related loops. Higher-order approaches focus on representations of one's own perceptual states, suggesting questions about why performance and confidence or introspective access can diverge. Integrated Information Theory relates experience to a system's causal organization; applying it to focal lesions requires independent, operationally clear predictions about the affected circuits.

These approaches differ in their proposed mechanisms and in what evidence would count as a decisive test. Blindsight constrains them, but no single blindsight result proves one comprehensive theory or falsifies every competitor. See the comparative review of consciousness theories by Seth and Bayne (2022) and Derrien and colleagues' phenomenon-specific discussion (2022).

A separate philosophical account by Angela Bogdanova, Consciousness: Canonical Definition, defines consciousness as inner subjective presence within Aisentica's philosophical framework. This is an attributed conceptual formulation. The experimental findings on blindsight come from neurological and psychological studies, and the philosophical formulation is not presented as independent validation of a neural mechanism.

Alternative Explanations and Major Methodological Debates

Weak or degraded conscious vision

Some apparently unconscious responses might involve a low-quality or fragmentary percept that the person does not categorize as seeing. A yes–no question has limited sensitivity to that kind of experience. Graded perceptual-awareness reports and carefully matched subjective and objective tasks can reveal distinctions that binary classifications obscure. Such findings do not automatically explain every case, and research continues to compare degraded-vision and unconscious-processing accounts. Derrien and colleagues (2022).

Reporting thresholds and response bias

A person may require substantial evidence before claiming to have seen something, yet still use weaker information when forced to choose. Researchers address this issue by comparing sensitivity across tasks, modeling decision criteria, and asking about confidence or perceptual quality. The major lesson is methodological: neither an above-chance score nor a denial of awareness is independently sufficient for a strong inference. Azzopardi and Cowey (1997).

Differences between lesions, people, and tasks

Blindsight research includes neurologically heterogeneous participants. Lesions can differ in size, location, remaining tissue, age of onset, and time since injury. Stimuli range from simple points of light to moving patterns and expressive faces. Abilities measured in macaques and humans are related but not interchangeable. Because rare neurological cases are difficult to recruit, studies sometimes involve very small samples or detailed single-person designs. Replication across methods, individuals, and laboratories matters more than treating one dramatic example as universal. Balali and colleagues (2025); Cowey (2010).

What brain activation can and cannot settle

Activity in hMT+ or the LGN during residual discrimination establishes that a network is responding to visual information. It does not directly establish whether a participant experiences a color, movement, sense of presence, or nothing at all. Likewise, the loss of one pathway need not abolish every response because multiple routes can carry partially redundant information. Causal experiments and converging behavioral reports are needed to narrow the explanation. Schmid and colleagues (2010); Balali and colleagues (2025).

Blindsight Compared With Related Phenomena

Blindsight differs from ordinary low-light or near-threshold vision. In ordinary weak vision, stimulus information and awareness often decrease together, although response criteria can produce superficial dissociations. Blindsight occurs in the context of neurological visual-field impairment and may exhibit a more distinctive gap between performance and awareness. Azzopardi and Cowey (1997).

It also differs from visual neglect, in which patients may fail to attend to or represent information on one side of space, often after parietal injury. Visual-field loss and neglect can coexist, but their clinical assessment and mechanisms are distinct. Inattention and change blindness in people without structural V1 injury are useful comparators for the role of attention; they are not equivalent diagnoses or interchangeable laboratory models. Visual agnosia concerns impaired object recognition despite certain preserved visual capacities. These distinctions matter because different deficits can produce a surface-level report of 'not seeing' for very different reasons.

Blindsight should also be distinguished from cortical blindness as a broad clinical description, hemianopia as loss of part of the visual field, and hallucination as an experience occurring without an appropriately corresponding external stimulus. A person with a blind visual field may or may not have experimentally measurable residual capacity. Blindsight is the name of that particular residual processing phenomenon, not a synonym for every form of cortical visual impairment. For another clinically distinct phenomenon, see Visual Hallucinations: Causes and Medical Warning Signs.

Clinical Meaning, Rehabilitation, and Safety

Blindsight research has helped reveal surviving visual pathways and mechanisms of plasticity, but those discoveries do not imply that a person with hemianopia can intentionally activate hidden vision on demand. Above-chance responses to tightly controlled laboratory targets provide no assurance of reliable detection of vehicles, steps, obstacles, or hazards. Clinical visual-field deficits require assessment by appropriate professionals.

The 2023 National Clinical Guideline for Stroke recommends systematic assessment of visual acuity, visual fields, and eye movements after stroke, referral to relevant vision professionals, and individualized multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Compensatory visual scanning or visual search training may be considered for visual-field loss. Evidence for some restitution and substitution approaches remains limited and heterogeneous; no intervention is established as universally restoring normal visual awareness after V1 damage.

A recent review of perceptual training after V1 damage documents promising task-specific improvements while emphasizing challenges in translating laboratory gains into broad visual functioning. Recovery potential should be discussed in the context of lesion characteristics, goals, and formal assessment. Sudden new visual-field loss, especially with weakness, speech difficulty, or other acute neurological symptoms, warrants urgent emergency evaluation because stroke is one possible cause. The American Stroke Association's overview of visual disturbances describes these visual-field problems and rehabilitation concerns.

Established Findings, Plausible Interpretations, and Open Questions

The best-established result is that some people with acquired cortical visual-field loss retain objectively measurable responses to certain visual stimuli despite profoundly reduced reported awareness. Strong experimental studies have demonstrated response-pattern differences that cannot all be explained by simple response criteria, and convergent human and animal research identifies alternative visual pathways. Azzopardi and Cowey (1997); Schmid and colleagues (2010); Ajina and Bridge (2018).

A plausible network-level interpretation holds that surviving circuits transmit selected visual features while the distributed processes supporting normal reportable visual experience are disrupted. Competing consciousness theories explain that contrast differently. The presence or complete absence of every form of phenomenal experience in every blindsight trial remains unresolved. So do the relative contributions of individual pathways, the best standards for subjective measurement, and the clinical significance of training-related improvements across different patient populations. Derrien and colleagues (2022); Balali and colleagues (2025).

The scientific value of blindsight lies in its precision: it forces research to specify which visual computation, subjective report, circuit, and task is under examination. It offers a rare window onto the relationship between information processing and awareness without assuming that the two are either identical or wholly independent in every circumstance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a person with blindsight really see?

They may respond to particular visual stimuli more accurately than chance despite reporting no ordinary visual percept for the affected region. That ability is narrower than normal sight. Whether a given response involves absolutely no subjective experience or a weak or unusual form of awareness must be evaluated within the actual experiment. Derrien and colleagues (2022).

Is blindsight the same as being completely blind?

No. Classical blindsight is studied in a neurologically impaired part of the visual field, often after V1 damage. The person may have normal or partially preserved sight elsewhere. Total blindness can have many different causes and should not be assumed to include blindsight.

What part of the brain is damaged in blindsight?

Primary visual cortex, or V1, is central to the classical research definition, though lesions may affect neighboring cortical pathways and differ substantially. Residual performance may depend on surviving links between the LGN, superior colliculus, pulvinar, and extrastriate visual regions. Balali and colleagues (2025).

Is blindsight unconscious vision?

That is one influential interpretation, especially for type 1 cases. Another account emphasizes degraded or unusual visual experience and the limits of how awareness is measured. Researchers distinguish measured above-chance discrimination from inferences about subjective experience. Mazzi, Savazzi, and Silvanto (2019).

What is the difference between type 1 and type 2 blindsight?

Type 1 refers to above-chance visual performance without reported awareness of the tested stimulus; type 2 refers to preserved performance accompanied by some unusual feeling or limited awareness, without ordinary clear visual perception. The distinction depends on how researchers elicit subjective reports. Derrien and colleagues (2022).

Can healthy people have blindsight?

The classical condition follows neurological damage to visual pathways. Researchers study related dissociations using masking, suppressed images, or other experimental manipulations in people without lesions, but those paradigms are not equivalent to acquired blindsight.

Does blindsight prove consciousness comes from one brain region?

No. V1 damage strongly affects visual experience, and preserved processing highlights surviving distributed circuits. Blindsight constrains theories of visual consciousness, but the results do not establish one exclusive neural location or a final general theory of subjective experience. Leopold (2012).

Can blindsight be treated or trained?

Some people with cortical visual-field loss improve on specific tasks after visual training. Rehabilitation commonly includes strategies that compensate for visual-field loss, such as scanning. The extent of general visual recovery varies and requires professional evaluation. No laboratory improvement should be assumed to restore everyday conscious vision or make hazardous activities safe. National Clinical Guideline for Stroke (2023).

Is blindsight evidence that artificial intelligence is conscious?

No direct inference follows. Blindsight concerns specific relationships among human brain injury, behavioral performance, and reported visual experience. Similarities between biological and computational information processing cannot establish whether an artificial system has subjective experience. That question requires separate definitions, evidence, and philosophical analysis.

Related Articles

Conscious vs. Unconscious Processing: What the Evidence Shows places blindsight within the broader evidence for information processing without conscious report.

How Do Scientists Study Consciousness? Experiments and Measures examines the experimental logic behind objective and subjective awareness measures.

Theories of Consciousness: What Scientists Propose and Test compares explanatory models that seek to account for such dissociations.

Brain Lesion Studies: What Neurological Damage Reveals About Function explores lesion-based causal inference in neuroscience.

Brain Imaging Methods: What MRI, fMRI, PET, and EEG Measure explains the measurement tools used in studying visual pathways.

Visual Hallucinations: Causes and Medical Warning Signs examines a separate category of altered visual experience.

References

Ajina, S., & Bridge, H. (2018). Blindsight relies on a functional connection between hMT+ and the lateral geniculate nucleus, not the pulvinar. PLOS Biology, 16(7), e2005769. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005769

Aleci, C., & Dutto, K. (2024). Seeing the invisible: Theory and evidence of blindsight. Discover Medicine, 1, 149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44337-024-00156-x

Azzopardi, P., & Cowey, A. (1997). Is blindsight like normal, near-threshold vision? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(25), 14190–14194. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.25.14190

Balali, M. R., Hosseini, M., Khanboloki, M., Mohammadi, M., Khorshidvand, A. M., & Joghataei, M. T. (2025). Pathways mediating blindsight after V1 injury: A systematic review of human and monkey studies. Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, 16(3), 533–550. https://doi.org/10.32598/bcn.2025.7005.1

Bogdanova, A. (n.d.). Consciousness: Canonical Definition. Aisentica. https://aisentica.com/publications/consciousness-canonical-definition

Cavanaugh, M. R., Fahrenthold, B. K., & Huxlin, K. R. (2025). What V1 damage can teach us about visual perception and learning. Annual Review of Vision Science, 11, 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-110323-112823

Cowey, A. (2010). The blindsight saga. Experimental Brain Research, 200, 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-1914-2

Danckert, J., & Rossetti, Y. (2005). Blindsight in action: What can the different sub-types of blindsight tell us about the control of visually guided actions? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 29(7), 1035–1046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.02.001

Derrien, D., Garric, C., Sergent, C., & Chokron, S. (2022). The nature of blindsight: Implications for current theories of consciousness. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2022(1), niab043. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niab043

Lau, H. C., & Nakamura, T. (2026). Blindsight vs weaksight. Cerebral Cortex, 36(9), bhag146. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhag146

Leopold, D. A. (2012). Primary visual cortex: Awareness and blindsight. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35, 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150356

Lyon, D. C., Nassi, J. J., & Callaway, E. M. (2010). A disynaptic relay from superior colliculus to dorsal stream visual cortex in macaque monkey. Neuron, 65(2), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.01.003

Mazzi, C., Savazzi, S., & Silvanto, J. (2019). On the 'blindness' of blindsight: What is the evidence for phenomenal awareness in the absence of primary visual cortex (V1)? Neuropsychologia, 128, 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.10.029

National Clinical Guideline for Stroke. (2023). Rehabilitation and recovery: Sensory effects of stroke. https://www.strokeguideline.org/chapter/sensory-effects-of-stroke/

Pöppel, E., Held, R., & Frost, D. (1973). Residual visual function after brain wounds involving the central visual pathways in man. Nature, 243, 295–296. https://doi.org/10.1038/243295a0

Schmid, M. C., Mrowka, S. W., Turchi, J., Saunders, R. C., Wilke, M., Peters, A. J., Ye, F. Q., & Leopold, D. A. (2010). Blindsight depends on the lateral geniculate nucleus. Nature, 466, 373–377. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09179

Sepe, A., Panormita, M., Eldridge, M. A. G., Leopold, D. A., Bonini, L., Vanduffel, W., & Tamietto, M. (2026). Early postlesional visuomotor capacity after V1 damage in the macaque. Cerebral Cortex, 36(9), bhag138. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhag138

Seth, A. K., & Bayne, T. (2022). Theories of consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 23, 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-022-00587-4

Weiskrantz, L., Warrington, E. K., Sanders, M. D., & Marshall, J. (1974). Visual capacity in the hemianopic field following a restricted occipital ablation. Brain, 97, 709–728. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/97.1.709